Altruism is defined as "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." by 'thefreedictionary.com'.
I don't believe it exists. All supposed selfless acts occur as a result of much deliberation of another's circumstance. There must be hope for some gain however small.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism altruism; 1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Yes I do I've done things without any foreseeable gain to myself solely for the benefit of others welfare. There are plenty of stories of people who have risked there own life just to save the life of another, even though it was not there job and could have easily have not bothered.
I think a more interesting question is can altruism exist within a religious context?
Another good question, to me at least, is does altruism exist in other mammals or even micro-organisms?
I don't think there is true altruism in nature, almost everything is linked with an advantage in fitness, however small it is. True altruism has very bad card to establish and may only do so if linked with a completely independent attribute compensating it (I think). And I've never heard of something like that. It would simply be outselected.
I believe in altruism seeing as it is the foundation for my moral code which I strictly live by. To my friends I am considered one of the most selfless people they have ever met. I never calculate gain when I decide to act for someone elses well being, and I rarely care for the concequences and how I myself may be affected. This does not mean I am a saint. I've made more mistakes than I care for, but I try to lead a moral life.
I think a more interesting question is can altruism exist within a religious context
It would be impossible. The acts of selflessness would always be one of gain. People wouldn't act on their own accord, but because their god said they had to. Following someone else's morals does not make you mroal.
does altruism exist in other mammals or even micro-organisms?
Interesting. The closest I've seen to this is my dog share dog food with my cat.
Are you allowed to gain anything at all when you're being selfless? - Someone wants to be remembered as a good person, so they help others. In return for him helping others, he has gained a reputation that he sought.
If you aren't being selfless, are you being selfish? - If you help a friend with a relationship problem and you expect them to help you with homework in return, are you being selfish? If you see a plate full of cookies and you eat as many of them as you can so nobody has more than you, are you being selfish?
-If you would consider yourself selfish in both scenarios, are they both the same form of selfishness?
Simply put, is selfishness any form of self-gain? If so, is selfishness always a bad thing?
Simply put, is selfishness any form of self-gain? If so, is selfishness always a bad thing?
selfishness is a human thing but that doesn't make it good hhmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... even "selfless" religious people do good things to appease their god so that they may get into heaven.
It would be impossible. The acts of selflessness would always be one of gain. People wouldn't act on their own accord, but because their god said they had to. Following someone else's morals does not make you moral.
Does it make you immoral?
More importantly, is it possible for someone to do kind things because they are selfless and because they want to go to heaven?
Let's say Johny helps an old lady carry in her groceries into her house and asks nothing in return. Let's also assume that Johny is very religious. Let me point out two possible drives that push Johny to help the old lady.
1. Johny wants to be closer to God, so he decides to help the old lady. 2. Johny wants to help the old lady, but he also believes it will make him closer to God.
I believe it is a great thing for an atheist to defend themselves in debate by saying they don't need God to do good things. However, I believe it is a terrible thing for anyone to say that theists only do good because they want to go to heaven. It is suggesting that without God, they would be completely selfish.
Are you allowed to gain anything at all when you're being selfless? - Someone wants to be remembered as a good person, so they help others. In return for him helping others, he has gained a reputation that he sought.
In biologic terms altruism is characterized by giving an advantage to a non-related individuum at the cost of your own fitness. The example you stated is frequent, and imo no real altruism, since you're hoping for a better social status, which in turn will open you more possibilities; even if you're not doing so consciously.
If you aren't being selfless, are you being selfish? - If you help a friend with a relationship problem and you expect them to help you with homework in return, are you being selfish? If you see a plate full of cookies and you eat as many of them as you can so nobody has more than you, are you being selfish?
Um, in both cases probably yes?
-If you would consider yourself selfish in both scenarios, are they both the same form of selfishness?
No, first one is like quid pro quo, you make him/her a service and they make you one in return, both take profit out of it. In the second case, only you are taking profit of the situation and if I understood you right, even try to decrease others profit, which is rather maleficent. First one is like symbiosis, second one like parasitism.
Simply put, is selfishness any form of self-gain? If so, is selfishness always a bad thing?
First question I'd answer with yes. Second, clearly no. Because if you make a gain that doesn't necessarily mean others loose something, others could as well take own profit out of your success. It all depends on the situation.
Another good question, to me at least, is does altruism exist in other mammals or even micro-organisms?
I suppose animals who behave in a hive mentality demonstrate natural altruism. An ant or bee will die defending it's hive. This death has no benefit to that insect but does to the collective.
@NoNameC68
Not sure if I would call either of your examples, examples of altruism. They were done for personal gain rather then the benefit of others.
No I don't think they are the same form of selfishness. One is an extra personal gain from the act itself, while the other is an expected gain later that has no real correlation with the act.
Finally no I don't think any form of selfishness is bad. In some cases I would say being selfish is the better choice.
I suppose animals who behave in a hive mentality demonstrate natural altruism. An ant or bee will die defending it's hive. This death has no benefit to that insect but does to the collective.
The problem lies in the last part, it's for the sake of the collective; and you have to consider the genetic relations between every ant of a single nest. Female ants or bees are closely related to the queen and to each other, males are less related. I don't remember all details from the top of my head, but I wouldn't qualify it as true altruism. Also ants are under control of chemicals, it's more like a selfregulating superorganism and as such it is not surprising they defend their home.
Is there a difference between being conscious of the possible rewards and not being conscious of them?
Does altruism require someone not to gain anything, or does it require someone to be good without expecting any gain?
Two people perform similar tasks. One person helps a person without caring if they gain recognition. The other does not want recognition so they pretend they did nothing.
Both people did not help because they wanted to gain reputation. One person went as far as avoiding the reputation gain. Does this make the second person any more selfless than the first?
If you help someone else without expecting any gain, you will almost always at least gain self gratification. Is it selfish to seek self gratification?
Altruism, are we being too picky with the word? Should we consider those who do good deeds for self-gratification as altruistic? If not, then is altruism merely a bar that is so high that it is impossible to jump over?
Is there a difference between being conscious of the possible rewards and not being conscious of them?
It may be more in the motive then being conscious of any personal gain from it. If the motive was for the possible personal reward then I would not regard it as altruism. If the motive was just to help others then I would regard ti as altruism.
Does altruism require someone not to gain anything, or does it require someone to be good without expecting any gain?
I would say not expecting or at least not doing it for the personal gain.
Of course not, but it doesn't make you a moral person either. Simply ACTING moral for the sake of it, because of a threat, or what have you doesn't mean you have a sincere morality. It's the grey area between moral and immoral
Altruism, are we being too picky with the word? Should we consider those who do good deeds for self-gratification as altruistic? If not, then is altruism merely a bar that is so high that it is impossible to jump over?
Altruism is a tricky thing, it depends on which definition you are using and on what you apply it. I think there are still many discussions on it actually. Maybe I am picky about the word, but I remembered it as meaning no benefit, or even a loss, for the one doing the act. That's why I am not applying altruism on someone doing a favor to a relative because by doing so this someone is helping his genes, only partly but still.
behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
As soon as the individuum who benefits from you is related to you, it's no true altruism anymore since you are helping your genes if you want. But that really depends on the definition, and I just read there are studies who claim to have found altruism in humans, animals, and even plants and bacterias.. I haven't read The Egoistical Gene yet so I can't take it as source, but I think the principle is that at the level of genes all genes are egoistical. So basically that would mean that altruism has to be restricted to, maybe, species elvel or so.
