15

Altruism

Posted by dbhalling 7 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
66 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Some people have problems understand what altruism. Here is what the Comte who created altruism has to say. (From Wikipedia)

The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste,[2] that:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand pointed out that men of the mind are quite capable of creating their own ethics which is the sum total purpose of a religion therefore serves the same purpose and has no need of dieties other than his own mind. You will note that the Third Law of Objectivism is to take the findings of the nature of any observance and first judge it for practical use. Is it useful. Then assign it a place where it can be watched and further tested as observations and circumstances change. and always finish with the Third Law of judging the use of such ad ethical and of a moral value.

    Religion to my manner of thinking is primarily for the aid of those who are, shall we say, afraid of the dark and have not the wit to examine the nature of the dark and assuage or surmount the fear. the word itself is positive.

    All things and circumstances and their nature are mountable and an ethical use can be assigned. Animals adapt to their surroundings and learn to use the dark. Man changes his surroundings and invents a method of lighting his surroundings. Man learns that by lighting the area of concern he changes it's nature. Animals that hunt at night in the dark do not venture into the light for it is not natural to their nature. and vice versal. until they adapt to the surroundings. Chickens in a house with artificial lighting for example associate feed with light with eating with no light sleeping. Some faced with a strange intrusion act defensively.others leave the area.

    Metaphorically man does the same thing with anything he perceives as darkness. Changes the surroundings by accepting an explanation, lights a candle perhaps and prays for the sun to return. It becomes his diety. He associates it's presence with safety.

    One day 'an individual' points out that with darkness comes certain plants and animals that are edible Unable to explain the difference between night and day he points out fish atracted by the light are a blessing from the sun who is answering their prayers with a token of his return and always does Ahh hah my Sun helps me feeds me and is faithful to his children. And so it goes.

    Those people develop a religion and develop their own diety. In an eclipse or a storm they develop their own devils which are defeated proof of the Sun's power. And so it goes. Others invent a stronger flashlight and develop Mark One Mod one night vision devices. Their trust is in technology. and some go part way and treat technology as a God. Along with that the Priests develop theology a system of explaining everything and anything.

    Man notices it's hotter than last year with less rainfall. Oh yes says the Priest, The sun is angry at some condition and is punishing us until that condition is changed. It's not just you it's all of us. We call it global warming. Others referring to the annual records note that is year three in a thirty year weather cycle and by year fifteen it will be cooler on average.

    Some few realize it is not a Diety as such nor the intercession of a priest or scientist to use how some treat that responsibility. They realize everything that has been learned is a product of their own mind and abilty to reason, observe, think, evaluate. That their total knowledge is the sum of all who went before painstakingly observing the nature of things and occurances, constantly evaluating and assigning a moral value. We call them independent and free thinkers. While we share our knowledge and explain it we refuse to become their priests judging it be unethical. And so it goes.

    Ayn Rand showed it could be done just as the founders of the USA showed man could govern himself without divine guidance. Except to divine that to govern themselves they must have certain rights and certain responsibilities

    Those that fail to learn that lesson remain afraid of the dark

    Those that learn that lesson become the source of governing power in the place of Kings.

    Those that retain that lesson learn responsibility.

    Those that don't learn compliance.

    Those that choose half way measures learn the responsibility of compliance whether or not they understand it or not, like it or not.

    They have learned compromise.

    and are afraid of the dark.

    One of the lessons man learns or some learn is the value of self. Put in the crudest terms the more you give the more you get. The problem with the Rolling Stones Satisfaction guy he can't get no because he's to busy driving around the world profiling and rapping his burned out mufflers. All he gets is rusty mufflers and a traffic ticket.

    Cruder terms? Not really but the sex act can be wham bam for get you man or an act of love where the satisfaction of the partner is more important than your own. An equal response is invited. the sum of both is greater than the two parts. First example is zero sum gain the second is .......paradise or if you prefer heaven. I dont' think their is much satisfaction in Allah's version. Frustration maybe.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 7 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks for posting this, DB. Most people mistake altruism for benevolence, goodwill, kindness, consideration, fellow feeling, charity, friendliness, caring about others, helpfulness. All these emotions are to invoke good actions, the golden rule of treating others as you want to be treated, of loving one's neighbor as oneself (not more than oneself!).

    On the continuum of human relations, the end points are total disregard of others (psychopathy, sacrificing others to one's own benefit) and total self-sacrifice for the benefit of others--sadists and masochists. Where an individual ends up on that scale depends on the ideas and values of one's culture, inculcated by parents, teachers, rulers. Those who rebel against self-immolation become freedom fighters or tyrants. Making people glad to suffer is the height of perversion.

    In a rational society every individual must still practice self-restraint so as not to transgress against the rights of others. The social contract implies non-aggression, an agreement to a mutual pact of respecting that others have equal rights, and that relationships among individuals are by mutual consent. It is a very fine dividing line between agreeing to an agreement and viewing the need to agree as an obligation. Galt’s Oath is that balancing point.

