Talk:Altruism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Talk:Altruism/Archive1 (21:18, 2 March 2001 - 20:21, 25 June 2006) — 145Kb
Contents |
[edit] Tags
I've added the two tags for passages such as the following:
Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place.
- FrancisTyers · 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] altruism is neither sufficient nor necessary for desirable social outcomes
Someone should summarise and include Joel Sobel's argument (made in http://www.econ.ucsd.edu/~jsobel/Papers/Rachlin.pdf) that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.
Putting Altruism in Context
Joel Sobel
September 11, 2002 Abstract I argue that Rachlin’s notion of self control is imprecise and not well suited to the discussion of altruism. Rachlin’s broader agenda, to improve collective welfare by identifying behavioral mechanisms that increase altruism, neglects the fact that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.
Crasshopper 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Altruism: Selfishness
No mention?? C'mon!? Resaebiunne 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This article should include some criticism of altruism by egoists such as Ayn Rand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.234.109.208 (talk • contribs).
David Kelley's criticism is cited in the section Altruism and Politics. He is an Objectivist, meaning a follower of Ayn Rand. The passage quoted is illogical. Ayn Rand is not considered to be a serious philosopher and is therefore largely ignored by philosophers. There are good reasons for this. She also has a political agenda and is a cult leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.46.161.165 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Pure Altruism's Existence
So is it actually agreed that altruism does not fully exist? It's noted in Psychology/Sociology. I'm thinking that altruism presents an illusion of non-egocentric goodwill, when in the end all good acts are actually for the betterment of one's self, because they make one feel better about oneself, or have that distinct ring in the head resultant of helping others out - therefore, altruism is yet another selfish thing. It is only incidental that this selfish thing has an output that proves beneficial to others. Externally it may seem selfless, but in actuality it ain't. Of course, that doesn't precisely explain why people sacrifice their lives to save others. A desire to go to heaven, maybe? This could get somewhere. Thing Christianity. As human beings, it is conceptually impossible to do good deeds out of love for God, because time and time again the statement is that you go to heaven if you love God. All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell.
- I disagree at some point. This is not a discussion board about views however. Just to briefly explain my objectoin however.
1. Just becasue one receives benefits from such actions does not mean that is why one does such actions. 2. "All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell"-It's true Christians preach condemnation to the unbelievers, but that doesn't change the fact that whats far more exciting is a personal relationship with God, not escaping Hell. It is very possible to do such actions out of love. 3. I'm getting a little long so back on topic, while it is true it easy to desire the gain from such actions that initeself is not selfishness if one's primary reasoning is for the good of others, or because one's love for God. 74.137.230.39 01:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neitzsche and Altruism
I'm interested in the statement "Nietzsche asserts that altruism is predicated on the assumption that others are more important than one's self and that such a position is degrading and demeaning. He also claims that it was very uncommon for people in Europe to consider the sacrifice of one's own interests for others as virtuous until after the advent of Christianity." While he may have said these things (can we have a reference to where he said it please?), the passage does not really represent Nietzsches values, which I would argue were very much in favour of behaviour not entirely dissimilar to altruism. In "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Nietzsche clearly celebrates the person who "goes-under" for the sake of the Ubermensch, who is the higher-being, mankind's evolutionary successor. To paraphrase, he argues mankind should make Ubermensch as the purpose of our lives and the goal of our succession (while not denying our current existence). bc42 10:13, 24 November 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Altruism - Part of english culture?
And I thought that it was not altruism, but greed, camouflaged as success...Ko Soi IX 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Note on altruism in evolutionary biology
I'm removing the idea that group selection caused the evolution of altruism. One must focus on the gain to the individual performing the altruistic act (short run=loss, long run=gain in darwinian fitness). I'm quite surprised there no explanation of the evolutionary models of altruism (such as [reciprocal altruism] model or [indirect reciprocity] model). 24.250.22.58 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First sentence seems unconnected.
It mentions the connection between the Golden rule of reciprocity, and altruism; however, altruism involves unselfishness, while the other expects you to treat others as you'd like to be treated. There are a lot of ethical "rules" or guidelines; why make the connection between these two? Is the english version of altruism really the same as reciprocity? They just don't seem to match each other as much as the sentence indicates, which makes the sentence seem out of place.
