Philosophy Now Forum

John K wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

John K wrote: Huh?

Is the the most articulate response you have to offer.

It's a more polite way of saying you're full of shit.

QMan wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

QMan wrote:Hmm, I'll have to pat myself on the back now that I discovered the origin of modern ethics?

But you are right, what I mean to point out is that all of us are born into this situation where we had zero input into the surroundings and upon arrival have no choice but to toe the line. I think there is always a form of limited, local, altruism to the established rules even if I were to be born into a group of Chicago mobsters. Altruism of that sort is, as you point out, based on self-interest. Thus, there may not be a moral imperative but certainly an imperative based on self-preservation to toe the line. This, I assume, would be uncomfortable for Henry or anyone else.

I don't believe at all that altruism has only, or mainly, negative connotations since there clearly are examples throughout man's existence that demonstrate true unselfishness and concern for the well being of others. I try to stay away from throwing out the baby with the bath water because the baby is too valuable.

It is useless to interpret everything, including ethics and altruism, consistently in a negative manner. This is exactly were the Christian is challenged to make a difference by being the salt of the earth and the light on the hilltop. Too often we Christians fail by being merely passive and not actively altruistic. Of course, the secular person is under no such obligation (I am looking forward to the debate on this last point .)

Neither Christians not Secularists are under any altruistic obligation, nor is such an urge related in any way to morality directly.
There is a fundamental emotion seen in most gregarious mammals to protect one's kin, pack, toupe, or other associated member of the same species.
Even this can be extended beyond species; Dog-bitches have been know to suckle and protect kittens; dogs protect their owners.
Religion, or a small part of it, is a rationalisation of this fundamental urge.

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.
When a Christian does it he doesn't do not it for nothing - he does it in the hope of pleasing God and winning redemption and a place in heaven - this is not altruism at all.

For the sake of the debate, I am defining altruism also as the deliberate and intelligent intention to do good.

1. The Christian is definitely under a moral obligation to do good. (It would speed things up considerably if you studied the subject you want to debate. Please read the bible and about Christian tradition).

The Christian is under a self imposed obligation for which he expects a Reward.

2. Wanting to do good is not an animalistic urge but an intelligent decision based on a taught subject that one agrees with and complies with under free will. There is no obligation but an intellectual agreement that it is the correct and beneficial course of action.

Wanting to do good is like all other emotionally motivated acts, based on a primitive instinct to protect one's kin. All the rest is merely an intellectualisation. Passions are always primitive.
To do good for selfish reasons is the act of a Christian, and is based on a rationalisation for self aggrandisement. In this he seeks to mobilise his vestigial emotions for caring, to direct it to his own immortality.

3. It's clearly fallacious to imply that Christians do not have pure spiritual motives but atheists do.

It is the most ridiculous, unsubstantiated thing you have offered thus far. You have to do more than say a thing for it to be true. But that is exactly the sort of reasoning we expect from a person making a bid for immoratality and in the habit of making shit up on the spot to prove it to himself.

4. Expecting a reward should be read as "hoping" for a reward. And why not? These are promised benefits that come with being an altruistic Christian. No reason to turn them down. Would you turn down earned money? Does earning the money make you less valuable? Clearly not, since people will attribute greater wisdom to you for acting in an intelligent manner.

Oh dear. And what reward does a atheist "hope for". None.


From a Christian's perspective the atheist is really laboring under an enormous illusion.

Sorry you have topped the most ridiculous thing yet.

If you do not believe in any accountability in an hereafter, then you are kidding yourself if you think you need to have ANY moral qualities. You can get away with anything you want, be as deceptive as you want, commit any crime you want, as long as your personal comfort level is not impacted by getting caught. I am sure you have heard that argument before and it is absolutely true. That's why we have all the problems we do have in the world because criminals definitely think along those lines.

You prove my words. You are not altruistic, you are obsessed with your reward.

