Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Altruism and Selfishness Must Help Each Other

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 12:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Life is not found in the extremes, and an unhealthy life lingers away from its center. This is notable in emotional acuity; a person who is too attuned to the emotional needs of others while neglecting one's own emotional hygiene becomes drained of his, or her, emotionality. The individual feels spent and left wasted. He, or she, through detachment at first senses a void, a vacuum, and an empty space that needs to be replenished. As the individual allows oneself to value his, or her, emotional needs, a revival of spirit and self-reliance is once again cultured.

On the other hand, an individual who is too empathetic to his, or her, own sensitivities while ignoring the sensitivities of others amplifies one's own emotional needs to the overshadowing of the emotional needs of others. The individual has an exaggerated sense of self-worth; he, or she, sees little significance in wasting one's precious time on being attuned to the emotional plights of his, or her, fellows. If the individual is empathetic to the emotional events in another's life, he, or she, feels the receiver is greatly indebted and any emotional availability the receiver can return is insignificant.

Since the extreme of altruism leads to a devaluing of oneself to the point of self-effacement and exhaustion and the extreme of selfishness leads to egotism and loneliness, the goal is neither, but both, a compensatory mechanism of one supplementing the other.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:42:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 12:54:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Life is not found in the extremes, and an unhealthy life lingers away from its center. This is notable in emotional acuity; a person who is too attuned to the emotional needs of others while neglecting one's own emotional hygiene becomes drained of his, or her, emotionality. The individual feels spent and left wasted. He, or she, through detachment at first senses a void, a vacuum, and an empty space that needs to be replenished. As the individual allows oneself to value his, or her, emotional needs, a revival of spirit and self-reliance is once again cultured.

On the other hand, an individual who is too empathetic to his, or her, own sensitivities while ignoring the sensitivities of others amplifies one's own emotional needs to the overshadowing of the emotional needs of others. The individual has an exaggerated sense of self-worth; he, or she, sees little significance in wasting one's precious time on being attuned to the emotional plights of his, or her, fellows. If the individual is empathetic to the emotional events in another's life, he, or she, feels the receiver is greatly indebted and any emotional availability the receiver can return is insignificant.

Since the extreme of altruism leads to a devaluing of oneself to the point of self-effacement and exhaustion and the extreme of selfishness leads to egotism and loneliness, the goal is neither, but both, a compensatory mechanism of one supplementing the other.

You probably don't remember after all this time, but I believe we've had a discussion on a similar topic around a year ago. Nice to be talking to you again. :)

Anyway, I think that rather than having the two complement each other, I think the best way is to discard both individualism and collectivism, and go the middle road. This middle road is simple: we put all our focus on human relationships. We make our decisions based on our responsibilities towards other individuals. We do not consider our own interests, nor do we consider the interests of the collective, unless we need to consider them for the fulfillment of our responsibilities towards other individuals. I think this is the healthiest way to think of it.

Both altruism and selfishness lead to immorality. I don't think it needs to be said why selfishness would lead to immorality, so I'll only explain why altruism will. Imagine you are a doctor, and you have two patients. One is your mother, who has a 30% chance of survival, and a stranger, who has a 70% chance of survival. You only have the time and resources to save one. An completely altruist person, with no regard to the self, would save the stranger. In other words, he or she will fail to save his/her mother, who have birth to, raised and taught him/her. That is clearly immoral. However, if he instead considers relationships, it would be a no-brainer - under the principle of filial piety, he must save his mother first.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 9:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You probably don't remember after all this time, but I believe we've had a discussion on a similar topic around a year ago. Nice to be talking to you again. :)

Thanks. I remember you.

Anyway, I think that rather than having the two complement each other, I think the best way is to discard both individualism and collectivism, and go the middle road. This middle road is simple: we put all our focus on human relationships. We make our decisions based on our :responsibilities towards other individuals. We do not consider our own interests, nor do we consider the interests of the collective, unless we need to consider them for the fulfillment of our responsibilities towards other individuals. I think this is the healthiest way to think of it.

I believe to consider and be responsible to each other, there must be individual and collective considerations. How can we consider or be responsible to each other if we as individuals or as a collective do not exist? As individuals, we necessitate specific responses; and, as a collective, we can relate to each other.

