True Altruism: Does it exist?

[SoylentGreen]

True Altruism: Does it exist?
Q:

Is there such thing as a purely selfless act?

What triad has done here is to create a false premise.
He has falsely claimed that the definition of altruism is, a purely selfless act.
Note that he provides nothing in the way of verifying that this is the actual definition and not just the product of a fevered imagination.

What he also does here is completely ignore the fact that the actual creator of the word and concept of altruism went on to agree with his peers that his original definition "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others ".
was far to extreme and so it was changed to ". Loving others as oneself."

Now having created a false premise ,triad then goes on to reach a false conclusion .
That there is no such thing as a selfless act.

Now take a look at the posts that follow from the Op.
Has any one actually come up with a convincing reason as to why there is no such thing as a selfless act?
The answer is no.
What they have done is all tacitly agree that acts of self sacrifice , a selfless act,. do exist. BUT that those acts are motivated by other reasons.
Triad has given us a perfect example of how a false premise leads to a false conclusion . And that by accepting the conclusion it leads only to confusion.

Triad, Please do the right thing and concede that you have made a mistake in defining altruism. Then you can actually get on and ask a real question.
Not, does a selfless act exist, but, what motivates a selfless act.

[triad]

I think you are still confused by the fact that the animal kingdom differs from human society. We're not talking about zoology, we're talking about mankind. That is why I used words like 'know' and 'reasoning', because these are things animals do not have... I did that to show you why altruism doesn't exist in animals when we're talking about acting unselfishly, because animals are not even self-aware.


I will admit that through instinct and survival of the fittest, altruism exists in animals in a completely different way than humans.


I apologize for not posting proof, allow me:

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

altruism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 06, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism



Notice how they have two separate definitions, one pertaining to a more human-like definition, selflessness, and one pertaining to animals with a separate definition.


Here it is again:

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

altruism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 06, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism


Note: Two separate definitions, one for 'Animal Behavior'.


So in that case, let's drop the animal kingdom... which you brought up in the first place... and actually debate my acclaimed false OP.


Since I labeled the title of this entire thread 'True Altruism: Does it exist?' I clearly stated I wanted to know if the most extreme form, 'true', of altruism can be real. Also known as, pure.... pure altruism, purely unselfish, pure selflessness.


Now show me again how that is a false premise?


You're the one that brought up bees and monkeys, now show me how that directly relates to the OP, otherwise you are the one with the false premise.





I said:

Is there such thing as a purely selfless act?

As in, there is absolutely no personal gain, no recognition, no motive to do something to help another person.

You said:

Can I first ask the question of , who actually defined altruism in such a way?
A common mistake so your answer is moot.

Well not according to my sources. I'll post more at the end of this...


.... Then you said:

It exists within the animal kingdom. They do not use reason but instinct.
So yes altruism does exist as in meaning 1. It exists in meaning 2 But in your definition it does not.

So I was clearly talking about people - "another person", then you took that and went straight to the animal kingdom - which I have proved is a whole different topic. Remember when I said...

...because they don't have reasoning to make the choice... just instinct. That is why your comparison with humans and the animal kingdom are flawed.

I will concede the fact that you know WAY more about the survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. You just haven't shown me how that relates to us humans, which is what I have been getting at.


Perhaps I will overhaul this thread by changing my question to this:



NEW THREAD QUESTION... as requested by SoylentGreen:


In human society, is it possible for someone to commit a purely selfless act?






How are we doing SoylentGreen?




More proof that SG's comparison of humans to animals is flawed:

1853, "unselfishness, opposite of egoism," from Fr. altruisme, coined or popularized 1830 by Fr. philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), from autrui, from O.Fr. altrui "of or to others," from L. alteri, dat. of alter "other" (see alter). Apparently suggested to Comte by Fr. legal phrase l'autrui, or in full, le bien, le droit d'autrui. The -l- is perhaps from the L. word.

Correct me if I am wrong SoylentGreen, but animals don't have 'egos', do they?

