Hello pessimist and welcome

I think an intentionally enforced moral obligation towards a specific 'act', concerning the welfare of others, shows enough good intention for me to think the individual selfless. But I notice a lot of people who intentionally enforce 'acts' such as those- like letting a fellow driver out at a junction, for some form of self gratification.
The same kind of sentiment I feel can be found in charity, especially among celebrities who will often slur charity into publicity. But even the common man might offer some pennies to charity to alleviate guilt or gratify ones self as good person, or perhaps toss some change at a homeless man to silence him or let off an impression to people in the vicinity .

In my opinion truly selfless acts exist but, they come with a defiant sense of duty which must- as a prerequisite , be embraced to qualify the actions. But I'm pretty idealistic.

Dan.

Hello pessimist and welcome

I think an intentionally enforced moral obligation towards a specific 'act',

shows enough good intention for me to think the individual selfless.

But I notice a lot of people who intentionally enforce 'acts' such as those- like letting a fellow driver out at a junction, for some form of self gratification.

The same kind of sentiment I feel can be found in charity, especially among celebrities who will often slur charity into publicity.

But even the common man might offer some pennies to charity to alleviate guilt or gratify ones self as good person,

or perhaps toss some change at a homeless man to silence him or let off an impression to people in the vicinity .

In my opinion truly selfless acts exist but,

they come with a defiant sense of duty which must- as a prerequisite , be embraced to qualify the actions.

But I'm pretty idealistic.

Well said, de budding. I think, however, that our new (pessimistic ) friend needs some other information as well. I have learned this from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He explains that ego can only exist by comparisson. So ego can only spring into life when one interacts with another. An easy example is that someone will simply endure the pain of many wounds when alone on a plane crash-site, but will stumble and collapse when rescue is near.

Rousseau explains this by the following thought:
When someone lives in a group and that someone has more to eat for example (being a good hunter perhaps) than can be eaten by one person this person may give it to a hungry person. Offcourse this hungry person is gratefull; which our hunter is happy with. We see that the best hunter has most to give away and is therefore most appreciated by others. When one hunter compares his "amount" of appreciation to the appreciation another hunter "got" one may feel neglected or superior.At that moment the ego has kicked in. The desire to be appreciated (by a desirable female for instance) makes for the situation the people compare themselves with others and by that action one creates definitions (values) for oneself thereby creating ego; for what is ego if not the value people give themselves?

I hope this part is helpfull. It links in with what de budding has said. The "duty" de budding speaks of replaces the "goal" (in our example the appreciation). This has an enourmous effect on the actions taken because it no longer involves a striving towards a personal gain and therefore in no sense something which can disrupt balance.

Well, I hope this helps..

Arjen

I have many thoughts like these. I wonder how you see the "enslavement" by socienty though. Call it a second opinion. How do you see that happening?

Pessimist, do you know Kant's philosophy?

Evolution demands that it be rewarding to one's self to be an altruistic person, or else altruism wouldn't evolve. But it is not selfish to be an altruist, by definition. Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that being an altruistic person (by nature) might be more rewarding than not being an altruistic person. Indeed, altruistic people, wanting to advance beauty, tend to love fellow altruists most, and that love can be more rewarding than the sacrifices that altruistic behaviors imply. Good people unselfishly love beauty because it is their nature to do so. They would get more if they could ignore their nature when sacrifices are involved, but that is against their nature, so they can't.

So it can be rewarding to be (by nature) an altruist, but it isn't rewarding to behave altruistically.

It's a mistake I have noticed the evolutionary biologists tend to make. They just jump into game theory right away to try to describe what goes for altruistic behavior, never bothering to consider whether it might be possible to judge innate moral character otherwise than by using games, etc., to judge behavior, etc. It's quite reasonable, really, to suppose that moral character could be judged fairly well provided most altruism occurs in the mating sphere (and I think intuitively that is indeed where love is most important), because then rewards would be rewards of more mutual children. To the extent altruism is directed mainly at mates, giving more mutual children, pretenders to altruism would never be able to use deception to get more sensitive children than they otherwise would. There would be a strong correlation between moral deceptiveness and moral insensitivity (the inability to judge moral character in others), and moral insensitivity is comparatively easy to judge by judging the ability to judge oneself.

Looking at it even more from a distance, there is no reason whatsoever really to think that those trying to advance beauty (of which goodness is a major part) would be any less successful in their endeavors than those trying to advance themselves. Actually, since advancing beauty depends heavily on advancing those who (unselfishly) love beauty, moral, altruistic people may actually be more successful than selfish people, but not because they are selfish, but just because good people love one another more than bad people do (and good people don't tend to love bad people).

