The Virtue of Altruism

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

The Virtue of Altruism

Post by RCSaunders »

No doctrine has ever been responsible for more evil than the doctrine of altruism.

Here is pure altruism put into practice:
The husband of the woman who blew herself up at Karachi University in Pakistan said her selfless act has left him speechless but he is proud of what she did.
On Tuesday, an explosion took place near Confucius Institute — a Chinese language teaching centre at Karachi University.
Talking about the first ‘Baloch woman to carry out a suicide attack’, Afghan journalist Gwakh informed that the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) said the 30-year-old joined the group two years ago and volunteered herself for a “self-sacrificing mission”.
That's pure unselfish altruism in action. Such total dedication to sacrificing oneself to one's ideology must be admired. Its results:
In an explosion, at least four people, including three Chinese citizens, were killed and several others were injured.
No doubt the four killed were selfish egoists who only wanted to live and enjoy their lives--but the unselfish altruist eliminated them from the world. Thank Allah!
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by Impenitent »

will she get 72 virgins for her sacrifice?

-Imp
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by popeye1945 »

How can one have a sane conversion about altruism in the context of religious insanity?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:02 am How can one have a sane conversion about altruism in the context of religious insanity?
Right, it's a very false dilemma opening to the discussion.
There are people who do things for others and it does not directly benifit the doer, but it is not some self-denial filled violent act.
It ends up a kind of Cherry picking and invites cherry picking by others who can try to present it as good.

I don't like the idea that one needs some ideal of egolessness or selflessness.
We have empathy. We don't need some meme of self-abnegation to treat others well. Nor do we need to get rid of the self (intrapsychically) or the ego.
Guilt and shame in a shiny package.

But acts that get classed as altruism need not come from this kind of self-abnegation.

Any purported virtue or sign of good character or sign of goodness or admirable quality can be mocked or implicitly shown to be terrible but finding the most extreme and loopy example where people seem to be following it or explaining some horrific act as if it was that.

And then we are still left with actually working out on the ground the worth of that value in everyday life.

PHILOSOPHER KILLS WIFE IN COLD BLOOD
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-phil ... 6535d66442
Philosophy is the worst activity known to humans.
Or Nietzsche led to the Holocaust

Or saying medicine is evil due to Mengele and the Tuskeegee syphillis study.
Medicine the worst human activity ever!!!!!!!!

I actually tend to agree that the way altruism is often defined, the psychology of it, is problematic and not good, for the individual and in the long run for society. But it's still a silly post, and it ends up a kind of trolling. It also gives a lot of power to idiots.

IOW now we allow morons like the person in the article to define altruism. Implicitly making them an expert in the value.

Better to show how the more intelligent advocates of altruism are wrong, people who could see how the value of altruism could critique the actions in the article.

Again, I think altruism is extremely problematic but not so easy to dismiss as the OP might lead one to think the writer believes.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by popeye1945 »

Identity with others is the seed of compassion and it is compassion that motivates the individual to make a selfless act the property of his own will, thus he acts to fulfill that will, but the motivation is pure love or sympathy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by RCSaunders »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:16 am Identity with others is the seed of compassion and it is compassion that motivates the individual to make a selfless act the property of his own will, thus he acts to fulfill that will, but the motivation is pure love or sympathy.
From "Sentimental Journey."
Instead Of Virtue

Most of the people who promote themselves as empathetic and compassionate, consider their pathetic feelings to be some kind of virtue, a virtue that makes them superior to those who do not have the, "right kind of feelings." But their feelings are worth exactly nothing to anyone else, or even to themselves.

Nobody's compassion ever fed the starving, nobody's empathy every relieved the suffering of the sick, and nobody's sentiments ever provided a product or service of any real value to anyone.

Real virtue is difficult. Growing, transporting, and marketing food requires very hard work. Discovering and producing drugs, providing real medical services, and performing life-saving operations require the kind of discipline and acquired knowledge the sentimental have neither the will or ability to achieve. Those who produce and make the products and services that truly benefit human beings frequently have little feeling for those who benefit from their efforts. What they feel strongly about is their achievement and accomplishment, which is what any who benefits from their ruthless dedication to principle ought to really appreciate.