    Comte’s definition of altruism reveals altruism to be a total evil, a vicious reduction of individuals to means to others’ ends. It is also a logical absurdity, for if some sacrifice themselves to others, how do those others reciprocate in kind? The notion of sacrifice is indeed rooted in the religious dictum that pleasure is sinful, that only suffering gets you moral brownie points.

    There is a legimate principle of self-denial or delayed gratification which is the equivalent of investing a temporary delayed gratification for a greater future benefit. These acts are, however, again voluntary, not socially mandated (unlike taxes).

    Relationships between individuals built upon such mutual investments of respect, affection and love help to establish stable, prosperous, happy communities as well, where the self-interest of each individual is served through voluntary cooperation and collaboration.

    Such rational systems depend on a level of intellectual enlightenment that can overcome the left-overs of humans’ animal past of hunter/predator that evolution built in for survival in a raw environment. Those instincts are still rampant in many people’s psyches, along with the survival tools of deception, deceit, distortion in whose service our wonderful skills of inventiveness and rationalization still operate.

    Ayn Rand’s highly evolved consciousness assumed that everyone had her capacity for pure rationality and volition in understanding reality and recognizing that emotions are not primaries, only responses to an internalized value system, and that rational values best served one’s highest self-interest. She gave us a blueprint for a successful and sustainable human civilization. It may take a few more centuries for the world at large to embrace it. We in the forefront of that evolution have our work cut out for us in not compromising with evil. We can, by example, re-engineer the memes dominant in today’s culture, not in an altruistic concern but for the most selfish motives of our own and our descendants’ happiness.

    As long as humans live in society, organized in multiple levels of hierarchy from the individual to the nation state and the global network of interrelationships, voluntary exchange and non-aggression is the principle that brings about a peaceful, prosperous, creative and dynamic civilization. Living “for” others has no place in living “with” others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 7 years, 9 months ago
    Interesting, I thought Altruism was more in line with more ancient thinking like "by helping others you help yourself" kind of thing. This suggests Altruism is more of absolute concept.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If the neighbor was a moocher and the fire did not threaten my house at that point my helping might be limited to calling the fire department.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As we discussed before if I am forced to help it isn't a good thing. If I decide on my own to help. There is no limit if it pleases me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the fire if unattended would endanger my house so I would assist my self by assisting my neighbor. egoism versus egotism. I would not expect a reward or praise as I had saved my house.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That statement does not make any sense. Perhaps it would be in the neighbor's self interest, just as it my be in my self interest Too tedious to write down the cases
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps it would be in your rational self-interest for a neighbor to wake you up if flames were seen coming out of your roof.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some seem to connect altruism to being morality. The Brights who work for acceptance of a non-supernatural views in society but seem to have many wrong ideas. They have some experts who seem to believe that morality is built into humans and other animals because it can be shown that some act as though they are altruistic at times and that to the experts is a basis for morality. Their other experts on the nature of science appear to be wrong in saying that science is whatever scientists say it is and seem to go along with the Epistemological anarchism of Paul Karl Feyerabend.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, they did fall over themselves outdoing each other with claims of altruistic service.

    It probably wasn't as bad as the debates between McCain and Obama, but I didn't watch those because I knew going in that I detested them both. Trump does have some qualities that I admire. He has raised children that value production and have accomplishments in their own rights. Moreover, Trump has many major business accomplishments. He is a misguided producer. Although I am misguided about other things, I am also a misguided producer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 10 months ago
    Even some commenting on this Post don't seem to understand and attempt as Comte did to 'rationalize' as justification for their feelings. I find the concept to be an example of a belief system instilled, beginning before even long term memory fully develops, that continues throughout life to result in emotional vs reason conflict. This battle of 'what feels right' vs what facts and reason provides can destroy a mind and will destroy a civilization and man's progress.

    It's nonsensical thinking and living.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Altruism was adopted by Roman catholic's (Socrates), what Jesus was talking about was actually a principle...stand with moral principles even if it means death, our forefathers felt the same way...today, being an ole fart...I finally see the value with standing on principle otherwise I am nothing, just a brain in a body. And...maybe, just maybe, there are quantum consequences to our actions...who knows.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidKelley 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. In the same way, people who confuse benevolence with altruism implicitly assume that any act of kindness or generosity is sacrificial, so they're vulnerable to calls for real sacrifice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
    Choosing altruism is a denial of objectivism just as choosing the lesser of two evils is an acceptance of subjectivism. The problem comes with the third law and each individuals ability to choose moral values and standards of personal conduct. We all slip here and there but making a conscious choice in either case is not a slip. That's my standard. What's yours?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You must be reading the catholic crap-o-la...that's not what he was teaching...he was speaking to the bicameral brain...many even today still live there.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo