Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Altruism

WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:52:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should I practice the golden rule? I mean, I don't care what society wants me to do, what it wants me to be nor should I. As for God, umm let's leave that to the side.

Is there any practical, earthly, examinable purpose of altruism? I can't believe I'm asking this but the question has been bothering me for some time.

Thanks :D
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:03:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically game theory.

Of course, pure altruism is wrong. If everyone tried to help everyone except themselves all the time, they'd be miserable. And misery loves company: it will make other people unhappy as a result. Aristotle's work in virtue ethics (and especially MacIntyre's, actually) may not be useful when it comes to showing what ethical system is right, in my opinion, but it shows very well how to act morally, given the values to promote.

I'd point you to my recent debate with Spinko (now Noumenal, I think) on principle of utility v categorical imperative. Whilst trying (and failing, I imagine) to sound modest, I think I put forth a pretty good reason to be moral.

Basically, everything boils down to "you do something because you want to". All things considered, we'd rather live in a society (or group, or collective, or however you want to put it) than not. However, the society must have rules, otherwise it'd just be a group of people. These rules codified are laws. These rules uncodified are morals.

The biggest problem I personally have is trying to show how laws have deviated from morals (as they clearly are). However, I think if the problem is resolved (and I believe some have succeeded in doing so, such as Singer and some practical ethicists and prescriptivists, though I need to evaluate them further), then the theory becomes complete for any coherentist at least.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:40:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:52:48 PM, WW wrote:
Why should I practice the golden rule? I mean, I don't care what society wants me to do, what it wants me to be nor should I. As for God, umm let's leave that to the side.

Is there any practical, earthly, examinable purpose of altruism? I can't believe I'm asking this but the question has been bothering me for some time.

Thanks :D

Because, if you don't, we kill you.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 7:48:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because, if you're psychologically healthy, you'll live a more satisfying life making others happy and living for a greater cause.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 10:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:03:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Basically game theory.

Of course, pure altruism is wrong. If everyone tried to help everyone except themselves all the time, they'd be miserable. And misery loves company: it will make other people unhappy as a result. Aristotle's work in virtue ethics (and especially MacIntyre's, actually) may not be useful when it comes to showing what ethical system is right, in my opinion, but it shows very well how to act morally, given the values to promote.

I'd point you to my recent debate with Spinko (now Noumenal, I think) on principle of utility v categorical imperative. Whilst trying (and failing, I imagine) to sound modest, I think I put forth a pretty good reason to be moral.

Basically, everything boils down to "you do something because you want to". All things considered, we'd rather live in a society (or group, or collective, or however you want to put it) than not. However, the society must have rules, otherwise it'd just be a group of people. These rules codified are laws. These rules uncodified are morals.

The biggest problem I personally have is trying to show how laws have deviated from morals (as they clearly are). However, I think if the problem is resolved (and I believe some have succeeded in doing so, such as Singer and some practical ethicists and prescriptivists, though I need to evaluate them further), then the theory becomes complete for any coherentist at least.

The Fool: Laws are not morals. They are necessary to keep the state functioning. Then when the state is functioning we try and lean them towards moral standards. But you beg the question to try and support them after the fact.

Meanwhile the state must use propaganda, to give the appearance of being moral to prevent uprising.

For example we may think it intuitively wrong when somebody is beat up, even when they will heal and get over it.

While someone can break another's heart and the victim may mentally suffer their whole lives.

The only difference is that physical abuse is easier to recognize, thus making it more CONVENIENT, to be accounted for By LAWS. Despite the moral equivalence.

The State must embed impossible ideological notions in our minds when we are young this is usually done through the education system. So you grow up thinking through them, and never attempt to things about them.

IF you ask to many questions they will become immoral and hostile.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 10:53:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:48:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Because, if you're psychologically healthy, you'll live a more satisfying life making others happy and living for a greater cause.

The Fool: I know that you a being Freedo, but there is some truth to that.
That is when we are happier and satisfied they tend to intuitively become More Moral. And giving and helping people become more pleasurable. E.g for example Bill gates will find pleasure in giving things away and helping others, when he is happy and satisfied with his life.

Why? This is why ----->http://youtu.be...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 10:43:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2013 4:03:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Basically game theory.

Of course, pure altruism is wrong. If everyone tried to help everyone except themselves all the time, they'd be miserable. And misery loves company: it will make other people unhappy as a result. Aristotle's work in virtue ethics (and especially MacIntyre's, actually) may not be useful when it comes to showing what ethical system is right, in my opinion, but it shows very well how to act morally, given the values to promote.

I'd point you to my recent debate with Spinko (now Noumenal, I think) on principle of utility v categorical imperative. Whilst trying (and failing, I imagine) to sound modest, I think I put forth a pretty good reason to be moral.

Basically, everything boils down to "you do something because you want to". All things considered, we'd rather live in a society (or group, or collective, or however you want to put it) than not. However, the society must have rules, otherwise it'd just be a group of people. These rules codified are laws. These rules uncodified are morals.

The biggest problem I personally have is trying to show how laws have deviated from morals (as they clearly are). However, I think if the problem is resolved (and I believe some have succeeded in doing so, such as Singer and some practical ethicists and prescriptivists, though I need to evaluate them further), then the theory becomes complete for any coherentist at least.

The Fool: Laws are not morals.

You've basically said what my personal problem was. In other words, you've said what I said in three times more words.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:17:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:52:48 PM, WW wrote:
Why should I practice the golden rule?

Because it is the best way to be happy.

I mean, I don't care what society wants me to do, what it wants me to be

Now you do.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:01:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:52:48 PM, WW wrote:
Why should I practice the golden rule? I mean, I don't care what society wants me to do, what it wants me to be nor should I. As for God, umm let's leave that to the side.

Is there any practical, earthly, examinable purpose of altruism? I can't believe I'm asking this but the question has been bothering me for some time.

Thanks :D

As a moral nihilist I say no.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
jambone
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:52:48 PM, WW wrote:
Why should I practice the golden rule? I mean, I don't care what society wants me to do, what it wants me to be nor should I. As for God, umm let's leave that to the side.

Is there any practical, earthly, examinable purpose of altruism? I can't believe I'm asking this but the question has been bothering me for some time.

Thanks :D

Altruism only appears to work when it ultimately involves and expanded concept of the self, as when one can identify a self in another, if that self is in distress compassion seems to arise in the self of an observer and a whole construct of morality in action is brought forth into the world. Morality then is a social construct, built upon this expanded concept of self. Society is you might say is constructed out of self interest, and is maintained by that same said self-interest. To identify with, compassion to arise, from this compassion arises Morality, the building materials of social cohesion all in the interests of the self.