Are there logical arguments for why one ought to be Altruistic?

@imans,

my ability to follow you has ended, plus I must go now...

@hawkeye10,

yea keep inventin ends before seein it in meanin to profit from knowin it

obviously u cant speak but in reversin facts as evil u r
u were clearly meanin me to follow ur directions how dare u claim the reverse but of evil insolence ways of regular being

let darkness fall on everything

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye, I agree with your posts for the most part. But a few minor adjustments are in order. Granted there is a strong pragmatic element in zen: it certainly isn't concerned with logic and abstract truths. Moreoever, as I understand it zen transcends logic and even truth in its dualistic sense--it doesn't like to take sides on "issues." As a meditative discipline it looks at matters directly without recourse to methodologies and abstract model building.
And you're absolute right: experience trumps logic. Indeed, it is what will always distinguish us from computers, no matter how smart.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

way over his head, JL...

he got his zen at costco.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

way over his head, JL...

he got his zen at costco.

You are just jealous that you can't piss in the tall weeds with the big dogs. Stick to your Readers Digest flavored ankle biting.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

that's very zen...

Rolling Eyes

thank you for so elegantly reinforcing my statement.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

shush, be zen ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No need. We are zen.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

we are zen sources so statin that zen is what we have to reach is provin that zen is evil and who claim otherwise go die with

1 Reply

@elnate,

elnate wrote:

His first argument is a contradiction. If you are told that you should do something because it’s in your own interest then you are NOT being advised to be altruistic.

He doesn't define altruism. Ayn Rand wasn’t criticizing benevolence and good will when she argued against altruism. In fact, she felt her morality of self-interest provided the foundation for both of these things.

In the second paragraph, you're right that it's a definitional problem. You just forgot that in the first paragraph. If "altruism" is merely a description of a benevolent act done without expectation of gain, then someone can be both altruistic and motivated by self-interest. There is, then, no contradiction for someone to say that people should be altruistic because it is in their best interests to be altruistic. On the other hand, if "altruism" means to act in a benevolent and disinterested manner, then it could be argued that it is contradictory to advise someone to act altruistically out of self-interest.

elnate wrote:

Now, for instance, lets say someone is in need, so much need that they require someone to care for them for all their life. You don’t want to do this, and you know it won’t be good for you, but according to altruism, you should.

That's not the moral mandate of altruism. It's not that you must help someone out of purely altruistic motives, it's that it would be good if you did. After all, if there were a moral imperative to act altruistically, then any such act wouldn't be altruistic. We don't say, for instance, that I act altruistically by refusing to shoot you in cold blood. As Kant pointed out with respect to the categorical imperative, to act purely out of a feeling of compulsion is not to act morally.

elnate wrote:

Finally, the argument that the main goal of life is to reproduce.

Who makes that argument?

elnate wrote:

Altruism is simply a moral philosophy telling individuals what they ought to do.

No it isn't.

elnate wrote:

Here is the bottom line: altruism is always the sacrificing of the self to others; of higher values for lower values, and in no possible way is that ever beneficial to an individual or a group of individuals because it necessarily truncates values, lives, goals, and minds.

What does it mean to "truncate a value?"

0 Replies

@imans,

look i just got smthg, u r all from the drug of being by a creator so u cant discern or think the reality that u know also being from that there is also truth and creator is also programmed by
only freedom allow it if the creator accept to give u the zero that make u free of him then u could defend ur rights in truth more correctly
bc now i got why ur words and behaviors is so absurd, when u mean right u act wrong, and if u mean wrong then u do ur best, bc actually u r stuck in movin since u have constantly to liberate urselves from one

and here is the hint of altruism u mean, bc u want to liberate urself from one then u love the altruist idea that hypocritly allow u to act constantly free if that one agree on it

i told it is very absurd and dark what u r bc of creator

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I think I said before, in a related thread, that if/when altruism is an expression of compassion it is also a reflection of psychological and spiritual maturity. One "ought" to have such a quality.

If such a quality is defined as ‘the fullest expression of love’ (or any similarly expressed value) then I would agree. I don’t personally believe that the ‘fullest expression of love’ is ever achieved by ‘living for the sake of others’ or ‘always putting others first’

JLNobody wrote:

I agree, but do consider G.B. Shaw's caveat: "Do not do to others as you would have them do to you, for their taste may be different."
I mention this for its humor value. In general the Golden Rule is golden.

I saw a modification to this rule that I very much liked ‘Do unto others as they would have done unto them’ which calls for empathy before doing. After all, cultural and personal differences result in individuals needing different qualities in their lives from the people they are close to - which may not be the same as what you need from others (ie. have done unto you)

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

that's very zen...

thank you for so elegantly reinforcing my statement.

Soul based people are very often assholes...the idea that we are all sweetness and light is a fantasy dreamed up by idiots.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

No need. We are zen.

That was "noisy" ! Wink

(Zen people never say they are Zen, but hey I concede I am a very provocative person... capable of taking the zen out of a monk...) Mr. Green

0 Replies

noisy to u bc u cant admit to hear any other subjective existence fact but u

when u r forcin a word upon another that is the shoutin, tellin him b zen is the scream u woman make out with no rights to get out

while him replyin to such loud noise upon him, we are zen so actually compromisin the zen that u must put in ur ass since u r shoutin it over another right self existence that is never related to anything else, then it is surely wrong logically without seekin the details that proves it

**** allies are **** only

0 Replies

@vikorr,

There is absolutely no objective meaning behind the word "altruistic," not for a second, not to us rational ones at least. All actions are inherently selfish; in fact, there is no such thing as an unselfish action. When we are altruistic it is simply because the resulting cognitive reward gives us a better feeling than acting averse to the "altruistic" inclination. When we help an old man lift his groceries and turn down the fiver he offers, we don't do that altruistically-- we do it because the five dollars is worth less to us than the feeling we receive of being a "good citizen." But what would happen if he offered us a million dollars? Would anyone presume (statistically) the reactions to be the same?

All actions are evolutionary guided. Altruism is not a viable strategy (at least not from a game-theoretic standpoint). Altruism is doomed to fail because all it takes is a single "exploiter" mutation to evolve and take advantage of the whole lot. But in that same respect, exploitivism is not entirely viable either-- if everyone were exploitative, there would be nothing left to exploit. Tit for tat, (or as some call it, the reciprocator), is most viable and allows for the most variance in human behavior.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

But one can say that everyone is fundamentallly enlightened at the level of their "original" or primordial mind. That is what we experience (viz, pure or unmediated experience) in meditation; we do not try to achieve it--we always have it--we simply appreciate it.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The Golden Rule has done nothing but disenfranchise the most natural instinct in man-- it creates a degregative society in which those worthy of our admiration are forced to be confined by the morality of the lowest common denominator. Absolute moral laws are a relic of Christo-Judean nonsense. The question should not be "moral for what" but "moral for whom?"

1 Reply

@ZarathustraReborn,

Shades of Nietzsche (a.k.a. Zarathustra)!

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Well, perhaps. But Nietzsche was not what one would call a practical man. Idealistic? Yes. But my moral intolerance is tempered by my era.

In truth, I am just simply recognizing the situation of life as it is in all of her un-philosophized glory. Us humans have the strangest ability to assign the labels of our own moral-predilections onto the universe itself-- we unerringly find good in what comes most easily to us. We idealize pure and holy implications from out of a biological process that is neither pure nor holy, but simply practical for beings such as ourselves. In twenty seven years of age, I have lived in the cesspools of humanity-- prison for nine years, and the rest spent in ghettos ans slums world over-- and all this pretty democracizing of humanity doesn't fool me in the slightest. I am an innate psychologist; life has afforded me the opportunity to see man the animal in all his fleeting splendor... And in truth? I'm only slightly impressed.

1 Reply

Are there logical arguments for why one ought to be Altruistic?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know