[Thanatos]

I'm not sure what to make of your post.

Don't worry, sometimes I'm not sure what I'm saying either. I find that there's no better way to sort out my thoughts than to write them down then reread them later.

I think the majority of people agree that altruism is when someone is acting deliberately in an unselfish manner... and not dropping something on the sidewalk unknowingly. Don't worry, I picked up the sarcasm. I'm just trying to figure out the way we decide to do something that is regarded as 'nice', and if it is even possible to do it purely for selfless reasons.

Why is giving fun? Why would we evolve that way? The people who are presenting arguments related to animals are on the right track. The golden rule is just an efficient way to organize a society and our intellects have little to do with it.

[triad]

Don't worry, sometimes I'm not sure what I'm saying either. I find that there's no better way to sort out my thoughts than to write them down then reread them later.



Why is giving fun? Why would we evolve that way? The people who are presenting arguments related to animals are on the right track. The golden rule is just an efficient way to organize a society and our intellects have little to do with it.

Isn't the evolution of our intellect all to do with it? I don't see intellectual evolution as a natural evolution, but rather the passing down of information from generation to generation in human form. It isn't like generation 7 mutated from generation 1 and was born with more knowledge, the information was passed down from generation 1 - 7.


That is what animals don't have. They rely on beneficial mutations to keep them.. ahem, so they can survive as the fittest. Whereas humans now just rely on information. How can comparing the mutation of genes to the knowledge available to a society be on the right track?

[SoylentGreen]

triadYou just haven't shown me how that relates to us humans, which is what I have been getting at.

Scientists, Anthropologists do actually use the word altruism. It is an acceptable word.
When they use it, it has a specific meaning. "promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. ".
This trait exists in many different species. It exists because it is a successful trait that promote survival.

That same trait also exists in humans. Human societies have that trait because it promotes survival for that society. As among the species that do practice altruism , anthropologists have no record of any sub set or tribe of animals of that species that don't practice it. They either became extinct or not having altruism was never a viable trait to come into existence. The same with humans. All societies that exist practice that trait. Either the ones who didn't have become extinct or it was never a viable trait to exist.

Since I labeled the title of this entire thread 'True Altruism: Does it exist?' I clearly stated I wanted to know if the most extreme form, 'true', of altruism can be real. Also known as, pure.... pure altruism, purely unselfish, pure selflessness.
Now show me again how that is a false premise?

Quote by: Online Etymology Dictionary
1853, "unselfishness, opposite of egoism," from Fr. altruisme, coined or popularized 1830 by Fr. philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), from autrui, from O.Fr. altrui "of or to others," from L. alteri, dat. of alter "other" (see alter). Apparently suggested to Comte by Fr. legal phrase l'autrui, or in full, le bien, le droit d'autrui. The -l- is perhaps from the L. word.

This is the gist of it.
French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word altruisme in 1851, and two years later it entered the English language as altruism.
So the dictionary references are only giving the definition first coined by Comte in 1851.
However the fact is that after giving it a lot of thought and discussing it with his peers, it was agreed by all that the better definition of altruism should be "Loving others as oneself".
The dictionaries are correct when they say "1853, "unselfishness, opposite of egoism," from Fr. altruisme, coined or popularized 1830 by Fr. philosopher Auguste Comte".
They just don't go on to say that the definition was later changed.
Thus a valuable lesson for you that dictionaries are a great starting point when trying to learn something, but they are not the only or even the correct source of information available.

Perhaps I will overhaul this thread by changing my question to this:

Thank you , and now i will give you the reason why I was so pedantic about the definition and not just because I was trying to be an asshole and derail your thread.
you stated "I wanted to know if the most extreme form, 'true', of altruism can be real.".
If that's really the case then I owe you an apology for taking the thread into an area aside from where you really wanted it to be.
However if it is the case that you are secretly a Rand disciple and this is nothing more that a thinly disguised support for her stance that altruism does not exist. And in all fairness your OP does mirror her argument to the extent that that could be possible, then I owe you no apology and will continue to attack your stance.
So, which is it?

