Altruism

[oades11]

Quote by: Tutela de Xaoc If you want to debate altruism with me, start another topic on it. I will say only this on the matter. Altruism is the leading cause of overpopulation. Overpopulation is the leading cause of all other major problems. There are many things that are negative in regards to altruism, your ethics that are based on that, are horribly biased. Just because you don't see the consequences in this lifetime does not mean they don't exist.

My creation of this thread is solely to debunk this ridiculous argument. Feel free to join in so I don't go crazy doing it myself.

He's essentially arguing that "selflessly helping people" causes overpopulation, which is ludicrous. Altruism isn't even falsifiable in the first place: we cannot know with any high degree of certainty whether people act in their own self-interest or not. In the same vein, when any good deed is done, we cannot know whether the individual did it purely selflessly, without regard to self-interest, or not.

[Angry Citizen]

Altruism isn't even falsifiable in the first place: we cannot know with any high degree of certainty whether people act in their own self-interest or not.

Dare I ask what happens to be the logical and practical purpose of social welfare programs, homeless shelters, disaster relief, pay-later health care and others?

[oades11]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Dare I ask what happens to be the logical and practical purpose of social welfare programs, homeless shelters, disaster relief, pay-later health care and others?

What do you mean? Merely because a good deed is done does not prove the intentions of the person(s) responsible. It may be in those people's self-interest, emotionally even, to help in the first place. As far as I'm aware, we cannot know what their primary intent was (or whether seeking their emotional reward was merely ancillary).

[Angry Citizen]

You say it's not altruism. What else could it be? It certainly isn't logical to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for non-productive members of society. The only other possibility is altruism - the desire to help for the sake of helping.

[oades11]

Quote by: Angry Citizen You say it's not altruism. What else could it be? It certainly isn't logical to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for non-productive members of society. The only other possibility is altruism - the desire to help for the sake of helping.

I didn't say it wasn't altruism. I just said that altruism wasn't falsifiable. I actually do think altruism exists in some mild form at least, but I sure as hell don't think it's the primary cause of overpopulation.

[Thanatos]

I act in ways that are arguably completely insane and that happen to usually help people all the time. What's the problem?

[Angry Citizen]

Quote by: oades11 I didn't say it wasn't altruism. I just said that it wasn't falsifiable. I actually do think altruism exists in some mild form at least, and I sure as hell don't think it's the primary cause of overpopulation.

Okay. Then what is the primary cause of overpopulation? Notice that the population only began its exponential leap into oblivion during the 20th century, which also saw the rise of social programs around the world. This could be a spurious correlation, but I doubt it.

[oades11]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Okay. Then what is the primary cause of overpopulation? Notice that the population only began its exponential leap into oblivion during the 20th century, which also saw the rise of social programs around the world. This could be a spurious correlation, but I doubt it.

Overpopulation will either be resolved by a high death rate or a low birth rate. Or both. (Technology held constant- I can't account for future breakthroughs, and I'm not going to simply hang all my hopes on them)

People are living longer through progressive advances in medical technology and a greater overall standard of living. This isn't due to altruism though really. I don't suggest we let all of our grandparents/parents die merely because they've become dependant. There is emotional baggage attached to that so heavily I couldn't say it's really altruistic.

A lack of education and birth control is heavily responsible for the high birth rates, while the above paragraph illustrates why there are lower death rates. Trying to pin it all on "altruism" though is a stretch.

I'm tired, I gotta continue this tomorrow. Been up since 5 AM.

[soothsayer]

You say it's not altruism. What else could it be? It certainly isn't logical to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for non-productive members of society. The only other possibility is altruism - the desire to help for the sake of helping.

Advocating and imposing policies by force is not altruism. Individually or via independent voluntary organizations might be.
Politicians and spokespeople, "advocates" and "organizers" who create for themselves lucrative careers out of ostensibly humanitarian causes and crusades and policymaking are parasites taking full advantage of peer ridicule and the psychology of those who would succumb to their threats preying upon their desire to appear to be doing good. Those who advocate such policies be imposed upon their fellow citizens are not altruistic, they are sanctimonious.

So called "social welfare" programs actually only serve to enrich those who administer them, and actually cause more human suffering than they pretend to address (as demonstrated by the links in this post:
"Libertarianism is a bad political philosophy"

[Angry Citizen]

Quote by: soothsayer Advocating and imposing policies by force is not altruism. Individually or via independent voluntary organizations might be. Politicians and spokespeople, "advocates" and "organizers" who create for themselves lucrative careers out of ostensibly humanitarian causes and crusades and policymaking are parasites taking full advantage of peer ridicule and the psychology of those who would succumb to their threats preying upon their desire to appear to be doing good. Those who advocate such policies be imposed upon their fellow citizens are not altruistic, they are sanctimonious. So called "social welfare" programs actually only serve to enrich those who administer them, and actually cause more human suffering than they pretend to address (as demonstrated by the links in this post: "Libertarianism is a bad political philosophy"

Oh bugger off, sooth. When you consider the fact that every social welfare program in the United States has been enacted by lawfully elected representatives, perhaps you'll understand how wrong you are.

[Tutela de Xaoc]

So, you actually took me up on my challenge.

Altruism, is any selfless act. True altruism cannot exist, except in theory of what it actually is. So, when people use the word altruism they refer to what is commonly accepted as the closest replacement for altruism as a theory. This is that the action, while seemingly selfless, may have other intentions in its execution. For example:

A doctor saves human lives. Saving another's life is considered altruistic to the majority of any given society. However, the doctor is getting paid, and may be doing it for even further selfish motives.

One can see in the example above that even if an action may seem selfless, it never can be. Humans are not altruistic and never can be. An altruistic act can be turned into a selfish one on a conscious (for money), or unconscious (saving the other individual, contributes to the group, which keeps himself surviving as well) level.

So, for my argument, I will be arguing on what is commonly accepted as altruism on a human standard level.

For my first discussion, I will discuss how altruism is the leading cause of overpopulation. There are three main areas that I will touch on, two of which go hand in hand for the most part. They are the following: Healthcare, Government, and Social Programs.

Healthcare-Healthcare, in its finest form, is the very definition of altruism. Taking care of someone's health besides your own. Sharing your knowledge with others so that they may apply it to the masses. By enhancing healthcare, we have more than doubled and in some cases tripled average life spans in several countries. Where average humans used to die at 30-40 years old. They now die between 80-100 years of age. This lengthening of living has contributed to much more population in our society. Not only do they not die, but they can have sex for many more years and have many more children as a result. These numbers exponentionally increase as more people are brought into this world and less die. People that would normally die from a common cold now have Tylenol. Viruses and Area diseases (like the Bubonic Plague) have cures which render them for the most part ineffective. Our technology in healthcare will continue to most likely enhance our health in the future, and this will continue to contribute to our massive population.

Government-By having order in society, order that prevents anything harmful from happening to anyone of equal status. Yes, this is another form of altruism. We prevent people from randomly killing each other among other things that would disrupt this supposedly perfect order we strive for. Granted, this is most likely not the main cause of overpopulation, but it also helps contribute. The fact that the only way you can legally die and legally be disposed of is to die of natural causes and to adhere to expensive government programs to dispose of the dead all for the good and promotion of the health of a given society is another disgusting example of altruism. We are not allowed to kill each other, unless approved by the government first through acts of war. Even accidental kills ruin the killer's lives because "justice" must be given both to the dead and the dead's family. So the killer may still be punished, even if they did not mean to do so. By making people fearful of killing and disrupting order, the government has maintained great control over a massive amount of people. However, their choices contribute to overpopulation because people are not allowed to kill each other and thus not able to get rid of some of the population in those ways.

Social Programs-All Social Programs and Charitable Organizations are usually founded with the intent of helping someone other than yourself. They usually target groups. Old people that can no longer survive by themselves are taken care of in nurseries. Regardless of whether or not the old person wants to die or not. If the old person wants to die, they will be thought of as mentally incompetent and then their rights to their life go to the closest of kin. If the closest of kin wants to let the old person die, they might get accused of assisted suicide or something similar. So in reality, they are just watchdogs for the government to make sure a completely useless body stays living for as long as possible. What exactly are we trying to achieve here folks? Immortality, while at the same time being completely incapable of making our own decisions? What kind of life is that? Then there are orphanages to take care of all the children that are simply not wanted, but society feels they deserve to live simply because they were born. Then there's programs to help the disabled, like those in wheelchairs, who cannot live completely by themselves either in most cases. Not only are they kept surviving through programs initiated by altruistic society, but they are given special priveleges as well. Then we have the mentally impaired. The ones who cannot even think for themselves let alone do any actions that are useful. They just kind of exist and we all bow at their feet allowing them to live simply because they were born. It does not matter that they are a detriment to society, completely useless bodies taking up space. No, we must keep them alive because that is our duty as an altruistic society.

