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

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.

Tit-for-tat is a winning strategy only in comparison with other strategies. Anyone employing this strategy, however, is faced with the prospect of receiving at least one "sucker's payoff" over the course of a series of interactions. That's a bad individual result, despite the fact that the strategy is intended to promote cooperation over the long run. That means that someone willing to take advantage of someone else's good nature will always have one chance to gain a transitory advantage by defecting, but will be punished thereafter with repeated defections by the other side. What that means is that tit-for-tat rewards altruistic behavior, so long as it is reciprocated.

All winning strategies are only winning strategies on a relative scale. To argue against it is a philosophical argument, not a practical one.

Who is arguing against it?

I speak in generalities.

You say you are an innate (or did you mean inmate) psychologist. So was Nietzsche. Indeed he was one of Freud 's major inspirations even though the latter denies the extent that he was so influenced. There are books about Freud's plagerism of Nietzsche.

Perhaps a little of both, eh? Armchair theoritizing is mighty fun and proves for lively debates, but the only language I know how to speak is a practical one. Where I'm from, thinking in metaphysics will get your physical face kicked in. (I almost wish I were kidding.) Call me jaded, rating on a curve, whatever-- I am just thoroughly apposed to the idea of even a practical altruism. Altruism gets exploited far more often than it is reciprocated in the real world. Once you have garnered a reputation of inerrant good will, the vultures circle.

I would even like to argue that even WHEN altruism is beneficial, it is not so much the altruism that is rewarded, but the appearance of it. So who can argue whether the most viable strategy would be the "true" altruist, or the one who maintains the better facade? The latter would seem to have the better of both worlds.

Altruism I would even go so far as to label cowardice. Not "do unto thy neighbor," but "do unto they neighbor for fear of what he may do to you." Is that subtle distinction lost entirely?

Man altruism is just trading, quid pro quo, simple ! Nothing to do with cowardice and everything to do with saving energy to where it really is needed...that said, my notion of altruism is not about doing good for no reason but doing good expecting to be reciprocated and reinforcing the idea that without cooperation you can't get complex tasks to work...social species are ahead of the competition precisely because they cooperate...altruism is less about free lunches and more about savings and investment...the dumber the people are the less they can control their immediate urges and impulses and the less capable they are of compromising...common good is not christian it just is clever ! (keep that sentence in mind for the next inmate who debates it with you)

I appreciate the sentiment, but you seem to have very casually changed the qualitative definition of what true altruism really is: it is an action done for no other reason than the good of the action itself. Simple. You can say "well, my interpretation of altruism is mere reciprocity," but if the meaning of altruism is open for general debate, then I should just assert that my definition of altruism is self-beneficence.

Altruism with an agenda is nothing more than calculated strategy-- to presume otherwise is an error not only by qualitative measures, but quantitative ones as well; for now you're able to tally your rewards.



I agree-- clever. Cowardice is almost always cunning. It has to be. If it weren't, it might actually have to sustain an injury.

Cowardice can and normally mimics an altruistic behavior but usually doesn't go to far once the coward always tends to peak the smoother path to get out of trouble...an altruist often does just the opposite !
If by true altruism you are referring to the naive belief common people have they should do good without expecting feed back then I will simply reply to you no such thing exists as also perpetual motion machines or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist...the confusion resides that really clever people can do good without expecting a causal linear link to them, they have the capacity for abstractly learning the return is not direct nor instantaneous...of course the common Joe misses the point.

Once again, if the definition is molded to suit your outlook, just about qualitative measure is an acceptable one. I would even agree that as a statistical average, altruism is a beneficial strategy. So is walking over riding, pacifism over violence, accumulating collective means, and a whole array of other nonsense I wouldn't wish to apply to a personal standard.

I would wish the entire world a lamb! (More meat for me.)

wow wait just a minute mate...you never ear me saying altruism should be the absolute standard...altruism is useful as an overall strategy but not necessarily always the best way to get what you want...if I believe in altruism for one equally I believe in competition and war when needed...I just don't believe in wasting energy when there are easier ways of sorting out a problem !

Fair enough. I guess you could say that I believe in small circle "altruism" as you define it.

Although I have the sneaking suspicion that we're both just arguing nuance for the sake of nuance.

I figure you're to smart to spend half of your day throwing punches in all directions and gaining enemy's in every corner...if force is needed I rather have the Japanese way, strike just once and decisively like the samurai does, you will get all the respect you need and spend the minimum effort...but then again is not to much to remind war is the instrument used precisely to deal with those who can't understand a cleverer language...

You can't speak poetry to one who isn't a poet-- and I think we can all agree that the world is waxing unpoetically.

I agree very often people will listen after pain remind them better they ought to listen...

You can apply the Darwinian principles to very much everything...if war exists and war is not extinct then war is needed ! But take notice war is not the default state of a nation, and when it is then normally that nation is shattered underdeveloped and extremely poor...
(Exception of course for those powerful enough to wage war outdoors with minimum losses at home and a lot to gain)

"When I tell you that war is the foundation of all the arts, I mean also that it is the foundation of all the high virtues and faculties of men. It was very strange for me to discover this, and very dreadful, but I saw it to be quite an undeniable fact. The common notion that peace and the virtues of civil life flourished together I found to be utterly untenable. Peace and the vices of civil life only flourish together. We talk of peace and learning, of peace and plenty, of peace and civilization; but I found that these are not the words that the Muse of History coupled together: that on her lips the words were peace and sensuality, peace and selfishness, peace and death. I found in brief that all great nations learned their truth of word and strength of thought in war; that they were nourished in war and wasted in peace; taught by war and deceived by peace; trained by war and betrayed by peace; in a word, that they were born in war and expired in peace."

Nice distinction. I tend to think that "an action done for no other reason than the good of the action itself" is characteristic of a religiou precept; for me altrusim is expressed primarily for the sake of another, and performed regardless of the presence or absence of reward.