In human society, is it possible for someone to commit a purely selfless act?

Oh man, your going to hate me for this but, no, still not happy.
You have already been given plenty of examples of purely selfless acts, so yes they do exist.

The problem with your question is motivation. It should read "what motivates a selfless act."
An example.
There is proof that a soldier will commit a selfless act eg. throwing himself on a live grenade to save his buddies.
What motivated him.
1. Training.
2. he was ordered to.
3. some kind of moralistic impulse (please specify as to what exactly that moral impulse could be.
4.some of the above.
5.none of the above.

Correct me if I am wrong SoylentGreen, but animals don't have 'egos', do they?

And correct me if I am wrong , but humans do have instincts

[Thanatos]

Isn't the evolution of our intellect all to do with it? I don't see intellectual evolution as a natural evolution, but rather the passing down of information from generation to generation in human form. It isn't like generation 7 mutated from generation 1 and was born with more knowledge, the information was passed down from generation 1 - 7.


That is what animals don't have. They rely on beneficial mutations to keep them.. ahem, so they can survive as the fittest. Whereas humans now just rely on information. How can comparing the mutation of genes to the knowledge available to a society be on the right track?

Is the first thought through your mind when you see hungry children in one of those ads of how giving will benefit you? Is it even the second thought or the third? Does altruism feel like a chore in furtherance of some greater goal or is it fun in and of itself? We're not a rational species. Sometimes we come to conclusions first and then develop logic to fit those conclusions, and if we aren't smart enough to convince ourselves to follow our instincts we have religion.

[triad]

Scientists, Anthropologists do actually use the word altruism. It is an acceptable word.
When they use it, it has a specific meaning. "promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. ".
This trait exists in many different species. It exists because it is a successful trait that promote survival.

That same trait also exists in humans. Human societies have that trait because it promotes survival for that society. As among the species that do practice altruism , anthropologists have no record of any sub set or tribe of animals of that species that don't practice it. They either became extinct or not having altruism was never a viable trait to come into existence. The same with humans. All societies that exist practice that trait. Either the ones who didn't have become extinct or it was never a viable trait to exist.

You schooled me on a whole bunch there... and I have nothing to say or argue with that.

Thus a valuable lesson for you that dictionaries are a great starting point when trying to learn something, but they are not the only or even the correct source of information available.

Fair enough, lesson learned.

Thank you , and now i will give you the reason why I was so pedantic about the definition and not just because I was trying to be an asshole and derail your thread.

No hard feelings there, I've enjoyed every word in this thread so far.

you stated "I wanted to know if the most extreme form, 'true', of altruism can be real.".
If that's really the case then I owe you an apology for taking the thread into an area aside from where you really wanted it to be.

That is really the case, and here is why...

However if it is the case that you are secretly a Rand disciple

Give me a second while I google 'Rand disciple'....

... Nope, definitely not one of those. We're good.

So, which is it?

Well, considering I've never heard of this woman and I fear cults in general, I'd say option 1.

Oh man, your going to hate me for this but, no, still not happy.
You have already been given plenty of examples of purely selfless acts, so yes they do exist.

The problem with your question is motivation. It should read "what motivates a selfless act."
An example.
There is proof that a soldier will commit a selfless act eg. throwing himself on a live grenade to save his buddies.
What motivated him.
1. Training.
2. he was ordered to.
3. some kind of moralistic impulse (please specify as to what exactly that moral impulse could be.
4.some of the above.
5.none of the above.


And correct me if I am wrong , but humans do have instincts

Also fair enough, I owe you an apology for I was too busy keeping my stance that I didn't consider the examples.


My OP question is now answered, it is possible for someone to commit a purely altruistic act. I think. Actually I am pretty confused at this point...

