Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Helping others in need.

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 11:49:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There really needs to be a philosophy section.

Any way. Why would one be for or against the action of helping others with disregard to oneself in some manner even though they are only capable of feeling their own pleasure or displeasure?

Basically, what is the logic behind altruism and egoism? Do you disregard one?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 11:56:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Altruism: No such thing
Egoism: The virtue of selfishness

"Helping others is okay as long as you're not FORCED to do so..." blah blah blah
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 11:57:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 11:56:50 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Altruism: No such thing
Egoism: The virtue of selfishness

"Helping others is okay as long as you're not FORCED to do so..." blah blah blah

Why do you say there's no such thing?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 12:22:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Altruism: "The human being realize that we are all one." (J. Krishnamurti)

"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, to rabid nationalist fervor, are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism, and recognizes that an organism at war with itself, is doomed." - Carl Sagan

This understanding validates and makes altruism possible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 12:33:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hm.... I don't see how Altruism doesn't exist, b.... Do explain in full. I hope you're not making a semantics argument.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 12:35:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Altruism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. -- Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How can that not exist?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 12:38:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 11:49:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There really needs to be a philosophy section.

I woulda put it in "society."
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 12:58:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 12:35:09 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Altruism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. -- Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How can that not exist?

Which encyclopedia of philosophy is that?

Anyway, it's usually defined as "the selfless helping of others" which is what I was referring to as non-existent.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:03:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And by the way, what a loaded definition lol (and you wanna talk about semantics). What's "favorable" is completely subjective, not to mention that whatever gratification the agent gets from the altruism may be seen as worth it anyway therefore making it the most favorable option.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:04:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 12:58:42 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 12:35:09 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Altruism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. -- Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How can that not exist?

Which encyclopedia of philosophy is that?

Anyway, it's usually defined as "the selfless helping of others" which is what I was referring to as non-existent.

It's an act that helps another person but disadvantages you in some way. Also, it's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:06:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:03:57 AM, theLwerd wrote:
And by the way, what a loaded definition lol (and you wanna talk about semantics). What's "favorable" is completely subjective, not to mention that whatever gratification the agent gets from the altruism may be seen as worth it anyway therefore making it the most favorable option.

If what the agent gets out of the situation is "worth it" then it's not altruism. Don't you ever do something that advances someone by far more than it advances you?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:06:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:04:27 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

It's an act that helps another person but disadvantages you in some way. Also, it's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Oh well as long as TEH INTERNETZ says so lol. Anyway can you cite it? I wanna see the context it's referring to. Besides, now you're changing it up a bit. Just because something disadvantages you in some way it's altruistic? Lol clearly not if the benefits of helping are, to you, worth it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:08:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:06:20 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:03:57 AM, theLwerd wrote:
And by the way, what a loaded definition lol (and you wanna talk about semantics). What's "favorable" is completely subjective, not to mention that whatever gratification the agent gets from the altruism may be seen as worth it anyway therefore making it the most favorable option.

If what the agent gets out of the situation is "worth it" then it's not altruism. Don't you ever do something that advances someone by far more than it advances you?

Yeah, but you still get something out of it. And if you do it, then it's BECAUSE you deem it worth it. You wouldn't do it if you didn't think it was worth it.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:10:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:06:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:04:27 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

It's an act that helps another person but disadvantages you in some way. Also, it's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Oh well as long as TEH INTERNETZ says so lol. Anyway can you cite it? I wanna see the context it's referring to. Besides, now you're changing it up a bit. Just because something disadvantages you in some way it's altruistic? Lol clearly not if the benefits of helping are, to you, worth it.

I'm not changing it up a bit.... Altruism is an act that benefits another person and disadvantages you.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great website. Peer reviewed, educational website. It's not just the "internetz" or whatever you want to call it.

The explanation can be found in this article:

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:12:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:08:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:06:20 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:03:57 AM, theLwerd wrote:
And by the way, what a loaded definition lol (and you wanna talk about semantics). What's "favorable" is completely subjective, not to mention that whatever gratification the agent gets from the altruism may be seen as worth it anyway therefore making it the most favorable option.

If what the agent gets out of the situation is "worth it" then it's not altruism. Don't you ever do something that advances someone by far more than it advances you?

Yeah, but you still get something out of it. And if you do it, then it's BECAUSE you deem it worth it. You wouldn't do it if you didn't think it was worth it.

Hmm.... It doesn't need to be a sum zero transaction. As long as what you are doing disadvantages you more than it advantages the other person, it is altruism.

