15

Altruism

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
66 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Some people have problems understand what altruism. Here is what the Comte who created altruism has to say. (From Wikipedia)

The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste,[2] that:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    His lectures are superb and have been very popular. He was extremely articulate and well-organized. Audiences use to flock with enthusiasm to his lectures and the public recorded versions playing them back from tape reels. He took professional lessons on speaking, and articulated the principles of organization and presentation in his own excellent lecture series on Objective Communication. If you have trouble with the sound of his voice you should try adjusting it with an equalizer on your PC or whatever you use to play it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is socialism pretending to be science. There is actually no evidence for this position.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent point. I think it is a bit like the phrase "give back", most people do not take it seriously. But the people who started it know you cannot escape the logical implications of using it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 9 months ago
    Altruism = totally selfless act, of which there is no such thing as a totally selfless act. Nobody has ever given me something they have done that was totally selfless.

    If you received any sense of satisfaction, feeling of good, any remote emotional benefit to yourself, it was not selfless.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is almost impossible to listen to Peikoff for very long. His voice grates on me and K. Not only that somehow the way he organizes his talks or his lilting style makes it very hard to listen to
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Jesus was an anti-intellectual mystic who promoted sacrifice to another world and sacrifice to others in this one to get to the other one, not an Aristotelian. Religious demands for sacrifice lacked the later extreme of altruism only in appealing for one's own mystic soul. The claim that Jesus understood and opposed the destructiveness of altruism is preposterous.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 9 months ago
    Altruism is only a call to revert to tribalism, where the needs of the individual simply don't count. The clash between the West and Islamic terrorists is a clash between individualism and collective "altruism."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He was against "sacrifice to the Gods" that was his argument with his fellow Jews...If you look at Just what he said...you'd see that he was trying to prepare his apprentices and others for their evolving conscious mind...something mankind obviously didn't have up until that time.
    Look, we're not into the mystical organization nor are we entirely on board with his apprentices interpretation...they still spoke the bicameral language. To get a frame of reference here see: Julian Jaynes.

    We all know here that "Altruism" is the most destructive concept mankind has had to endure and was invented by a sick bicameral brain and used against our natural creation of values so that our rulers could survive on our backs. If there was Anyone that understood that during those times, it was Jesus, Aristotle and a few others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed! Wish I had learned that one early on ("Givers have to set limits because takers never do."). Just as in any human endeavor, we must consider the efficacy of our actions. Will the gift truly benefit or instill a sense of entitlement - an ever present feeling theses days, no doubt a consequence of the philosophy of altruism. Sad state of affairs we're in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 9 months ago
    Altruism, from an evolutionary standpoint, makes humans more efficient, more secure, and more productive. However, forced prosocialism may do just the opposite. It adds non-productive layers of bureaucracy, isolates decision-making from those who really understand the problem, and results in a servile society.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Carl, yep ... and Jesus didn't use this concept is a power ploy which many of the "Organizations" do. And like you, I'm a fan ... as were/are others who followed/follow his simple, "Love your neighbor as yourself".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He did not advocate rational self interest. He promoted sacrifice to God in another world, with sacrifice to others in this one a distant second as a means to the first. The closest it came to selfishness at all is that the sacrifices on earth were supposed to end up saving your own mystic soul.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, he isn't talking about a trade. He says we're born by our nature with duties to others. Listen to the Leonard Peikoff lectures on the history of philosophy to see that duty mentality throughout the evolution of philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oops! Upon rereading this, I spotted an error. Of course, in a true act of benevolence, both benefactor and recipient would (ideally) benefit. The whole issue lies with motive. If we give to impress others and gain public approval, then we are becoming "second-handers" and receive no selfish benefit. What a shame - and a loss!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Was that any worse than the debates between McCain and Obama, one of which was a change in format to an informal friendly sit-down discussion on service? They fell all over themselves outdoing each other with claims of altruistic service.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidKelley 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, Dale. I've had that Comte passage in my notes for decades; I can't remember the source.
    You're right that most people do not understand what altruism actually means. In my experience, it's usually because they don't clearly differentiate altruism from benevolence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good for Skippy! RE: Auguste Comte, declaring "that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others."

    Bullshit. "Need does not create obligation."

    Another comment I recently read (am chagrined I did not think of it), "Givers have to set limits because takers never do."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    JJJ, Yes!!! I have thought of that very concept 100's of times. The evil is not in, as you say, "helping others". There is a wealth of self- satisfaction in being benevolent as Ayn Rand, herself, attested to. It's when the bureaucrats use it as a tool against us. And as Dale brought to our attention, Auguste Comte was no better than them in declaring "that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others.". It reminds me of a little comic strip kept in Ms. Rand's files ... a dad is talking to his young son and says, " Always bear in mind, Skippy, that we were put here to do good for others.". Skippy replies, "All right, Papa, an' what were the others put here for?". !!!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 9 months ago
    There has also been a strong attempt to find a "gene" for altruism as an explanation for why we are "altruistic".
    Its strange but there is no gene for altruism or for self interest as we have free will. The modern science of biothermodynamics makes it clear that acting for others increases energy costs at the expense of one self and ones loved ones. Any attempt to actually practice altruism fails for energetic and moral reasons.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    Ugh.
    Altruism is a really good thing -- for everybody who proposes it, but doesn't abide by it. Those who do abide by it sentence themselves to a life of privation and automatically become a servant class. So, if all you want is to become a junior Mother Theresa, have at it.
    A rational person takes care of himself first, those he loves second, and if anything is left over, charity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joy1inchrist 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Right, CG! I agree ... "The unhealthy behavior starts when you start sacrificing your own interests in exchange for approval.". And yes, Jesus teaches performing acts of benevolence in a manner in which only the giver benefits! "Don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.". This results in pure self-satisfaction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Statists want control over everything, and they want others to basically guarantee that and run things for them. To do that, people have to be converted into sheep, so that they "want" to feed the system that the statists control. THAT is the basis of altruism. Its really pure evil.

    Its like convincing the jews that they have a duty to walk into the gas chambers willingly. Only the real socialists of today want you to work FOR them, not die off.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks David.

    The quote is from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruis... and according to this article the quote was from Comte, August. Catéchisme positiviste (1852) or Catechism of Positivism, trans. R. Congreve, (London: Kegan Paul, 1891)


    I do not think most people understand that Altruism means that you do not have any Rights
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo