Does altruism exist or is it just a word?

[Blackthornone]

What? No...no no no.

Self preservation and selfishness do not go hand and hand. One can easily have selfish tendencies that display a very clear lack of concern for their general well being.


Actively pursuing death is on the extreme end my argument, I don't think its even part of my argument, I will say that for one to "actively pursue" death, they have crossed a line somewhere into something. What? I don't know what, but it seems like a different distinction entirely. Who even said actively pursing death, well you did, but no. What? No. That's not what I'm saying here.

Anyway. You originally said...



My only argument here is that selfishness being "something does good to yourself" is not necessarily true. Fat guy selfishly eats the last 5 donuts at work with no concern for anyone who may have not gotten one. Is eating 5 donuts good for you? No. Not really. Is he "actively pursuing death"? No. Not really. But he's still being selfish and self destructive.

Damn it. I'm not gonna argue with you.

I simply refuse to accept your opinion in this matter.


That is all. Good day sir.

I agree with Devil of 76. True selfishness is what benefits the self. The self is not to be confused with the ego. The ego can desire things which are not good for the self, so it is egotistical to want to eat 5 donuts out of pride and arrogance, which the ego is about, and one's personal well being be damned.

The only LOGICAL definition of selfish is to do what truly benefits the self. The commonly accepted notion of selfishness is an inherently unreasonable and illogical one.

 

[Blackthornone]

Our views are not that different.

When you say that mistreating or neglecting your love would literally be a selfless act I understand. Hurting your love would be hurting your self – literally selfless. Caring for your love cares for your self.

I once saw Ayn Rand say that a man might even die for his wife if he believed life without her would be more awful than death itself. Thus, even in death he would be living with rational self-interest as his only moral compass. It would be no sacrifice, no show of altruism. I understand her point.

The problem I have with relegating love to “pure egoism” is that it makes it too easy to justify leaving your family if you fall ‘out of love’ with your mate.

Case in point:

I have an acquaintance; for our purposes, lets say his name is Bill. Bill is 32 and was married about twelve years ago. A few years later, Bill’s two nephews were orphaned. Bill and his wife decided to adopt these two boys. And not long after that they decided to adopt two more children; two girls. Meanwhile, Bill begins to fall out of love with his wife. He eventually even begins to have feelings of loathing towards her. After twelve years of marriage he walks out on his family. No effort was made to seek counseling. The wife had no idea there was even a problem. One day Bill just sat his family down and said he was leaving; that he already had an apartment rented. His children were screaming and holding on to his pants legs as he made his way out the door.

Not long after this Bill began dating 18-19 year olds. He claims he still loves his children but he only spends time with them 4 days a month.

I have not spoken to Bill since I learned that he was sleeping/living with a 19-year-old girl in his ‘bachelor pad’, but lets assume that he is very pleased with the current trajectory of his life. From a strictly evolutionary standpoint he has done nothing wrong. Those children weren’t ‘his’. He no longer loved his wife, and he can still give seed to fertile young women. As long as he is truly happy, he should be applauded for his rational self-interest. Perhaps later he can even find “true love”, a more pure egoism.


Well I’m sorry, I find this kind of behavior repugnant. And it happens all the time, probably every day. Maybe not this exact scenario with adopted children and so on, but both husbands/fathers, and wives/mothers leave their families to “follow their heart”. When married life isn’t the fairytale they thought it would be, people bail with very little thought given to how they might work things out.

The family is in a sad state, and I blame the self-first attitude for it. Even if you call it rational self-interest to imply a difference with run-of-the-mill selfishness, it still teaches people to be ass holes.

From an evolutionary standpoint Bill has done something wrong. He has undermined human trust and partnership as he broke his promise to his wife, and possibly the commitment he made to his adopted children.
An important part of what helps the human race to perpetuate and evolve is partnership between all human beings that allows human needs to be met, and the promise to follow through on ones commitments that inspires confidence that needs will be met which fosters hope for the future of human life.
It is impossible for human beings to continue to survive with everyone out for themselves. People need to mate to perpetuate life, and that mating necessitates follow through, which requires commitment. Without commitment the entire fabric of the human community breaks down, and humanity itself slips into extinction.


