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

it is incredible how far u insist to use a thing to kill it at the end by dealin with as dead already

that is what u do with logics too, u use them as dead and u congratulate each others how there is nothing left but u too sayin watever u want then being logical instead

logics are to maths expressions u must get to zero objective to prove being logical in ur claims
u cant use the idea of logics to make sentences of nonsense
this is called sharabia, it sounds like arabic ****, so abrahams meat, ur taste

it is not about semantics, there cant b alter absolutely since the condition of alter is another perspective, so alter dont exist ever
this is what any logic use know for sure

that is why i explained the root of altruism justification in concept being the else not the other, where then else is about objective superiority
so in all logics yes u can lean on the idea of objective superiority to still mean existing without being real, since what is superior is also includin u especially if u r related to its fact in mind

so it is like a number actin in recognition of its relation with else number objective superiority while bein itself as else too relative superiroity him only

being kind with others is only being wrong superiors, u r imposin inferiority as objective fact which is also evil, since inferiority cannot b objective in all logics

a number of things:

- if you asked most to describe the difference between selfish vs selfless and individual vs social, they would describe differences
- there is an actual conceptual difference between selfish & individual. 1 has negative qualities associated with it, while the other doesn't. One allows the development of the individual, the other doesn't. One allows for e3asy acknowledgement of the balance inherent in life (between individual & social).
- Semantics cause different emotional reactions in many people.
- the frame that a concept is painted in usually affects the outcome of the understanding of such


and associated emotions trigger physiological responses.

See your statement comes across as 'purely' selfish (as in the person is just/only selfish) - rather than what is accurate when using the common definition of 'selfish' (and make it a statement of 'pure' selfishness)

Are you sure you don't have an emotional investment the semantics of using the term 'selfish'?
that benefits another person - with some incidents arguably benefiting the other party more?

That is to point out that despite the 'accusation' of semantics, there is actual conceptual differences between the two thought systems...and words are based on concepts.

It is also to point out that there are differences in outcome between using the two word systems...despite the common underlying physiological reactions you describe.

Cause of 'altruism'.-- Men have on the whole spoken of love with such emphasis and so idolized it because they have had little of it and have never been allowed to eat their fill of this food: thus it became for them 'food of the gods'. Let a poet depict a utopia in which there obtains universal love; he will certainly have to describe a painful and ludicrous state of affairs the like of which the earth has never yet seen - everyone worshiped, encumbered and desired, not by one lover, as happens now, but by thousands, indeed by everyone else, as the result of an uncontrollable drive which would then be as greatly execrated and cursed as selfishness had been in former times; and the poets in that state of things - provided that they were left alone long enough to write - would dream of nothing but the happy, loveless past, of divine selfishness, of how it was once possible to be alone, undisturbed, unloved, hated, despised on earth, and whatever else may characterize the utter baseness of the dear animal world in which we live.



An emotional reaction to a term may inspire a physiological response from an individual, but it still does not change in the slightest the underlying root cause therein. When I speak of an absence of altruism, I speak nothing of it's perception, only of it's casual reality. Any act of altruism, no matter it's term or perception, is done from an intrinsically selfish response in man-- one in which even the greatest of self-denials is done strategically. Done for the organism; done for the tribe which supports the organism; done for the ideology which makes it; done for the betterment of none other than the stabilization of one's own perceived existence-- how one sees oneself perhaps.

All in all, the notion of such a thing, while "morally" correct, is philosophically absurd.

Think of altruism and moral as a gravity binder it aggregates complexity and unfolds an operating system to enhance productivity in social human activity's...its a condition necessary for Civilization itself...whether Altruism is true Altruism well...we are getting close to that never ending debate about whether free will is really free...Altruism is useful therefore not free of purpose and self interest for those who practice it...in fact the more altruistic you are the more useful it is to you !

Ah, I think you missed my original response to this thread. Then again, as per my last post, my view is that you are misusing the term 'selfish' - and there is an emotional investment for you to do so.

"Selfish"-- meaning "for one's self." Seems pretty explicit.

Listen guys, I am not debating altruism's usefulness, I am simply asserting that the term is flawed from the onset. Nothing we do is derived from a selfless position (at least not subjectively). Your point that my use of the word "selfish" is based upon an emotional investment in the term is muddled at best. (Either that or I am just slow witted.) If you are attempting to intimate that I somehow need to use the term in order to lump everyone into my particular moral subset, well, I do not particularly know how to respond to that, but I will firmly assert that emotions play a small part in my logic. Choice is evolutionary-- evolution is blind strategization of the organism. Syllogistic logic would then dictate that the surrounding actions of a host are fundamentally strategized for the betterment of the individual or species-- and since an individual's self-perception (and usually their self-worth) is emotionally dictated in terms of their symbiotic relationship with others, all actions-- even ones directed away from oneself-- eventually lead back to the host. Id est, the self; ergo my definition of selfish.

Seriously - You know this is not the normally accepted meaning.

Dictionary.com
selfish  
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Oxford dictionary
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure:

Cambridge
disapproving : Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage
-----------------------
As I said - you are misusing it.

Also one of the reasons I prefer using Individual vs Social for such things. See, once you say 'everything we do has our individual considerations/motivations involved...and many things have social considerations involved' - then there isn't an issue

I should also point out that selfish v selfless are polar opposites, while individual v social aren't