Well, here's to getting started ^^. We shall see where this leads :)

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tutela de Xaoc So, you actually took me up on my challenge. Altruism, is any selfless act. True altruism cannot exist, :)

You have a habit of producing failed arguments.

Care to give us your source for this definition.?
Because if you cannot show this is true then the rest of your argument is also false.

[Tutela de Xaoc]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You have a habit of producing failed arguments. Care to give us your source for this definition.? Because if you cannot show this is true then the rest of your argument is also false.

Society a good enough "proof" for you? Or does society not exist in your opinion?

Quote by: dictionary.com the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tutela de Xaoc Society a good enough "proof" for you? Or does society not exist in your opinion?

Society shows that altruism does exist.

I see a dictionary definition is the best you can do. probably a good example of the depth of thought and effort you have put into all of this.
So allow me to reciprocate with a philisophical dictionary definition
Philosophical Dictionary: Aesthetics-Altruism

Belief that an agent's moral decisions should be guided by consideration for the interests and well-being of other people rather than merely by self-interest, as egoism would recommend. Evidence that human beings do sometimes act in order to benefit others for their own sake seems to count against the common psychological claim that all human action is self-serving.

Not one mention of the word unselfish. So once again your argument has a flaw in it.

But if that's not good enough then let's try an encyclopedia
altruism (ethics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

in ethics, a theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action. The term (French altruisme, derived from Latin alter, “other”) was coined in the 19th century by Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivism, and adopted generally as a convenient antithesis to egoism. As a theory of conduct, its adequacy depends on an interpretation of “the good.” If the term is taken to mean pleasure and the absence of pain, most altruists have agreed that a moral agent has an obligation to further the pleasures and alleviate the pains of other people

Again not one mention of the word selfless. Would seem that your dictionary is a poor reference indeed.
Perhaps you should put some more effort into finding out what a word actually means.

[Kaineg]

Quote by: Angry Citizen You say it's not altruism. What else could it be? It certainly isn't logical to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for non-productive members of society. The only other possibility is altruism - the desire to help for the sake of helping.

Politicians might do it for popularity etc.
People do voluntary work for the feeling of fulfillment they get from helping.
You find people who help and aren't happy to do so that aren't made to and I'll believe Altruism exists.

[Tutela de Xaoc]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Society shows that altruism does exist. I see a dictionary definition is the best you can do. probably a good example of the depth of thought and effort you have put into all of this. So allow me to reciprocate with a philisophical dictionary definition Philosophical Dictionary: Aesthetics-Altruism Not one mention of the word unselfish. So once again your argument has a flaw in it. But if that's not good enough then let's try an encyclopedia altruism (ethics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia Again not one mention of the word selfless. Would seem that your dictionary is a poor reference indeed. Perhaps you should put some more effort into finding out what a word actually means.

I'd respect you much more if you could actually prove me wrong rather than attempting to play with semantics and still fail at it. You agree that unselfish is the direct opposite of selfish correct? If not I can provide sources for that as well. Now pay attention closely. this time I used a thesaurus for ya so that you can see all the synonymys for selfish. Which means that if any of the terms are listed in your previous definitions, then they can be interchanged with the word selfish as well.

Quote by: thesaurus.com Synonyms: egocentric, egoistic, egoistical, egomaniacal, egotistic, egotistical, greedy*, hoggish, mean, mercenary, miserly, narcissistic, narrow, narrow-minded, out for number one, parsimonious, prejudiced, self-centered, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-seeking, stingy, ungenerous, wrapped up in oneself

Now, lets see what your definitions have.

Quote by: quote1 rather than merely by self-interest

Quote by: quote1 egoism

Quote by: quote1 self-serving

Just in case you're not sure what egoism is:

Quote by: dictionary.com 3. Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest.

Again, self-interest, being located inside the thesaurus and thus being synyonomous with the word selfish.

Quote by: quote2 antithesis to egoism

Again, referring to selfishness. So, now that you have kindly been proven wrong after a lame attempt at playing semantics with me, I would kindly ask that you discuss the topic at hand instead of trying to find flaws within the words I use.

[soothsayer]

Oh bugger off, sooth.

You have just told this nice lady, Star Parker, to "bugger off" as well.



Published: Monday, February 9, 2009
by Star Parker of urbancure.org

Six years ago, I wrote a book called "Uncle Sam's Plantation" ---How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What You Can Do About It.

