Altruism
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."
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."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
A perspective from reading M. Scott Peck (Road Less Travelled) on the subject of psychological perceptions of responsibility towards other people...
Peck describes our attitudes towards others as being somewhere on the spectrum between "neurosis" (I am responsible for everything that happens to everyone, I should try to fix all problems) and "character disorder" (the world and everyone else is the cause of everything that happens to me, nothing is my fault, so I can't fix any problems).
It seems to me, Comte was suffering near the neurosis end of that spectrum, taking the responsibility for everything on his own shoulders.
A well balanced personality should be near the middle of the spectrum. We are drawn towards the middle by applying rational thought to the world.
"[The religion of Humanity] sets forth social feeling as the first principle of morality....To live for others it holds to be our highest happiness. To become incorporate with humanity..., this is what it puts before us as the constant aim of life. ...In the positive state..., the idea of Right will disappear. Everyone has duties, duties toward all, but Rights in the ordinary sense can be claimed by none." [Auguste Compte, A General View of Positivism]
" Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer — Oh the sorry trade! "
from verse 69, The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
FitzGerald translation
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/omar...
If I choose to give to someone its because I want to, not because I'm obligate to society, man, or God.
The only obligation I have to anyone are to those I choose to be obligated to...and my mom (no choice.. she birthed me after all).
"We are born under a load of obligations of every kind" -- Comte
If this is true, he's saying someone did something for us, and now we owe them. If this is an account payable on our books, isn't it an asset on someone else's books, something they earned by helping us? It's odd then he immediately calls it benevolence and says this is our duty as humans and common source of happiness. He starts out talking about helping each other in trade and then jumps to helping being pure duty.
Jesus talks about this in the Christian Bible. But instead of telling people "stop sacrificing, do what you think is right and brings you happiness" he tells them to keep sacrificing but hide it so they're not even getting the reward of public approval. The authors promote self-denial, which I believe is a form of evil.
The Idea was to take care of one's self (love thy self) , care for your family, have mutuality with your neighbors and community (mutuality is love outside the family unit). He advocated "rational self interest" in helping others fallen beside the road...for you might find one's self fallen beside the road one day. This is not a sacrifice and does Not deny self. (again, I speak of common courtesy...not of organized religious confoundations).
To deny self is to deny life itself...no one but liberal progressive non value creators would advocate such a thing but for their own self interest.
A slave to one, or to all is still a slave. That is hardly a source of happiness, or a legitimate duty.
Regards,
O.A.