What would you call an act that advantages someone more than it advantages you since you are saying altruism is not a real concept?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:14:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:10:32 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:06:47 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:04:27 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

It's an act that helps another person but disadvantages you in some way. Also, it's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Oh well as long as TEH INTERNETZ says so lol. Anyway can you cite it? I wanna see the context it's referring to. Besides, now you're changing it up a bit. Just because something disadvantages you in some way it's altruistic? Lol clearly not if the benefits of helping are, to you, worth it.


I'm not changing it up a bit.... Altruism is an act that benefits another person and disadvantages you.

Show me (link) where altruism is defined in that way. That seems like a BS definition to me. Every definition I have ever heard mentions the word "selfless" in some way. Are you saying that sometimes people do nice things for others even though it might take a lil effort? Well gee ya don't say! The point is that altruism is supposed to refer to something selfless i.e. something you do SOLELY for the benefit of others, which is impossible. If you wanna use that loaded definition then fine.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:14:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, can you name me a purely 100% selfish act? You seem to think that something needs to be purely 100% altruistic for altruism to exist.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:14:38 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Also, can you name me a purely 100% selfish act?

Masturbation.

You seem to think that something needs to be purely 100% altruistic for altruism to exist.

Lol yeah that's the idea. Go to Google and look at every web definition of altruism you come across. They all say that the motives behind the deed have to be UNSELFISH (i.e. not benefiting you) and that's what makes it altruistic. But if you insist on using that loaded definition then sure -- obviously people do nice things for other people sometimes. For their own selfish (self-benefiting) reasons, of course.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:19:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:16:26 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
I showed you the link.

tl;dr.

Show m the exact quote and tell me what section it's in.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:21:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh nvm - I found it under the section The Concept of Altruism. It reads, "A motivation of assisting another regardless of one's direct or indirect self-benefit is necessary for it to be altruistic in the ordinary [moral] sense." In other words, it has to be done without the intention of self-benefit... haha, fail. It's always self-beneficial even if it's a subconscious intent.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:23:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:17:51 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:14:38 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Also, can you name me a purely 100% selfish act?

Masturbation.


Only you would use that definition. I'm sure you don't masturbate in public so you take other people into consideration when performing this act.

You seem to think that something needs to be purely 100% altruistic for altruism to exist.

Lol yeah that's the idea. Go to Google and look at every web definition of altruism you come across. They all say that the motives behind the deed have to be UNSELFISH (i.e. not benefiting you) and that's what makes it altruistic. But if you insist on using that loaded definition then sure -- obviously people do nice things for other people sometimes. For their own selfish (self-benefiting) reasons, of course.

You're using dictionary definitions that use common-speak to define things. Websters isn't going to think of "selflessness" as a philosopher is going to think about it. Find a definition of altruism that's on a philosophical website.

Here's Stanford defining it:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:27:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:23:12 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Only you would use that definition. I'm sure you don't masturbate in public so you take other people into consideration when performing this act.

Or rather I take my own shame into consideration, and the fact that I don't want to get arrested.

You seem to think that something needs to be purely 100% altruistic for altruism to exist.

You're using dictionary definitions that use common-speak to define things. Websters isn't going to think of "selflessness" as a philosopher is going to think about it. Find a definition of altruism that's on a philosophical website.

Here's Stanford defining it:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Bahahaha what a terrible link. From your source --> "So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic' if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement."

You're citing/linking a definition of something irrelevant. Even your first source mentioned the distinct differences between biological and moral altruism. Anyway I have already agreed that if you define altruism as consciously helping another that it exists (duhhhhhhh). But by the standards (definition) that is usually applied, it doesn't.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:29:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also from your source --> The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real' altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real' altruism nor therefore of ‘real' selfishness either.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:30:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:29:22 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Also from your source --> The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real' altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real' altruism nor therefore of ‘real' selfishness either.

So.... it just proved my point.... there is no such thing as 100% altruism or 100% selfishness....
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:34:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:30:35 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

So.... it just proved my point.... there is no such thing as 100% altruism or 100% selfishness....

Your point was that altruism exists. My point, and always has been, that by the 'standard' definition - it doesn't.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 1:36:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 1:34:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/17/2010 1:30:35 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

So.... it just proved my point.... there is no such thing as 100% altruism or 100% selfishness....

Your point was that altruism exists. My point, and always has been, that by the 'standard' definition - it doesn't.

My point is that altruism and selfishness both exist yet that both of them can't exist purely, that they are intermingled with one another (an act can't be 100% altruistic or selfish).
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.