Altruism is for fools

[commonsense]

Not at all. Choosing to dedicate yourself to others is a noble thing.

Forcing others to act altruistically: that ain't noble at all

Suppose a bomb has been placed in a crowded room and an altruist throws himself on top of the bomb in order to buffer the impending explosion.

Is that an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

To me it’s an open question.

[popeye1945]

The good life is lived in one’s own best interests. Making choices for the benefit of others is nothing more than condescending. Whatever benefits humanity may not necessarily benefit individual humans. And to say that endeavoring for the best interest of others is a matter of self satisfaction is hubris.

Compassion arises through the identification of one's self with the self of others, and is the basis of civilization, which is most definitely a survival vehicle for the individual. There is no such thing as pure altruism, in that in order to react to the world one must make it one's will to do so, for one cannot move without, without first being moved within. Altruism as a process is an expanded concept of the self, so through the process one is serving one's own greater interests, mainly survival and well-being. Altruism is compassion at work, but is not selfless, serving a collective that serves one's self, again is not pure altruism, there is no such creature.

[commonsense]

The good life is lived in one’s own best interests. Making choices for the benefit of others is nothing more than condescending. Whatever benefits humanity may not necessarily benefit individual humans. And to say that endeavoring for the best interest of others is a matter of self satisfaction is hubris.

Compassion arises through the identification of one's self with the self of others, and is the basis of civilization, which is most definitely a survival vehicle for the individual. There is no such thing as pure altruism, in that in order to react to the world one must make it one's will to do so, for one cannot move without, without first being moved within. Altruism as a process is an expanded concept of the self, so through the process one is serving one's own greater interests, mainly survival and well-being. Altruism is compassion at work, but is not selfless, serving a collective that serves one's self, again is not pure altruism, there is no such creature.

Good points.

I wonder how the concept of taking a bullet for someone else—giving one’s life to save the life of another—would be applied to your post (or vv).

[popeye1945]

The good life is lived in one’s own best interests. Making choices for the benefit of others is nothing more than condescending. Whatever benefits humanity may not necessarily benefit individual humans. And to say that endeavoring for the best interest of others is a matter of self satisfaction is hubris.

Compassion arises through the identification of one's self with the self of others, and is the basis of civilization, which is most definitely a survival vehicle for the individual. There is no such thing as pure altruism, in that in order to react to the world one must make it one's will to do so, for one cannot move without, without first being moved within. Altruism as a process is an expanded concept of the self, so through the process one is serving one's own greater interests, mainly survival and well-being. Altruism is compassion at work, but is not selfless, serving a collective that serves one's self, again is not pure altruism, there is no such creature.

Good points.

I wonder how the concept of taking a bullet for someone else—giving one’s life to save the life of another—would be applied to your post (or vv).

Self-sacrifice is a violation of life's first principle, survival. Schopenhauer had a slant on that, he said it was a metaphysical awakening, that just grabs one, that you and the other are one. An expanded concept of the self. There are examples of heroic self-sacrifice that even the hero would be at a loss to explain, sometimes they just say there wasn't time to think, as if that explains their heroic deed. Personally, I think there is a lot to it, and again it is the basis of civilization, compassion for the self in others as for ourselves. Of course, we don't always rise to the occasion but sometimes we do, and we recognize how extraordinary the given individual is that makes that metaphysical leap, we are in awe. ​

[attofishpi]

On the way to work I gave $5 to a begging v old Aboriginal man sat on the side of the street. My work colleague said "he's only going to spend that on alcohol"
I said GOOD, whatever makes his day a little better.

When I left work I didn't have any money for the bus ride so I had to hitch-hike. I got picked up by three blonde women who eventually pulled over and raped me, it was the best day of my life.

(ok that last bit I made up)

[Age]

Suppose a bomb has been placed in a crowded room and an altruist throws himself on top of the bomb in order to buffer the impending explosion.

Is that an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

To me it’s an open question.

Okay. BUT 'that' is NOT what I ASKED 'you'.

So, are 'you' now just too SCARED to ANSWER, do NOT YET KNOW HOW to ANSWER, or just do NOT WANT to ANSWER, your OWN QUESTION?

Or, is there some other reason 'you' did NOT just ANSWER the QUESTION?

[commonsense]

To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

To me it’s an open question.

Okay. BUT 'that' is NOT what I ASKED 'you'.

So, are 'you' now just too SCARED to ANSWER, do NOT YET KNOW HOW to ANSWER, or just do NOT WANT to ANSWER, your OWN QUESTION?

Or, is there some other reason 'you' did NOT just ANSWER the QUESTION?

You asked, “To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?”.

I responded, “To me it’s an open question.”

To any REASONABLE PERSON, my response would be considered an answer.

[Age]

To me it’s an open question.

Okay. BUT 'that' is NOT what I ASKED 'you'.

So, are 'you' now just too SCARED to ANSWER, do NOT YET KNOW HOW to ANSWER, or just do NOT WANT to ANSWER, your OWN QUESTION?

Or, is there some other reason 'you' did NOT just ANSWER the QUESTION?

You asked, “To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?”.

I responded, “To me it’s an open question.”

To any REASONABLE PERSON, my response would be considered an answer.

OF COURSE 'it' is AN answer. 'it', however, just does NOT answer the ACTUAL question posed, and ASKED.

[commonsense]

Okay. BUT 'that' is NOT what I ASKED 'you'.

So, are 'you' now just too SCARED to ANSWER, do NOT YET KNOW HOW to ANSWER, or just do NOT WANT to ANSWER, your OWN QUESTION?

Or, is there some other reason 'you' did NOT just ANSWER the QUESTION?

You asked, “To 'you', "commonsense", is 'that' an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?”.

I responded, “To me it’s an open question.”

To any REASONABLE PERSON, my response would be considered an answer.

OF COURSE 'it' is AN answer. 'it', however, just does NOT answer the ACTUAL question posed, and ASKED.

Would you have preferred, “To me, the question is unanswerable at this time.”?

[RWStanding]

What this may show is the folly of taking values in isolation. Values must be taken holistically or in relation to each other. In which case there is a place for self sacrifice in particular situations. But as a general value for society, it would be difficult to find another word than altruism to denote a form of democracy that benefits all. Considered holistically altruism has to be pragmatic, and socially responsible. It is not about self sacrifice by everyone all together that would be illogical. The alternative 'democracy' at the extreme is everyone in isolation or autonomy.

[LuckyR]

Altruism is for fools

Not at all. Choosing to dedicate yourself to others is a noble thing.

Forcing others to act altruistically: that ain't noble at all

Suppose a bomb has been placed in a crowded room and an altruist throws himself on top of the bomb in order to buffer the impending explosion.

Is that an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

Uummm... isn't this the trolley problem?

You've heard of it, right?

[commonsense]

Not at all. Choosing to dedicate yourself to others is a noble thing.

Forcing others to act altruistically: that ain't noble at all

Suppose a bomb has been placed in a crowded room and an altruist throws himself on top of the bomb in order to buffer the impending explosion.

Is that an act of altruism or an act of self destruction?

Uummm... isn't this the trolley problem?

You've heard of it, right?

Just an intentional variation of the trolley.

[Gary Childress]

There are lots of ways to die, however, dying at the hands of something that's really angry and running toward me is a pretty difficult thing to think about. Although, that might not be a bad way to go. At least I know I deserve what's coming? --If that's any consolation??

[Iwannaplato]

I see. Social but not altruistic. Certainly true of many people.

Altruism seems to be a kind of decision not to trust oneself and one's impulses, desires and needs. It seems to frame things that way.

I don’t think so, but please explain this.

Just to be clear, it is when someone chooses altruism as a value that they strive to live up to that there can be a problem. Many acts that get called altruistic I don't see as a problem. If you decide to strive for this, you may well override your impulses, desires and needs because they seem to not match the value. You might, for example, give up hard earned money to a narcissist.

Often when we create values and then try to force, persuade, cajole, guilt-trip ourselves into living up the them, we are creating a split in ourselves. Bad urges, selfless high values (with one part of ourselves trying to get the other part in line. Religions do this rather openly, but secular values can be part of such things also.

Instead of focusing on an abstract value to live up to, one could trust that the mix of one's empathy and other urges will work out to be a decent human. And of course you can learn from regret.

All without posting a notice on the wall of the brain that now we are going to be altruistic and not 'selfish'.

[Consul]

If you define altruism as Ayn Rand does, i.e. as absolute selflessness or total self-sacrifice, then it seems unattractive and undesirable; but it doesn't if you simply define it as concern or regard for (the well-being/welfare) of others, as readiness to help others in need. In this moderate form, altruism doesn't say, as Rand puts it, that "it is your duty to give away your last penny to anyone who might need it." Moderate altruism doesn't proclaim that there is a duty to sacrifice one's whole wealth or even one's life for the sake of others.
However, to say that there is no duty to do so is not to say that it is never a good thing to do so: "Supererogation is the technical term for the class of actions that go “beyond the call of duty.” Roughly speaking, supererogatory acts are morally good although not (strictly) required." (SEP: Supererogation)

"Altruism is an ethical system which claims that man has no right to exist for his own sake; that the sole justification of his existence is the service he renders to others; and that self-sacrifice is his cardinal virtue, value and duty. Altruism regards man as a sacrificial animal. The word “altruism” was coined by Auguste Comte in the nineteenth century to mean the placing of the interests of others above one’s own."

(Rand, Ayn. Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed. Edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009. p. 143)