Altruism is for fools

[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.

[henry quirk]

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

[commonsense]

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?

[Iwannaplato]

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.

I wouldn't know where to begin trying to sort all that out. That old guy feel down on the street and instead of walking past I helped him get up. Was that just in that guy's interests and not mine? How would I analyze that?

Most people seem to think in transactional, Newtonian terms.

Sure in that instant I spent some calories of energy and probably that guy might not 'pay me back'.

But this is all confused by some radical 'we are monads' only connected to others via transactions. A worldwide barter system.

Then I could say, well, thinking I am a part of my community and thinking of it as my community entails that I do things like that. Or I could say, I am empathetic, that's part of me as a social mammal. It would feel bad just leaving him there.

As a social mammal I identify with at least some other people.

Does that mean it was actually in my self-interest?

I think the whole dichotemy is messed up.

You can't sort this stuff out.

We are not like atoms, separate and bouncing around, hey should I bond with the flouride atom over there.

We are conceived enmeshed utterly literally with another human. And when you think of how time speeds up as we age, just how long was that womb time in experiential and learning terms. Then we enmesh with mom, we identify with people and animals and things and places while children until we lose that panpsyhcist attitude when we 'mature'. We are social mammals that wince when we see someone in a film get a tooth drilled and then also not just physical pain but emotional pain goes right into us from others. And joy and sleepiness.

I'm not saying we can't be selfish and assholes. I am also not saying that all kindness is really about self-interest. I reject the whole thing.

[Iwannaplato]

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?

Must they be mutually exclusive. A lot of things are entailed by, for example, love.

[henry quirk]

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?

Hell if I know.

[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?

Must they be mutually exclusive. A lot of things are entailed by, for example, love.

I take your point. Perhaps I should have expressed this as a (truer) dichotomy by posing it as an act of self interest v. an act of self harm. Would that be fair to say?

[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.

I wouldn't know where to begin trying to sort all that out. That old guy feel down on the street and instead of walking past I helped him get up. Was that just in that guy's interests and not mine? How would I analyze that?

Most people seem to think in transactional, Newtonian terms.

Sure in that instant I spent some calories of energy and probably that guy might not 'pay me back'.

But this is all confused by some radical 'we are monads' only connected to others via transactions. A worldwide barter system.

Then I could say, well, thinking I am a part of my community and thinking of it as my community entails that I do things like that. Or I could say, I am empathetic, that's part of me as a social mammal. It would feel bad just leaving him there.

Or is it possible that you were motivated by an avoidance of the shame you might feel if observed walking away?

[commonsense]

As a social mammal I identify with at least some other people.

Which ones do you identify with? Only the ones who are altruistic like you?

[Constantine]

I'm a registered organ donor. That's altruistic and against none of my interests.

However, beyond this is a important aspect of consciousness we are missing. The philosophy of the scream. Primates, especially ground primates, tend to be highly reactive to screaming, especially females and respond fast. No real thinking save WTF, who and how do I attack, and how quickly can I get there. Without this we would have no paramedics, firemen, police, national guard, and civilian search parties. The pinnacle of self interest taken as a isolate turns our society into one of failure and gross incompetence. This has been explored in science fiction on the Gene Roddenberry TV show Andromeda, where a break away superhuman race called the Nietzscheans overthrew a three galaxy wide empire humans were a part of, but found over the next three centuries their prerogative for enlightened self interest was debilitating and led to endless petty civil strife and breakdown of society into competing clans and prides. They could sometimes make machivellian alliances together and briefly unify but it never lasted. Endless backstabbing squabbles. No instinct towards altruism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSpIDEto ... Fucw%3D%3D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iE0hwPJj ... Fucw%3D%3D

[Iwannaplato]

Which ones do you identify with? Only the ones who are altruistic like you?

Am I altruistic? I'm not claiming that.

And I don't get biographies of people I feel empathy for. Some few who I get to know.
Empathy is fast. It happens with strangers. I don't know if the hypothetical guy I help is an altruist, though I don't usually think of people with that category, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post. I talk over a lot of my interactions with my friends, my wife. I can't remember once saying 'Oh, I met an altruist today.'

And then, beyond empathy, lot of other reactions come to people, strangers, people I know a little, people I know well: fear, hatred, irritation, amusement, whatever.

[commonsense]

Which ones do you identify with? Only the ones who are altruistic like you?

Am I altruistic? I'm not claiming that.

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

[Iwannaplato]

Which ones do you identify with? Only the ones who are altruistic like you?

Am I altruistic? I'm not claiming that.

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

Altruism as an ideal always seemed problematic to me. Though acts that get called altruistic may be just fine. 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. Probably there are people I've known and liked that others thought of as altruists. But people who, at root, think they need to not be themselves - not that they think of it that way - to be good people, tend to drive me up the wall.

I don't think one can categorize altruism by acts. And I don't think one has to deny the self to do things for others, even at one's own expense, at least if one looks narrowly at the moment. I've intervened where it was dangerous to me. But at the same time I don't decide in some general way that other people's needs are more important or some such bullshit (except when it comes to my children).

Sacrifice is another word I keep almost mentioning.

It's amazing how much religions (and secular moralities) have been using metaphors like serve, sacrifice, submit, surrender - to God, to the good, to the Good.

Really quite pernicious. Metaphors based on war, dominance, self-hatred and class abuse.

[commonsense]

Am I altruistic? I'm not claiming that.

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.

[Age]

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?

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