Both altruism and selfishness lead to immorality. I don't think it needs to be said why selfishness would lead to immorality, so I'll only explain why altruism will. Imagine you are a doctor, and you have two patients. :One is your mother, who has a 30% chance of survival, and a stranger, who has a 70% chance of survival. You only have the time and resources to save one. An completely altruist person, with no regard to the self, would save the stranger. In other words, he or she will fail to save his/her mother, who have birth to, raised and taught him/her. That is clearly immoral. However, if he instead considers relationships, it would be a no-brainer - under the principle of filial piety, he must save his mother first.

The individual is altruistic in that he denies the self and considers the wishes of his collective; however, he is also selfish because he places more value on that which is closest to him, namely his mother.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:05:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 9:25:53 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You probably don't remember after all this time, but I believe we've had a discussion on a similar topic around a year ago. Nice to be talking to you again. :)



Thanks. I remember you.

Anyway, I think that rather than having the two complement each other, I think the best way is to discard both individualism and collectivism, and go the middle road. This middle road is simple: we put all our focus on human relationships. We make our decisions based on our :responsibilities towards other individuals. We do not consider our own interests, nor do we consider the interests of the collective, unless we need to consider them for the fulfillment of our responsibilities towards other individuals. I think this is the healthiest way to think of it.

I believe to consider and be responsible to each other, there must be individual and collective considerations. How can we consider or be responsible to each other if we as individuals or as a collective do not exist? As individuals, we necessitate specific responses; and, as a collective, we can relate to each other.
Not necessarily. I agree that sometimes, there must be individual and collective considerations. However, this is not always the case. Let's say you have to give up your job to take care of your ailing mother. When you made this decision, you didn't have yourself in mind (you gain nothing from it), nor do you have a collective in mind.
Both altruism and selfishness lead to immorality. I don't think it needs to be said why selfishness would lead to immorality, so I'll only explain why altruism will. Imagine you are a doctor, and you have two patients. :One is your mother, who has a 30% chance of survival, and a stranger, who has a 70% chance of survival. You only have the time and resources to save one. An completely altruist person, with no regard to the self, would save the stranger. In other words, he or she will fail to save his/her mother, who have birth to, raised and taught him/her. That is clearly immoral. However, if he instead considers relationships, it would be a no-brainer - under the principle of filial piety, he must save his mother first.

The individual is altruistic in that he denies the self and considers the wishes of his collective; however, he is also selfish because he places more value on that which is closest to him, namely his mother.
You can interpret his actions as altruistic or selfish, but he did not have either of these concepts in mind, and this is how he managed to make the morally correct decision.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 9:28:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not necessarily. I agree that sometimes, there must be individual and collective considerations. However, this is not always the case. Let's say you have to give up your job to take care of your ailing mother. When you made this decision, you didn't have yourself in mind (you gain nothing from it), nor do you have a collective in mind.

Is your mother apart of you or is she apart of the collective? Any time you have more than one member of a group, together, you have a collective. If quitting your job is not a selfish act but benefits someone other than yourself, then, it's an altruistic act that benefits the collective.

Both altruism and selfishness lead to immorality. I don't think it needs to be said why selfishness would lead :to immorality, so I'll only explain why altruism will. Imagine you are a doctor, and you have two patients. :One is your mother, who has a 30% chance of survival, and a stranger, who has a 70% chance of survival. You only have the time and resources to save one. An completely altruist person, with no regard to the self, would save the stranger. In other words, he or she will fail to save his/her mother, who have birth to, raised and taught him/her. That is clearly immoral. However, if he instead considers relationships, it :would be a no-brainer - under the principle of filial piety, he must save his mother first.

The individual is altruistic in that he denies the self and considers the wishes of his collective; however, he is also selfish because he places more value on that which is closest to him, namely his mother.

You can interpret his actions as altruistic or selfish, but he did not have either of these concepts in mind, and this is how he managed to make :the morally correct decision.

If he did not have his self in mind, how would he know which was his mother? If he did not have altruism in mind, why would he even care about anyone other than himself?