It is much easier to "feel" than to "do," and pat oneself on the back because one, "cares about others," while being absolutely worthless to themselves or anyone else.

...

Embracing The Unreal

No evil has ever been driven by correct reason. Every evil ever committed has been driven by emotion: one's feelings, one's passions, or one's desires. Frequently the process of reason is invoked to somehow justify one's emotionally driven behavior. The name for that misuse of reason is "rationalism."

Rationalism (rationalization) is actually irrationalism. Sentimentalism and emotionalism are irrational.

The problem with the irrational is that it evades reality:

—It ignores or evades consequences, especially long-term consequences. Choices and decisions based on or influenced by feelings are not based on careful consideration, but on impulse, or whim, with no regard to any broader ramifications.

—It almost always evades the actual reasons for or true nature of that which one's feelings are about. Whether it's about poverty, hunger, homelessness, or any other so-called, "unfortunate" human condition, why anyone is poor, hungry, or homeless is never asked. In reality, almost every misfortune human beings suffer is the consequence of their own choices and actions (or more likely, lack of action).

—It is almost always misplaced. One's feelings ought to reflect a mind and psychology that properly evaluates what is truly good and worthwhile and what is no good and worthless. Most peoples' sentiments are wasted on the ignorant, the indecent, the non-productive and those who fail to become and achieve anything of value while ignoring the virtues of the decent, productive, and successful, because the virtuous do not need the sympathies of the sentimental.

—It fails to recognize the source of all true benevolence. The truly benevolent are always ruthlessly unsentimental and realistic who actually accomplish something of value.

It doesn't matter what or how you feel or anyone else feels, the only thing that matters is reality. All the harm in this world comes from those who surrender their capacity to think and reason to their irrational feelings, passions, and desires.
Acting out of love is not altruism. Giving up something one desires for one's own children or spouse or other loved one is not altruism because one holds one's loved one as a higher value to oneself than the thing given up. It is never a sacrifice to give up something of lower value for something of higher value.

Altruism always meas self-sacrifice, and always the sacrifice of one's own values, purposes, or ends for the sake of others--any others, familly, community, society, country, or, "mankind." The term was invented by, "Comte," who also invented. "social science." His meaning of altruism was that every individual must sacrifice any good to their own individual life that would limit the good of society.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by popeye1945 »

Altruism is to be moved by identifying oneself with the suffering of another or the needs of another of like self, once this is made the property of the subjects will, the fulfillment of that will is not utterly selfless, in that he is fulfilling his own will and no one else's. This identification with the self in others is something the physcopath has no access to, and is the reason for their lack of compassion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:10 pm No doctrine has ever been responsible for more evil than the doctrine of altruism.
As usual yours is one-track thinking and a one track mind.

Re evolutionary psychology, all humans are "programmed" with various inherent drives that will facilitate the survival of the individual[s] and the species.

Take "anger" for example [which is basically negative] but note Aristotle's wise view on that;
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy;
    but to be angry with the right person,
    and to the right degree,
    and at the right time,
    and for the right purpose,
    and in the right way
    -that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
    Aristotle
It is the same with altruism [and other acts of good or even with elements of evil] which must be considered within the above conditions to achieve optimality of good within given constraints.

What the lady did was stupid, but the focus should be on those who brainwashed her into it.