Evolution demands that it be rewarding to one's self to be an altruistic person, or else altruism wouldn't evolve.

Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that being an altruistic person (by nature) might be more rewarding than not being an altruistic person.

Indeed, altruistic people, wanting to advance beauty, tend to love fellow altruists most, and that love can be more rewarding than the sacrifices that altruistic behaviors imply. Good people unselfishly love beauty because it is their nature to do so. They would get more if they could ignore their nature when sacrifices are involved, but that is against their nature, so they can't.

It's a mistake I have noticed the evolutionary biologists tend to make. They just jump into game theory right away to try to describe what goes for altruistic behavior, never bothering to consider whether it might be possible to judge innate moral character otherwise than by using games,

etc., to judge behavior, etc. It's quite reasonable, really, to suppose that moral character could be judged fairly well provided most altruism occurs in the mating sphere (and I think intuitively that is indeed where love is most important), because then rewards would be rewards of more mutual children. To the extent altruism is directed mainly at mates, giving more mutual children, pretenders to altruism would never be able to use deception to get more sensitive children than they otherwise would. There would be a strong correlation between moral deceptiveness and moral insensitivity (the inability to judge moral character in others), and moral insensitivity is comparatively easy to judge by judging the ability to judge oneself.

Looking at it even more from a distance, there is no reason whatsoever really to think that those trying to advance beauty (of which goodness is a major part) would be any less successful in their endeavors than those trying to advance themselves. Actually, since advancing beauty depends heavily on advancing those who (unselfishly) love beauty, moral, altruistic people may actually be more successful than selfish people, but not because they are selfish, but just because good people love one another more than bad people do (and good people don't tend to love bad people).

I've never seen a unselfish action. What does it look like?

Does altruism exist? Do selfless acts truely exist?

I find it interesting when people say that they do considering that unconditional actions do not exist in that there are conditions within every action.

All actions acted upon revolve around the self who is maker of them.

But what exactly does these conditions stem from? Selfishness.

So aren't we all psychological egoists then?

I believe people are inherently selfish and when I have studied altruism I'm under the impression that not a single example of selflessness exists as everything is conditional.

Your mother giving birth to you.

If you have children, you will see yourself act selflessly.

But to the substance of my brief post:

I agree that people tend to be selfish. However, the claim that all actions are selfish is non falsifiable. You cannot possibly show that every action was made for selfish reasons - this particular discussion exists on these forums.

Your mother giving birth to you.

Pessimist,



Just a suggestion, read Mark Twains, "What Is Man".

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/wim.txt

Also perhaps read Schopenhauers, "The Foundations Of Morality". Shopenhaurer is known as perhaps you know, as the pessimistic philosopher.

Also there has been another thread on this, called, "The Selfish Nature Of All Action." good luck!!

It is called self preservation of genes whether you are giving birth or raising a child.

( Preserving your own genetical material is selfish.)

For whatever reason why people believe in altruism it must be pretty weak or at the very least subordinated to people's selfishness given the level of tolerance throughout the history of people in the world of other people's exploitation, oppression, suffering, inequality and enslavement.

I don't follow.

The reason people "believe" in altruism is because, throughout history, selfishness has caused so much violence.

As selfishness causes violence, altruism seems to be the appropriate alternative - selflessness instead of selfishness.

Altruism isn't the belief that people tend to, or naturally, act selflessly; altruism is the notion that people should act selflessly.

I don't follow.

he reason people "believe" in altruism is because, throughout history, selfishness has caused so much violence.

I just don't understand altruism.

You may speak of idealistic fantasies of moral agencies or innate principles but it does nothing in the world considering all the violence and inequality that nonetheless still exists.

You keep ranting about hypocrisy and all sorts of other negative claims you attach to altruism, but one statement of yours keeps ringing in my mind:

How are you going to indict something for hypocrisy when you do not understand it?

You did read my previous comments, right? The fact that that violence and inequality exists is exactly the value of altruism - those abuses are the result of selfishness. Altruism is not a distraction, it's an attempt to overcome the rampant selfishness that is destroying us. Altruism is the refusal to be distracted from the real problems of the world; altruism is an attempt to address those problems and correct them. We call this ethics.

You keep ranting about hypocrisy and all sorts of other negative claims you attach to altruism, but one statement of yours keeps ringing in my mind:

How are you going to indict something for hypocrisy when you do not understand it?