Does Altruism Exist?

Simple question really. Altruism is defined as a selfless motivation for the genuine welfare of others. Does it exist? I've been pondering this lately. Post your belief, just know that I'm likely to play the devils advocate.

Yup.

Pheobe proved it in Friends. She tried severaldifferent things, one including letting a bee sting her, but then she found out that bees usually die when they sting. She eventually made a donation to Sesame street, which she had a major ideological problem with. Therefore the donation didn't make her feelbetter about herself, and it was a charitable donation that helped others.

She made the donation to prove that Altruism exists? Isn't that selfish and self motivated inherently?

You shall not point out plot holes in the greatest show of all time.

Well most of the people I know that do a lot of charity work do it because it brings them joy. I guess it can be like a drug. The more you give the better you feel about yourself. It is the only good selfish deed.

Well then, define "good". If good means to be helping others, then it follows that we associate "good" with things that are altruistic. So what's the difference?

Most altruism in the animal kingdom can often be explained by the selfish gene theory. There are evolutionary advantages to altruism in certain situations, so although the whole organism may give up things for others, including their own life, the act can help propagate the genes that code for altruistic acts. However, humans can go beyond their mere programming and instincts and act in altruistic ways that cannot be tied to any selfish reason.

mindphuk said:

Most altruism in the animal kingdom can often be explained by the selfish gene theory. There are evolutionary advantages to altruism in certain situations, so although the whole organism may give up things for others, including their own life, the act can help propagate the genes that code for altruistic acts. However, humans can go beyond their mere programming and instincts and act in altruistic ways that cannot be tied to any selfish reason.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example?

The common argument is that, even when someone does something altruistic, they are doing it because they enjoy doing it thus making the deed not actually altruistic

karri0n said:

Can you give an example?

The common argument is that, even when someone does something altruistic, they are doing it because they enjoy doing it thus making the deed not actually altruistic

Click to expand...

Bingo. That's the point I was trying to get across.

Dominathan said:

Simple question really. Altruism is defined as a selfless motivation for the genuine welfare of others. Does it exist? I've been pondering this lately. Post your belief, just know that I'm likely to play the devils advocate.

Click to expand...

I would like to say it does, but simply in a persons mind alot of time it starts out as altruism, but by the time it reaches a physical movement are minds start to wonder what is in it for me. Some geniune examples of altruism comes from times when you have to make a split second decision, not letting our mind ponder on it to long. I have thought on this for long periods at times, what I have come up with is that we are hard wired for our survival. When it comes down to it, deep inside of us, we, ourselves, must survive.

Now, to bring are selves to the ultimate goal of enlightenment, to be altrustic, to give our lives for the betterment of another person, or to help without any alterior goal in mind, seems to fly in the face of our number one hardwired goal. But only through this can we find a better live. A prime example was Jesus, and there has been many others, Mother Teresa, etc..... So this I concur should be our goal in life. Sadly I fall short constantly, and I look back and wonder how many times I can make this mistake. But then I pick myself up and try again. Good Luck to everybody in finding a altrustic live.

karri0n said:

Can you give an example?

The common argument is that, even when someone does something altruistic, they are doing it because they enjoy doing it thus making the deed not actually altruistic

Click to expand...

The altruistic acts I'm thinking of of the people that risk their lives to save a complete stranger and doing so out of pure concern for the welfare of another human.

mindphuk said:

The altruistic acts I'm thinking of of the people that risk their lives to save a complete stranger and doing so out of pure concern for the welfare of another human.

Click to expand...

Or were they possibly hoping to be remembered? I mean, isn't being remembered after physical death the greatest reward someone could get?

This article intrigues me to believe otherwise though, and that Altruism DOES exist. "The man in the red bandana" helped lead people out of the world trade centers up until the moment it eventually collapsed on him. However, he had called his parents to tell them he was safe, so it doesn't seem like he was wanting to be remembered for it. Interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62579,00.html

Dominathan said:

Or were they possibly hoping to be remembered? I mean, isn't being remembered after physical death the greatest reward someone could get?

Click to expand...

Being remembered for good deeds is hardly a reward if you lose your life with the possible exception of true martyrdom where you give your life for a cause. The instinct and drive to survive usually overrides just about any other thought we can have. To ignore that instinct in order to help an unrelated person is a completely selfless act with the exceptions noted.

Well, if you do not believe in an afterlife (as I don't), you might jump on the opportunity. As a matter of fact, I'd do something that'd kill me if I knew I'd be fondly remembered across America for it. I mean, why not?

Dominathan said:

Well, if you do not believe in an afterlife (as I don't), you might jump on the opportunity. As a matter of fact, I'd do something that'd kill me if I knew I'd be fondly remembered across America for it. I mean, why not?