As for those who jump into extreme altruism [and other acts of good or even with elements of evil] on their own, the need to develop their rational and moral competence [plus whatever is necessary for the overall good].
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:10 pm No doctrine has ever been responsible for more evil than the doctrine of altruism.
As usual yours is one-track thinking and a one track mind.
Thank you very much. It is not easy keeping one's mind on the one path of truth. Most are what is generally referred to as scatter-brained, whose thoughts are all over the place and who never discover the truth even when the stumble over it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am Re evolutionary psychology, all humans are "programmed" with various inherent drives that will facilitate the survival of the individual[s] and the species.
Yes I have successfully avoided that wrong path which most are led down by being exposed to academia. As tempting as it is to believe something else determines one's behavior, other than their own conscious choice, their genetics, heredity, environment, instinct, or any other thing, one's responsibility for their own life cannot be evaded. What anyone does has only one explanation, it is what they consciously choose to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am What the lady did was stupid, but the focus should be on those who brainwashed her into it.
If you keep telling people something else determines what they think, believe, choose and do, they'll keep being, "brainwashed," by anything any authority tells them that alleviates their sense of responsibility for what they do--"my genes made me do it, my ideology made me do it, my, "brainwahing," made me do it, it's not my fault." But it is their fault. No one has to be, "brainwashed," they choose to be.

If you are really interested in keeping others from being brainwashed, teach them they have their own minds and are required to use them to think for themselves and learn what is true and what is not and must never believe anything based on nothing more than the word of any so-called authority or expert.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:10 pm No doctrine has ever been responsible for more evil than the doctrine of altruism.
As usual yours is one-track thinking and a one track mind.
Thank you very much. It is not easy keeping one's mind on the one path of truth. Most are what is generally referred to as scatter-brained, whose thoughts are all over the place and who never discover the truth even when the stumble over it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am Re evolutionary psychology, all humans are "programmed" with various inherent drives that will facilitate the survival of the individual[s] and the species.
Yes I have successfully avoided that wrong path which most are led down by being exposed to academia. As tempting as it is to believe something else determines one's behavior, other than their own conscious choice, their genetics, heredity, environment, instinct, or any other thing, one's responsibility for their own life cannot be evaded. What anyone does has only one explanation, it is what they consciously choose to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:05 am What the lady did was stupid, but the focus should be on those who brainwashed her into it.
If you keep telling people something else determines what they think, believe, choose and do, they'll keep being, "brainwashed," by anything any authority tells them that alleviates their sense of responsibility for what they do--"my genes made me do it, my ideology made me do it, my, "brainwashing," made me do it, it's not my fault." But it is their fault. No one has to be, "brainwashed," they choose to be.

If you are really interested in keeping others from being brainwashed, teach them they have their own minds and are required to use them to think for themselves and learn what is true and what is not and must never believe anything based on nothing more than the word of any so-called authority or expert.
Re the last para, that was what I had written, i.e.

As for those who jump into extreme altruism [and other acts of good or even with elements of evil] on their own, they need to develop their rational and moral competence [plus whatever is necessary for the overall good].
But it is their fault. No one has to be, "brainwashed," they choose to be.
Again, viewing things too narrowly.

There are situation where people choose to be brainwashed for the good or the pseudo-good [evil].

But what is critical is there is always a percentile of people who are vulnerable to be brainwashed.
So what the "brainwashers" do is to spread their ideology as wide as possible to 'fish' for these vulnerable people who are likely to 'bite'.
Those who 'bite' to the evil ideology and are prepared to act are subliminally influenced [brainwashed] and it is not that they rationally 'choose' to do it.

This is the same with online scammers who play such a number game.
They will call up as many people as possible and if they strike one vulnerable victim in 500 calls that is efficiency for them. They could cheat $10,000 or even $100,000 from one such victims.
Point is those who are scammed did not 'choose' to be scammed and losing their money or belongings.

As such there is a percentile of people who are easily brainwashed thus exploited by 'brainwashers' and it is not their fault nor they rationally choose to do it.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by promethean75 »

"But it is their fault. No one has to be, "brainwashed," they choose to be."

But colonel, part of the condition of being brainwashed is not knowing you are brainwashed, and one can't 'choose' to be brainwashed on that account.

One can choose to believe what is false, but not intentionally. The whole point of choosing to believe it is because one thinks it's true. It just happens to be false.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:08 pm "But it is their fault. No one has to be, "brainwashed," they choose to be."

But colonel, part of the condition of being brainwashed is not knowing you are brainwashed, and one can't 'choose' to be brainwashed on that account.

One can choose to believe what is false, but not intentionally. The whole point of choosing to believe it is because one thinks it's true. It just happens to be false.
If one chooses to believe anything for which they have no rational basis for believing other than some feeling, a desire, a wish, what someone else told them or what everyone else believes, they have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to think for themselves, to use the ability to learn, think, and make judgments, because it easier or more comforting to simply accept what one is taught. Learning and rigorous thinking, are hard. Most people refuse to do the hard work of learning all they can possibly learn and thinking as well as they possibly can refusing to believe anything which their own best reason does not enable them to understand how it is true.

It is better to remain ignorant than to fill a gap in one's knowledge with what is untrue, but that is exactly what most people do whenever thet encounter a question that is difficulg of has no obvious answer, because there is always someone ready with some simple pat answer that promises all one desires, and answer that is easier to believe than actually having to understand why or how something is true.

Once one has made the choice to accept what they are taught, or what everyone else believes, or whatever seems to be what one would like to be true, they have surrendered their ability to judge what is true or false, usually falling prey to any appeal to their feelings or sentiments and are ready to believe any absurdity that makes them feel good. They've chosen to be brainwashed.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by promethean75 »

Okay but what if somebody does the best they can do and is as critically skeptical as one can be... and still they end up believing something that happens to be false. Would their state of mistaken-ness be their fault, something they 'chose' to be?

We would call them brainwashed because they believed x, but they believe x because to them, it seems rational. So unless you want to argue that people 'choose' to be wrong - and I doubt you'd do that - then this is an insensitive pseudo-problem.

Dumb people aren't dumb by choice, and what constitutes a 'rational, reasonable belief' for one might be utterly absurd to another smarter fella. The point is that the dumb fella is doing the best he can do as a critical thinker, and he certainly doesn't ever 'choose' to be brainwashed (if he ends up being so).

What you wanna argue is that there are smart people and dumb people, and that the situation the dumb people are in is exclusively their fault. Namely, by 'choosing' to believe something that is false, they are no longer deserving of any sympathy.

But who would do that? Purposely believe something you knew was false. Give one's own brain up for washing, as it were.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by Iwannaplato »

promethean75 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:44 pm Okay but what if somebody does the best they can do and is as critically skeptical as one can be... and still they end up believing something that happens to be false. Would their state of mistaken-ness be their fault, something they 'chose' to be?
It's not either or. For example, they could be choosing to ignore nagging feelings that there is something wrong with what they believe (because to acknowledge their own doubt might ((they fear)) lead to a split with friends or family, or might mean one has done things one now considers wrong, or because one simply refuses to admit mistakes. So, these can be poor choices.
We would call them brainwashed because they believed x,
I think using the term brainwashed for any kind of process of spreading beliefs is problematic. Even in communities where one can challenge certain ideas AND where one notices others do this, some people conform. They haven't been brainwashed, but they go for the more popular beliefs while others who are also not brainwashed, but have grown up in a culture with tendencies or a majority position, did something else.
but they believe x because to them, it seems rational. So unless you want to argue that people 'choose' to be wrong - and I doubt you'd do that - then this is an insensitive pseudo-problem.
I think people can to varying degrees choose to not notice anomalies, contradictions in the ideas they have been handed, good points by people with other views and so on. There is a spectrum, not 'they chose or did not choose'.
Dumb people aren't dumb by choice, and what constitutes a 'rational, reasonable belief' for one might be utterly absurd to another smarter fella. The point is that the dumb fella is doing the best he can do as a critical thinker, and he certainly doesn't ever 'choose' to be brainwashed (if he ends up being so).
I think people often do precisely less well than they could and also punish socially at least people who have differing views rather than feel their own doubts.
What you wanna argue is that there are smart people and dumb people, and that the situation the dumb people are in is exclusively their fault. Namely, by 'choosing' to believe something that is false, they are no longer deserving of any sympathy.
I'm with you hear, I think the intelligence issue is not the center of this.
But who would do that? Purposely believe something you knew was false. Give one's own brain up for washing, as it were.
Someone who is afraid to notice that dad, or school, or the priest or the corporation or the government or the bought research even MIGHT have problems. Or someone who on some level wants to suck up to power. See, I would never question you, and get a leg up on siblings, fellow citizens, even fellow victims. Sure, they are unlikely to sit there and think That is false but I will believe it. Though I think many come very close to that. In general, they don't really want to know what they are doing, but there are warning signals, and problems with the belief that they, at least sometimes intentionally ignore. And sometimes these people will violently demand that others do the same. For example. Not all people who believe wrong things to the last. But it's not either or.

And it's not just fear that drives people to do these things (to varying degrees) it can be greed, yearnings to get dominance via powers out there, hatred of people who dare to question and all sorts of motives and emotions.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Virtue of Altruism

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:44 pm Okay but what if somebody does the best they can do and is as critically skeptical as one can be... and still they end up believing something that happens to be false. Would their state of mistaken-ness be their fault, something they 'chose' to be?
I never know quite what questions like this assume. When making generalized statements about human beings and their nature, it is usually assumed one means those who are generally mentally healthy, capable of using their minds, not those with genetic defects or damaged brains who are neurologically limited. Of course there are individual who are born mentally deficient just as there are those who are born with congenital heart defects or other debilitating or fatal conditions. When discussing what humans are and must do to live successfully, it is assumed such discussion pertain to normal human beings, not defective ones.
promethean75 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:44 pm Dumb people aren't dumb by choice, and what constitutes a 'rational, reasonable belief' for one might be utterly absurd to another smarter fella. The point is that the dumb fella is doing the best he can do as a critical thinker, and he certainly doesn't ever 'choose' to be brainwashed (if he ends up being so).
You can believe that if you want to. I don't, because what you call dumb is usually just ignorance, not an inability to learn and think.

From Reality—An Introduction to Philosophy:
Everyone else, those Mencken called, "the common man," but today are referred to as the, "TV viewing public," are what [is] referred to as "humans generally." ... most people are ignorant, stupid, superstitious, and choose to be stuck in that condition.

It's not a necessary condition. People choose to be what they are. They are mostly poor, unhappy, and always in some kind of trouble but never make the connection between their misery and their own wrong choices. To be stupid, ignorant, and superstitious is a chosen failure.

No one has to be ignorant. They could all learn more than they do. Ignorant does not mean not knowing everything, it means not learning all one can learn, or learning as little as one thinks they can get away with.

No one has to be stupid. They could all think better than they do. Stupid doesn't mean unable to think, it means not thinking as well as one can and not bothering to learn how.

No one has to be gullible. They could all see what they believe cannot possibly be true. Superstitious does not mean being afraid of black cats and Friday the 13th, it means believing things without evidence or reason, based on nothing more than one's feelings, sentiments, irrational fears, baseless impressions, or credulity in some experts or authorities.

[NOTE: Ignorance does not mean knowing nothing. Everyone knows enough to live from day to day, but they make little or no effort to learn any more. Stupid does not mean unable to think at all. Everyone is able to think well enough to get along if there are no really difficult problems to solve or decisions to make. Some of the things people believe are true, but about all the major issues of life, what they believe does not even resemble reality. They believe, for example, the little they've learned, the thinking they are able to do, and what they believe is, "good enough." "It is about the same as everyone else knows, thinks and believes;" they're, "just as good as anyone else." That, at least, is true. It's just that they and everyone else are not much good.]
promethean75 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:44 pm What you wanna argue is that there are smart people and dumb people ....;
No, that's what you want to argue. You want to believe there are perfectly normal human being who are so mentally defective they cannot learn all they need to learn, and think well enough to understand what is and is not true, and to make their own choices to live successfully. If a being really is that mentally defective, they are not fully human and would not even be able to survive on their own.

You must view the vast majority of human beings as being mentally deficient, since most of what most people believe is not true. There is a reason why most people choose to be gullible and, "brainwashed," by their ideologies: "Ideology: Hatred Of Reality."
Post Reply