Altruism
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."
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."
Its like convincing the jews that they have a duty to walk into the gas chambers willingly. Only the real socialists of today want you to work FOR them, not die off.
If I choose to give to someone its because I want to, not because I'm obligate to society, man, or God.
The only obligation I have to anyone are to those I choose to be obligated to...and my mom (no choice.. she birthed me after all).
A slave to one, or to all is still a slave. That is hardly a source of happiness, or a legitimate duty.
Regards,
O.A.
It's nonsensical thinking and living.
"[The religion of Humanity] sets forth social feeling as the first principle of morality....To live for others it holds to be our highest happiness. To become incorporate with humanity..., this is what it puts before us as the constant aim of life. ...In the positive state..., the idea of Right will disappear. Everyone has duties, duties toward all, but Rights in the ordinary sense can be claimed by none." [Auguste Compte, A General View of Positivism]
The quote is from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruis... and according to this article the quote was from Comte, August. Catéchisme positiviste (1852) or Catechism of Positivism, trans. R. Congreve, (London: Kegan Paul, 1891)
I do not think most people understand that Altruism means that you do not have any Rights
You're right that most people do not understand what altruism actually means. In my experience, it's usually because they don't clearly differentiate altruism from benevolence.
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.
Altruism is a really good thing -- for everybody who proposes it, but doesn't abide by it. Those who do abide by it sentence themselves to a life of privation and automatically become a servant class. So, if all you want is to become a junior Mother Theresa, have at it.
A rational person takes care of himself first, those he loves second, and if anything is left over, charity.
The Idea was to take care of one's self (love thy self) , care for your family, have mutuality with your neighbors and community (mutuality is love outside the family unit). He advocated "rational self interest" in helping others fallen beside the road...for you might find one's self fallen beside the road one day. This is not a sacrifice and does Not deny self. (again, I speak of common courtesy...not of organized religious confoundations).
To deny self is to deny life itself...no one but liberal progressive non value creators would advocate such a thing but for their own self interest.
Look, we're not into the mystical organization nor are we entirely on board with his apprentices interpretation...they still spoke the bicameral language. To get a frame of reference here see: Julian Jaynes.
We all know here that "Altruism" is the most destructive concept mankind has had to endure and was invented by a sick bicameral brain and used against our natural creation of values so that our rulers could survive on our backs. If there was Anyone that understood that during those times, it was Jesus, Aristotle and a few others.
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.
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.
Its strange but there is no gene for altruism or for self interest as we have free will. The modern science of biothermodynamics makes it clear that acting for others increases energy costs at the expense of one self and ones loved ones. Any attempt to actually practice altruism fails for energetic and moral reasons.
A perspective from reading M. Scott Peck (Road Less Travelled) on the subject of psychological perceptions of responsibility towards other people...
Peck describes our attitudes towards others as being somewhere on the spectrum between "neurosis" (I am responsible for everything that happens to everyone, I should try to fix all problems) and "character disorder" (the world and everyone else is the cause of everything that happens to me, nothing is my fault, so I can't fix any problems).
It seems to me, Comte was suffering near the neurosis end of that spectrum, taking the responsibility for everything on his own shoulders.
A well balanced personality should be near the middle of the spectrum. We are drawn towards the middle by applying rational thought to the world.
" Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer — Oh the sorry trade! "
from verse 69, The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
FitzGerald translation
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/omar...
If you received any sense of satisfaction, feeling of good, any remote emotional benefit to yourself, it was not selfless.
"We are born under a load of obligations of every kind" -- Comte
If this is true, he's saying someone did something for us, and now we owe them. If this is an account payable on our books, isn't it an asset on someone else's books, something they earned by helping us? It's odd then he immediately calls it benevolence and says this is our duty as humans and common source of happiness. He starts out talking about helping each other in trade and then jumps to helping being pure duty.
Jesus talks about this in the Christian Bible. But instead of telling people "stop sacrificing, do what you think is right and brings you happiness" he tells them to keep sacrificing but hide it so they're not even getting the reward of public approval. The authors promote self-denial, which I believe is a form of evil.
Bullshit. "Need does not create obligation."
Another comment I recently read (am chagrined I did not think of it), "Givers have to set limits because takers never do."