Click to expand...

Because the cost is your life. Its the people that DO believe in an afterlife that IMO would be more likely to give up their life for something.

I could care less if I am remembered as a hero or whatever if I no longer will be alive. Make a poll. Ask, "if you're name would be remembered fondly by a large number of people, would you give up your life?" or something to that effect. I would bet that 99 out of 100 people would not want to die just to be memorialized. Not only that, think of the fraction of seconds that you would have to make the decision, IMO even if you think that your actions might be remembered, you are still acting quite selfless. To me, it's difficult to call something like that selfish because of the severe cost.

Dominathan said:

Well, if you do not believe in an afterlife (as I don't), you might jump on the opportunity. As a matter of fact, I'd do something that'd kill me if I knew I'd be fondly remembered across America for it. I mean, why not?

Click to expand...

If it is okay to change the subject, if you don't believe in the afterlife, what do you believe happens to you at death. And what is it that starts life, what is that spark. And where does that spark go after death. Why do believe this, or better what made you to believe this.

If your not okay with changing the subject, then I will start a new thread, just let me know. But I really want to know your answers.
Thanks

plantvision said:

If it is okay to change the subject, if you don't believe in the afterlife, what do you believe happens to you at death. And what is it that starts life, what is that spark. And where does that spark go after death. Why do believe this, or better what made you to believe this.

If your not okay with changing the subject, then I will start a new thread, just let me know. But I really want to know your answers.
Thanks

Click to expand...

I believe the closest I can come to explaining "after life" is to expect nothing. A lot like "pre life" for everyone. You don't remember it, because you had not yet developed. Your cells hadn't multiplied to the point of recording it's past, as the human body does. Imagine every single physical object as a machine. We just happen to be the fanciest. There's no "immaterial" entity affiliated with us (such as a soul). This belief that I hold is called Physicalism. Let me break down this field of philosophy for you, just so you'll be able to identify with a side:

Physicalism - A "person" is defined as their body, and only their body. Every command is generated by a material being, or material part of a being (such as our brain).

Dualism - Humans are composed of both a material object (our bodies) and an immaterial object (our souls). The "person" can continue to exist after the physical body has gone. Alternatively, some dualists (no pun intended) believe that the immaterial part of us (your soul/mind, whatever you wanna call it) dies with us. In this sense, you have to think of the mind as our immaterial CPU, rather than our brain.

Idealism - We are "only" a soul. In fact, the physical world is an assuming conjuration at best. The only things that can be known for certain are ideas, even abstract ones (since they can exist perfectly in the mind, but may not exist in the physical word).


I myself am a physicalist.

Positive reciprocity goes a long way! But w/ that being said, you shouldn't have to expect respectful actions from someone to perform them for him/her. So idk.. 'specially w/ humans. lol


I definately want to say yes. And, would like to think that most of the rest of the world would rather that than the silly opposition...


Not sure, I know that in Rhesus Monkies in most definately does exist.

There was a study... ill go and try to find it in a bit, it was in a neuroscience/philosophy book i got somewhere lol .. but it involved two monkies(Monkey A & B)

With the Monkey A given food and everytime Monkey A would eat or try to eat Monkey B would be shocked and subsequently hurt. But Monkey A was able to see this and would refuse to eat and rather starve knowing that that monkey is getting hurt.

A little bit of reciprocal respect. lol


Dope Thread!

iNVESTIGATE said:

Positive reciprocity goes a long way! But w/ that being said, you shouldn't have to expect respectful actions from someone to perform them for him/her. So idk.. 'specially w/ humans. lol


I definately want to say yes. And, would like to think that most of the rest of the world would rather that than the silly opposition...


Not sure, I know that in Rhesus Monkies in most definately does exist.

There was a study... ill go and try to find it in a bit, it was in a neuroscience/philosophy book i got somewhere lol .. but it involved two monkies(Monkey A & B)

With the Monkey A given food and everytime Monkey A would eat or try to eat Monkey B would be shocked and subsequently hurt. But Monkey A was able to see this and would refuse to eat and rather starve knowing that that monkey is getting hurt.

A little bit of reciprocal respect. lol


Dope Thread!

Click to expand...

That is insanly neat, I want to see that study. With that information, you really have to say that altruism exists as a involuntary expression. But who knows maybe monkeys are deeper thinkers than we know.

plantvision said:

That is insanly neat, I want to see that study. With that information, you really have to say that altruism exists as a involuntary expression. But who knows maybe monkeys are deeper thinkers than we know.

Click to expand...

Jules Masserman (1905–1989), past president of the American Psychiatric Association, concluded in 1964 that: "A majority of rhesus monkeys will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expense of electroshock to a conspecific."

Man, took me an hour to find this.. lol



http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf