Altrusim is defined in the dictionary as "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism)." It is the practice which helps/benefits others or does good without reward. The view that the well-being of others should have as much importance for us as the well-being of ourselves. Some argue that altruism, even if it is desirable, is not possible, and that our ethics must be based on egoism. You would think that anyone who does charity work or volunteers would be considered an altruist. Yet, isn't the feeling of doing something good, your reward? Is altrusim really possible or does the 'feel good factor' from doing something for others a reward in itself?
altruism is possible..there is this old french guy who was a good example of that : Abbé Pierre..a great man who spent all his life to help other..but this is right that most of time ppl are to egoïst and selfish to care about others....but well it depend on ppl ... but somewhere ppl help because they think that there is a reward somewhere
Humans sometimes do commit altruistic act, though I must say it's not very often. Altruistic act had its anthropological root: since humans are societal beings, helping one and other (often someone of your kinship) will ensure that your gene get passed down, though not necessary directly through you (through your kin, for example). Another factor would be the "race survival", if humans all act on egoistic ground, probably we won't survive this long to achieve technological advancement as witnessed today. But a person doing good deed just for the heck of it? I always think they do get something in return, be it the "feel good factor" or "exposure" (which explains why teenagers and students are so desperate to volunteer at organizations/disciplines they are interested in) -- I would call those rewards.
I don't believe any human is 100% selfless. There will always be times when someone is selfish. I believe that parents will be selfess to their children 9/10 times. (Good parents) But yes, I do believe in truly selfless acts. ie. the soldier in Iraq who dove on the grenade to save his team, or the family that risked their lives to hide Anne Frank. So are you saying that altruism is negated because one gets a 'good feeling' after volunteering? Because that would be meaningful if we were Vulcans, but since we're all emotionally driven human beings, it's natural that we would get SOME feeling of accomplishment after helping someone. You can put a selfish twist to any sh1t that anyone does. For every example of altruism that has existed, you can always find a selfish motive and superimpose it on that scenario. But that doesn't mean that everyone who has performed these acts were motivated by selfish reasons.
lol nerd never use a star trek/star wars reference in a serious argument, it nullifies everything you say before and after it.
I did not negate the altruism. Just pointing out that it's not really committing a good deed for NOTHING. The fact that soldiers may martyr themselves for a war effort or any number of selfless act -- I was not negating the goodness of the act, or the selfless nature of it -- there exist greater will (for example, the survival of your troopmate and possibly your family back home) than oneself to be concerned about, which explains the act. It's a cooperative strategy. Plus, does selfish people even go voluntarily to war? Have you ever play the question game "would you rather..."? There was this time I got a question "when taken hostage, would you rather give up top secret information your captive want, or you would keep your mouth shut?" Without second thought, I ALWAYS choose to keep my mouth shut, because if my captive want the information bad enough (and given I was the only accessible source), he WILL NOT kill me unless he accomplish HIS task -- would you call the fact that I kept my mouth shut on those top secret information an altruistic act because I am willing to "sacrifice" my life to keep it secret? Call it whatever you may, I was just pointing out the pragmatic aspect of the "altruistic acts".
lol this kinda makes me think about 'Battle Royale'... imagine if you were in a battle royale situation and it was either kill or be killed... would you just sit down and let your peers kill you or would you fight back and kill your friends? if you were truly altruistic you wouldnt fight back at all, knowing that for atleast one of your friends to escape you would have to die.
my friend is doing her psychology thesis on random acts of kindness. and she's finding that ppl that receive the random act of kindness don't like it. kinda sad huh? we've become a world where we don't appreciate others doing something nice for us for nothing.
It's interesting you brought that up, I just read this article from ABC (here) that concerns moral dilemmas -- would you surrender one of your kids or would you die with both of them? Apparently, there is a part of the brain that associate emotion with judgement, when that part of the brain is damaged, making judgements in dilemma like this would be WAY easier. PS> I would give up one of the kids, possibly the younger one. But one way or another it wouldn't be an altruistic act since there is not "sacarfice myself" option.
Contrary to what it is believed, many wealthy people are altruists, although a few of them do it as a tactic to enhance their earnings most of them do it simply because they want to help on certain issues. Even myself I've done some altruist deeds, this site itself, in my opinion, is a form of altruism, for my love of Asian cultures is such, that to have access to what this site offers is something close to a blessing. May all the Gods of the Olympus keep all those who disinterestedly, have shared their files with the rest of us. -worship -worship -worship -rolleyes
You sure they are not guilt by their conscience to "repay" the society after ripping them off? Me, I believe that "A rich man's (called) a thief or philanthropist", because their riches usually come from exploiting one society or another, I guess they worry that they will burn in their eternal hell if they don't repay their deed by being philanthropists. I mean, Bill Gates? Also, their relatively minimal philanthropic contributions buy them a nice and respectable reputation, with positive exposure a bonus. That too. So I guess I am just a pessimist who think the worst of people... Maybe I am.
Humans are capable of altruism. In fact, ALL humans are..if only they'll try harder. People nowadays, especially in this era are self centred and only care bout 'me, myself and I' which should not be the case. Look at people like Mother Theresa, mahatma ghandi. All these people are altruistic people and we call all learn from them!