I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion-dollar spending plan is much more than short-term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 - The War on Poverty - which President Johnson said "... does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Uncle Sam's plantation beckons again | NewsChief.com
Government health-care plantation looms | NewsChief.com

When you consider the fact that every social welfare program in the United States has been enacted by lawfully elected representatives, perhaps you'll understand how wrong you are.

...And what other historical littanies of horrors have been perpetrated by "elected leaders" ?
In this thread we are examining the motivations behind seemingly altruistic acts.
Surely the legions of bureaucrats, agents, police, housing authorities, etc etc etc not to mention the politicians themselves have created for themselves a monstrosity of self-serving "industries" built upon perpetuating human suffering and squashing social mobility through the manipulation of a dependency underclass.
Jessee Jackson, "Rev." Al Sharpton, and Obama himself have become multi-millionaires and privileged landowners by ostensibly "serving" the poor.
And let us examine the real motivations of the voters:

quotes by Isbskins1

I wish to see some people controlled by force, and if you were honest, you would admit the same. Some people need to be controlled.

There has always been and will always be a class of poor individuals that for whatever reason, refuse to fully participate in the economic system of the place and time. [...] We have to deal with them.

So we see the motivations behind institutionalizing classes of people by a majority of voters satisfies their classifications of others as different from theselves, requiring "address" as groups. They may cite ostensibly altruisic reasons, but when they reveal their true concerns they are based on isolating others as "undesirable" or potential "criminals" and that their subsistence is an expense they are willing to accept in the name of "safety" or containment.

This is but one of the saddening results of an artificially-created dependency culture:

YouTube - Maury: **18** MEN TESTED!!! WHO DA DADDY? Part 6

I have lived in communities suffering from generational subsistence that destroys all necessity for personal responsibility and advancement and removes all community or familial example of self-determination.

Those who have lived through the "Great Depresion" speak of strong family bonds, love, caring, happiness despite a demanding lifestyle and universally report "not even knowing they were poor".

You can cite statistics about "poverty levels" measured in dollars all you want, but today's U.S. "poor" populations enjoy a much more materially comfortable std of living than do most europeans, however they suffer from a more acute poverty... a moral and spiritual one.

[soothsayer]

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports: Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump­tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour­ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care. The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among chil­dren. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Proponenets of gay marriage often cite the "stabilizing moral effect" of a committed relationship on children, yet the same people misguidedly support social "welfare" policies for the sake of poor children" who in fact, would never have been born into poverty had the systems never existed in the first place.

Institutionalizing seemingly altruistic goals by governmental force, or offering intended altruistic acts by paid bureacuracies by its very definition, makes it no longer altruistic, even if such schemes were successful.

"The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things -- war and hunger and date rape -- liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.
More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things.
It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal."

P.J. O'Rourke

[Tutela de Xaoc]

Quote by: Kaineg Politicians might do it for popularity etc. People do voluntary work for the feeling of fulfillment they get from helping. You find people who help and aren't happy to do so that aren't made to and I'll believe Altruism exists.

That is why true altruism, in theory, does not exist. However, the commonly accepted replacement of altruism, to which AC and the majority of humans refers to, does exist and is in practice.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tutela de Xaoc I'd respect you much more if you could actually prove me wrong rather than attempting to play with semantics and still fail at it. You agree that unselfish is the direct opposite of selfish correct? If not I can provide sources for that as well. Now pay attention closely. this time I used a thesaurus for ya so that you can see all the synonymys for selfish. Which means that if any of the terms are listed in your previous definitions, then they can be interchanged with the word selfish as well. Now, lets see what your definitions have. Just in case you're not sure what egoism is: Again, self-interest, being located inside the thesaurus and thus being synyonomous with the word selfish. Again, referring to selfishness. So, now that you have kindly been proven wrong after a lame attempt at playing semantics with me, I would kindly ask that you discuss the topic at hand instead of trying to find flaws within the words I use.

No let's continue to find flaws with the words you use, After all that is all you have to make this argument. And if the words you use are wrong then your argument is also wrong.

Firstly none of the philosophy of altruism denies that people act out of self interest.
So your argument that altruism is acting without self interest is false.

So your attempt to prove altruism does not exist is false because your definition is false.

You have failed to prove altruism does not exist.
all you have done is prove that your definition is an impossible condition.
But your definition is wrong. altruism is not defined as a selfless act so all the synonyms you came up with do not count at all.

Try to do abit more reading on the subject, rather than just open up a dictionary and accept the first thing you see as gospel.
A typical amateur philosopher mistake to make but as you get better you will learn to read a bit more than a dictionary