Philosophy Now Forum

Altruism
There appears to be little reason to doubt that Altruism is seen or approached and defined from three different directions. Only one of which is comprehensively complete.
Individualists tend to see it as an expression of feeling between individuals. Society is merely a sum of individual interaction. Indeed, it can merely consist of being nice to people and leaving the future to future generations.
Others base it on a concept of ‘god’ or any authority. We do what is ordained in the ordained ‘charitable’ way, not necessarily with any feeling. Trusting that the good king is not in fact arbitrary and fallible.
The third set is of those who see altruism as an expression of society and its institutions. That which people on the whole agree to be altruistic. With the undoubted probability that they will often be wrong, and must learn by these mistakes.
There is a fourth kind perhaps that speaks in altruistic language while being indifferent in fact. But that is Chaos, which is opposed to all three of the genuine forms, or vanities.

Interesting concepts, RWS. How would you classify altruistic behaviour which is not intrinsic, but forced? Such as serving community service as part of a sentence.

Would you say that personal (individualistic) altruism, now the pure kind, is a product of evolution, or is it god-given to mankind?

And how do you see altruism as a conniving factor, such as luring voters in at election time with an agenda that promises socially responsible affirmative action?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:34 pm Altruism
There appears to be little reason to doubt that Altruism is seen or approached and defined from three different directions. Only one of which is comprehensively complete.

Plenty of reason to doubt these two claims. The first statement is neither a priori nor proved. The second implies there is a form of completeness that is not comprehensive. Perhaps you can explain.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:34 pm Individualists tend to see it as an expression of feeling between individuals. Society is merely a sum of individual interaction. Indeed, it can merely consist of being nice to people...

and leaving the future to future generations.

Non sequitur.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:34 pm Others base it on a concept of ‘god’ or any authority. We do what is ordained in the ordained ‘charitable’ way, not necessarily with any feeling. Trusting that the good king is not in fact arbitrary and fallible.

Without explanation, these statements are not relevant to altruism.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:34 pm The third set is of those who see altruism as an expression of society and its institutions. That which people on the whole agree to be altruistic. With the undoubted probability that they will often be wrong, and must learn by these mistakes.

These statements need explanation, please. What undoubted probability? It is doubtful that an institution prioritizes the wants and needs of another institution above its own. How often will the altruistic people probably be wrong?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:34 pm There is a fourth kind perhaps that speaks in altruistic language while being indifferent in fact. But that is Chaos, which is opposed to all three of the genuine forms, or vanities.

Please explain why this fourth kind of altruism is Chaos. Please explain why the three previous forms are vanities.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:05 pm Interesting concepts, RWS. How would you classify altruistic behaviour which is not intrinsic, but forced? Such as serving community service as part of a sentence.

Forced altruistic behavior is a false analogy. Behavior that is forced is not akin to behavior that is voluntary.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:05 pm Would you say that personal (individualistic) altruism, now the pure kind, is a product of evolution, or is it god-given to mankind?

Please explain what you mean by altruism as a result of evolution v as a gift from god.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:05 pm And how do you see altruism as a conniving factor, such as luring voters in at election time with an agenda that promises socially responsible affirmative action?

To get elected, politicians lie! Some voters are gullible enough to believe the lies.

RSW & -1-,
I believe, with the explanations as a starting point, we have the makings of interesting discourse. I would not be surprised if what you say next convinces me of your claims and point of view.

RWS, I think my questions on forced altruism and on conniving altruism have not been invalidated by your answers, because you have previously, in your post, divorced "empathy" from "altruism", when you spake of altruism borne of god-worship and of societal pressures of a kind. Since "empathy" has been delivered from altruism, your objections are not valid as to treating forced and / or conniving altruism. You specifically reduced altruism to an action, to a systematic action, and empathic motivation, in your presentation, to be altruistic was not a player in all altruistic behaviour.

This schism you presented, was somewhat but not absolutely so in the societal altruism; but in the god-worship altruism you (or some reasonable concluding) presented that it's based solely on a wish to please god. This is where I think you divorced altruism from any pertinent motivation.

Hence, I dared to carry on with opening more possibilities.