So if someone jumps on a grenade to save their comrade soldier, their motive(s) that are responsible for doing so relate directly to altruism and is evidence that it must exist in order for a species to survive - including humans. However, our morals must always play a role in our reactions and I think once we act according to them we are satisfying those morals. Like Bacon Guy and I have agreed on ... but according to the man that invented 'altruism' it is just loving others as you love yourself, so jumping on the grenade - for whatever reason - is still objectively acting purely unselfish, regardless of the subjective motive of the person acting.


What have I gotten myself into?


Therefore, as a human being and as a species, we rely on these spontaneous acts of altruism in order to survive. If this is true, than the evidence that pure altruism exists is in the axiom that humans exist. Natural selection hand crafted altrusim... is what I have learned.


I'm going to go lather myself in butter and rotate slowly over an open fire so I can marinate in all this. Then I'll come back hoping to have wrapped my head around everything I have just said and read.

[inri]

Yes ??! I agree completely. Even the seemingly kindest of acts cannot be committed without the perpetrator fulfilling his or her 'want'. Yes, that 'want' may be as simple and basic as desiring to help another because it 'feels' like the right thing to do, but the desire to engage in this action is still at it's basis. It's fueled by this individuals 'want' to make themselves feel good.

yes, it certainly does appear less selfish to have 'wants' that include helping others, however as no act can occur without some ssort of thought to back it up, (however fleeting that thought may seem in certain circumstances), there is no such thing as a 'selfless' act. Every act committed fulfills a personal need or desire on the part of the individual 'acting'.

[SoylentGreen]

Yes ??! I agree completely. Even the seemingly kindest of acts cannot be committed without the perpetrator fulfilling his or her 'want'. Yes, that 'want' may be as simple and basic as desiring to help another because it 'feels' like the right thing to do, but the desire to engage in this action is still at it's basis. It's fueled by this individuals 'want' to make themselves feel good.

yes, it certainly does appear less selfish to have 'wants' that include helping others, however as no act can occur without some ssort of thought to back it up, (however fleeting that thought may seem in certain circumstances), there is no such thing as a 'selfless' act. Every act committed fulfills a personal need or desire on the part of the individual 'acting'.

Is this really an answer or is it a paradox?
People do commit selfless acts, but all acts are really selfish to a degree. So there is no such thing as a selfless act, even though people commit selfless acts.
The question you answered is what motivates a selfless act
The question I would ask you is, what is a selfless act?

[inri]

I actually thought I was quite clear that I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'selfless' act, As it's impossible to commit an act without the 'self' entering into it. Yes I'm describing how motivations for acts vary. There is never an act committed without SOME kind of personal MOTIVATION behind it.

Albeit, sometimes we choose to act because it will benefit another person, but the act is still committed to ultimately 'please' OURSELVES....the individual committing the act is gaining something (feeling good about themself) by committing the act.

[SoylentGreen]

I actually thought I was quite clear that I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'selfless' act, As it's impossible to commit an act without the 'self' entering into it. Yes I'm describing how motivations for acts vary. There is never an act committed without SOME kind of personal MOTIVATION behind it.

Albeit, sometimes we choose to act because it will benefit another person, but the act is still committed to ultimately 'please' OURSELVES....the individual committing the act is gaining something (feeling good about themself) by committing the act.

But still no definition of a selfless act, just what motivates it.
Or perhaps you did try to define it when you said

Albeit, sometimes we choose to act because it will benefit another

So we get back to the paradox. Sometimes people do commit a selfless act, but then there is no such thing as a selfless act.

[inri]

But still no definition of a selfless act, just what motivates it.
Or perhaps you did try to define it when you said

So we get back to the paradox. Sometimes people do commit a selfless act, but then there is no such thing as a selfless act.

How can I possibly 'define' what a 'selfless act' is, when I don't believe that it exists??
No paradox here.....Im confused as to why you keep thinking that i'm saying that people committ 'selfless acts"....I agree that people sometimes commit 'seemingly kind acts' - that will bring benefit to another as well as to themselves...nope, no such thing as an act that is 'selfless' in my world.
In order for an act to be called 'selfless' is would have to be committed completely free from motive of any kind....this is impossible.