And, yes, there are some Christians (by name only) who commit crime, but they are not really Christians then. And yes, there are atheists who are altruistic by choice, but their reward is their temporary increase in spiritual and emotional personal comfort. The difference is that the Christian is called to demonstrate altruism even under extreme and externally imposed personal discomfort, such as Christ on the cross and his teaching that we must immitate him by bearing our own cross.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you have nothing better than that, I'll say I'm completely right as you have not the wit to defend your position.
If you want me to SPELL IT OUT for you, like you were a baby I'll be glad to, but if you are just going to SCWEEM like a little child until you are sick then it's only you that has to clean up your mess.
But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

QMan wrote:If you do not believe in any accountability in an hereafter, then you are kidding yourself if you think you need to have ANY moral qualities.

QMan wrote:You can get away with anything you want, be as deceptive as you want, commit any crime you want, as long as your personal comfort level is not impacted by getting caught.

QMan wrote:I am sure you have heard that argument before and it is absolutely true. That's why we have all the problems we do have in the world because criminals definitely think along those lines.

John K wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you have nothing better than that, I'll say I'm completely right as you have not the wit to defend your position.
If you want me to SPELL IT OUT for you, like you were a baby I'll be glad to, but if you are just going to SCWEEM like a little child until you are sick then it's only you that has to clean up your mess.
But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

I don't need to defend a damn thing. You made the statement, YOU defend it.

henry quirk wrote:"please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward."

HA!

Poop.

"poop" is not an argument.

What the altruist (atheist or not) gets is 'good feeling'.

'Good feeling' is the profit, the 'reward'.

Maybe, but all things being equal, by contrast the "atheist" does not seek the reward of the Theist.
But what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as "altruism".
For which you will need to argue more fully.
Given that altruism is a concept that is used. And given the fact that a good feeling may be the result, then Altruism and a good feeling are not mutually exclusive.
The question then remains, what distinguishes between a person who does nothing for others. like yourself. Or, like yourself gets a 'good feeling" from being a selfish pr1ck.


He or she who claims to be altruistic (expecting no reward) is a friggin' liar or simply confused as to his or her own motivations.

Few altruists claim to be altruists and will follow their feelings to do good for no, let us say, material, or practical reward. Altruism is identified objectively and is defined by good works with not practical or material reward.

Whether it be cash, or orgasm, or sated appetite, or warmed cockles, or joy in the afterlife: self-interest motivates each and every one in all actions large and small.

Spoken like a semi-human pr1ck.


Next....

Altruism is (another) fiction.

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

duszek wrote:Altruism could be just a natural consequence of empathy.

I feel what another person feels so if I make another person feel good I feel good myself.

Vicarious happiness or vicarious pleasure.

Should altruism be considered good then ? Yes, because it increases the chances of a group of people to survive.

henry quirk wrote:HA!

Sails full; sails lax.

'nuff said.

Immanuel Can wrote:Wow, Henry...since last I was here some people certainly have become abusive...and guilty of the ad hominem fallacy, I might add. Apparently you've become quite a burr in someone's saddle.

But please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.

This is the funniest line in the last little while.

If someone is an atheist, there's no such thing as "purity" that they could possibly have, and, of course, no "reward" to follow for having it, so they can't get any points for not looking for one. In their world, there are no punishments or rewards for anything. In fact, nothing is "pure" or "impure": everything simply "is." For them, values are merely the expression of personal choice. So they're complete hypocrites if they indict you for making a choice simply different from the one they have made.

In any case, in their worldview even hypocrisy, if anyone has it, is not a "bad" thing anymore, but simply a choice of lifestyle. As for altruism, some may have it; but they have zero motive for it from their worldview, other than what you say, Henry -- the "feelgoods" they get from their choice to do it. But since "good" is, by their lights, an illusion anyway, what they have left is just "feels."

If you, Henry, "feel" differently, then they haven't got a rational thing to say about that. And that is really chapping their backsides, it's clear, which is why they are reduced to insulting you personally. You've got their backs to a wall.

Nice work, Laddie.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And, of course, by implication a Theist can never act altruistically on the grounds that all good acts are done to increase his chances of reward in heaven.

So from Wiki; "Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty. Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving)."

As for a Christians the ultimate benefit of good works is eternal life, only an atheist can be truly altruistic.

It's not rocket science.