One more thing. People who are incapable of keeping an oath have no business making it. The marriage vows are swearing an oath to have and to hold, love, honor and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better, or for worse, till death do you part. There might be more, but it's what I recall. If you can't do it, don't say it. Maybe you can't promise to do it with the person you are considering, or maybe you are the kind of person who can't do it at all. He honest with yourself and with everyone else and honor that. Be authentic. Don't stand up and lie to everyone just to have the recognition and respect or status of a marriage ceremony to have a nice big wonderful party if you don't mean it. It's a special occasion only because people are supposed to actually MEAN their marriage vows, and follow through on them. THAT is a special occasion. If you don't follow through, or get divorced, then the whole marriage ceremony and the marriage vows were nothing more than just one big lie, said for the sake of social advancement. It's pathetic and dishonorable.


If you want to be single, then be that, but you shouldn't make promises you can't keep, otherwise your word means nothing, just like JFK, Muhammed ALI, Ray Charles, David Letterman, and every other person who ever cheated on their spouse.

 

[Maglor]

Our views are not that different.

When you say that mistreating or neglecting your love would literally be a selfless act I understand. Hurting your love would be hurting your self – literally selfless. Caring for your love cares for your self.

I once saw Ayn Rand say that a man might even die for his wife if he believed life without her would be more awful than death itself. Thus, even in death he would be living with rational self-interest as his only moral compass. It would be no sacrifice, no show of altruism. I understand her point.

The problem I have with relegating love to “pure egoism” is that it makes it too easy to justify leaving your family if you fall ‘out of love’ with your mate.

Case in point:

I have an acquaintance; for our purposes, lets say his name is Bill. Bill is 32 and was married about twelve years ago. A few years later, Bill’s two nephews were orphaned. Bill and his wife decided to adopt these two boys. And not long after that they decided to adopt two more children; two girls. Meanwhile, Bill begins to fall out of love with his wife. He eventually even begins to have feelings of loathing towards her. After twelve years of marriage he walks out on his family. No effort was made to seek counseling. The wife had no idea there was even a problem. One day Bill just sat his family down and said he was leaving; that he already had an apartment rented. His children were screaming and holding on to his pants legs as he made his way out the door.

Not long after this Bill began dating 18-19 year olds. He claims he still loves his children but he only spends time with them 4 days a month.

I have not spoken to Bill since I learned that he was sleeping/living with a 19-year-old girl in his ‘bachelor pad’, but lets assume that he is very pleased with the current trajectory of his life. From a strictly evolutionary standpoint he has done nothing wrong. Those children weren’t ‘his’. He no longer loved his wife, and he can still give seed to fertile young women. As long as he is truly happy, he should be applauded for his rational self-interest. Perhaps later he can even find “true love”, a more pure egoism.


Well I’m sorry, I find this kind of behavior repugnant. And it happens all the time, probably every day. Maybe not this exact scenario with adopted children and so on, but both husbands/fathers, and wives/mothers leave their families to “follow their heart”. When married life isn’t the fairytale they thought it would be, people bail with very little thought given to how they might work things out.

The family is in a sad state, and I blame the self-first attitude for it. Even if you call it rational self-interest to imply a difference with run-of-the-mill selfishness, it still teaches people to be ass holes.

Calling it rational when it's not doesn't make it rational. In fact, you can't separate the concepts. Rationality is selfish. Irrationality is self-destructive, thus not a means to pursuing self-interest.

The commonly accepted meaning of selfishness is a contradiction.

How do you determine what is self-destructive? Bill didn't kill anyone, and he's happy. His own rational self interest is working out great for him. As long as he's "happy" with his decision how was it self-destructive in the least?

 

[fosing]

you can still display altruism and be a d!!ck at the same time.

 

[thenammagazine]

How do you determine what is self-destructive? Bill didn't kill anyone, and he's happy. His own rational self interest is working out great for him. As long as he's "happy" with his decision how was it self-destructive in the least?

Poor Maggy can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Maglor]

Poor Maggy can't see the forest for the trees.

Excuse me?

I don't think you even understood my question.

 

[Maglor]

I know how I determine what is self destructive. I'm asking D how he determines what is self-destructive.

 

[devilof76]

The foundation of what I need to live, per nature, is a rational mind. Abiding contradiction is the most obvious way to compromise that.

Your friend is either lying that he loves his kids, or he has no clue what it means to love someone. The dishonesty he subjected his wife to was cruel and cowardly. His behavior now is cheap and not what I would ever call human. How can you call it rational when he has such a blatant disrespect for what's real?

People can be content with living that kind of life, but I reserve the term happiness for something that you can't achieve by low-balling the standards reality has set for you. There's an analog in the lives of the early saints. I don't think they'd call it happiness, because I believe they were expressly opposed to any secular notion of happiness, but they did live how they wanted, and by their own conviction, they did so with success. Some of them refused to drink anything but laundry water. Some would mix ashes and sheep's gall with their food. Some would wear hair shirts and use rocks to sleep on. Anything to make their lives miserable. Their asceticism was monstrous, but I doubt that their primary emotional vectors would ever conceive of it as wrong or evil. I'm sure some experienced states of exaltation in the midst of their self-deprecation, but just because they lived in accordance with their chosen complex of whims, does not mean that they lived successfully as human beings.

In essence, that is what happiness is.

 

[Maglor]

There's nothing selfish about murder.

What if I'm killing for my pleasure?

Exactly.

Gaining pleasure from murder arises from a set of ideas which could not sustain your life long term. The pleasure you are experiencing is as much against yourself as it is against your victim. It's an anti-life emotion, and that includes your own.

What if you never got caught?



"What is good for me is right." - William Edward Hickman

 

[Maglor]

From an evolutionary standpoint Bill has done something wrong. He has undermined human trust and partnership as he broke his promise to his wife, and possibly the commitment he made to his adopted children.
An important part of what helps the human race to perpetuate and evolve is partnership between all human beings that allows human needs to be met, and the promise to follow through on ones commitments that inspires confidence that needs will be met which fosters hope for the future of human life.
It is impossible for human beings to continue to survive with everyone out for themselves. People need to mate to perpetuate life, and that mating necessitates follow through, which requires commitment. Without commitment the entire fabric of the human community breaks down, and humanity itself slips into extinction.

Not all evolutionists would agree with this.

One more thing. People who are incapable of keeping an oath have no business making it. The marriage vows are swearing an oath to have and to hold, love, honor and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better, or for worse, till death do you part. There might be more, but it's what I recall. If you can't do it, don't say it. Maybe you can't promise to do it with the person you are considering, or maybe you are the kind of person who can't do it at all. He honest with yourself and with everyone else and honor that. Be authentic. Don't stand up and lie to everyone just to have the recognition and respect or status of a marriage ceremony to have a nice big wonderful party if you don't mean it. It's a special occasion only because people are supposed to actually MEAN their marriage vows, and follow through on them. THAT is a special occasion. If you don't follow through, or get divorced, then the whole marriage ceremony and the marriage vows were nothing more than just one big lie, said for the sake of social advancement. It's pathetic and dishonorable.


If you want to be single, then be that, but you shouldn't make promises you can't keep, otherwise your word means nothing, just like JFK, Muhammed ALI, Ray Charles, David Letterman, and every other person who ever cheated on their spouse.

Although I agree that you shouldn’t get married unless you grasp the basic meaning of commitment, many people get married with the best of intentions and still bail.

 

[thenammagazine]

Excuse me?

I don't think you even understood my question.

You're being played like a well-used deck of cards.

 

[devilof76]

What if you never got caught?

How do you escape your need for self-esteem, and how does one get away with life as a human when their behavior is as anti-human as it gets?

"What is good for me is right." - William Edward Hickman

Begging the question (it's also circular). What is good for you, and how do you know it?

 

[Maglor]

You're being played like a well-used deck of cards.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Devilof76 and I have been having this conversation for months (years?), mostly in PM's. So you might not be grasping all the implications here.

How do you escape your need for self-esteem, and how does one get away with life as a human when their behavior is as anti-human as it gets?

A sociopath's self esteem is not in any way harmed by going against social norms.

William Edward Hickman lived his life with an absolute lack of 'social instinct or herd feeling'. When he kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered a 12 year old, he was troubled by no hand-wringing or remorse.

 

[devilof76]

Murder is not wrong because it violates a social norm.

 

[thenammagazine]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Devilof76 and I have been having this conversation for months (years?), mostly in PM's. So you might not be grasping all the implications here.

Just how far will that donkey go, following that carrot held in front of his face.

 

[devilof76]

I'm so serious, it's not even funny.

 

[Maglor]

 

[devilof76]

You openly admitted that you think that the reason why a person should not commit murder is because it's socially unacceptable, and you're calling me indoctrinated?

Ok, bub.

 

[Maglor]

You openly admitted that you think that the reason why a person should not commit murder is because it's socially unacceptable, and you're calling me indoctrinated?

Ok, bub.

Just did an image search for "why so serious" and saw that one. Couldn't resist using it.


And no, I don't believe that murder is wrong because it's socially unacceptable. But you already know that.


Why do you say murder is wrong?

 

[devilof76]

Inalienable right to life.

I have to go to work, so I'm not going to present the full argument for why we have one, or how we relinquish it if we take the life of another.

I'll just leave it at reason forbidding one to have their cake and eat it too.