<p>Interesting angle!</p>
<p>I would argue that we have draw the line somewhere – if he has “no motive behind it besides compassion and love,” then I would argue it is altruism, pure and simple.</p>
<p>Also, I think that in the baby/firefighter example, the firefighter wouldn’t be thinking about being at peace; I think his innate sense of altruism would compel him to save the child.</p>
<p>@turntabler I honestly can’t imagine anyone without a martyr complex. I think there are very few atheists, none of which I’ve met, who don’t fear death at least a little bit. I’ve heard tell of people who are completely satisfied with the present state of things, but as for me I’m always looking for ways to change the world. Please explain to me what, if anything, would fuel one’s actions if they didn’t believe in God or martyrdom.</p>
<p>It would be exactly what we’re talking about: pure altruism. Doing good for the sake of doing good. Nothing would be fueling the actions but the instinctual knowledge that it is the right thing to do.</p>
<p>I think that exists.</p>
<p>I don’t see how one can argue that morals exist (and they do, right?), but pure altruism does not.</p>
<p>I think it’s partially us being crappy people; of course if we’re not capable of it, nobody else is. That’s just what we expect out of others. Maybe if we took a larger survey people would think otherwise, but I doubt it. If I’m not helping people to put myself ahead, I’m helping people to make myself feel better, so that isn’t altruistic, is it? That’s the closest I’ve ever gotten, and that’s the closest I expect anyone can get.</p>
<p>I read a study about how the brain gets a thrill from charitable actions. Perhaps, the so called “true altruists” live for the pleasures that they get from their altruistic actions. However, doesn’t true altruism imply that there is no selfish intentions? If the altruists do what they do for the satisfaction of their doing the “right” things, how can that be altruism in the most accurate definition?</p>
<p>I think morals exist, but it is of human nature to defy them. However, some humans act on these morals because they are in sense “proud” that they are doing the right thing. Again, they are satisfied when they follow their morals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is a really nice way to put this dilemma. Altruism in its purest form cannot exist, but some people do get close.</p>
<p>If you’re looking for true altruism (whether it exists or not), Mother Teresa is a pretty bad place to start. The late great Christopher Hitchens (RIP) wrote extensively about her many flaws, the most prominent of which was her idea that human suffering brought that sufferer closer to Jesus. To achieve this, she would make no attempt to get this sufferer help. Whether this takes away from her altruism or not (and I’m not sure it really does), I just think it’s good for people to stop looking at Mother Teresa as the paragon of goodness.</p>
<p>I tend to not agree with many of Rand’s beliefs, but the “no altruism” concept is interesting, especially given the psychotic political landscape America is currently witnessing. I think politics basically encapsulates the superficiality of some forms of “altruism.” A bunch of career politicians making bank in Washington “for the good of their constituents” when in fact they’re just trying to keep their own jobs by siding with their party, however detrimental such policies are to the people they pretend to stand up for. It makes me wonder if true altruism has EVER existed in political history or just history in general. Were the Founding Fathers altruistic, trying to craft a nation that would benefit us today? Sounds pretty altruistic to me. But were they also kind of trying to be heroes? Was Lyndon Johnson altruistic when he set up Medicare and Medicaid to benefit the sick, old and poor? Or was he just trying to be like his idol FDR? Were major religious figures like Jesus and Muhammad altruistic? I’m rambling, and I don’t know if this is even on topic, but it’s just something that came to mind.</p>
<p>I think no matter what you do, and no matter how good your intentions are, there’s always some ulterior motive to be uncovered. It could be completely subconscious, but we the observers will find it and exploit it to make you look bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement brings up another point, and interestingly, I wrote about this for my January SAT Essay. I don’t think your earlier statement about “human suffering” can really denote Mother Teresa’s actions and motives. Although I don’t know Mother Teresa’s motives behind her “altruistic”(I leave the quotations to detract the value of the word) actions, there is no question about the results of her actions. Why does it matter that she had a flaw when other aspects of her life were well revered? Can this be said for all cases of people? Why is it that people are judged for their shortcomings rather than their finer points?</p>
<p>Although I first brought up Mother Teresa as a questionable “altruistic” person, I have no doubt that she was one of the few people who actually came close to the purest form of altruism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps there lies the problem with humanity. Perhaps people are too dubious. Why must people be suspicious of others’ motives? I think people should simply appreciate the results of their actions.</p>
<p>No you’re probably right, I just think it’s relevant and interesting that even Mother Teresa, obviously a great person, even had her own, possibly selfish motives, that detracted from her “altruism.”</p>
<p>Same thing can be said for Ghandi. Despite his greatness, some people say that he was abusive toward his wife.</p>
<p>First, define “true altruism.” </p>
<p>Lack of ulterior motives is one thing (in which case true altruism may exist), but lack of emotion (e.g., you can’t feel good about yourself for doing an anonymous, selfless deed) is another. People aren’t robots, no human can perform an act of pure selflessness without feeling anything whatsoever.</p>
<p>
You’re absolutely correct. That’s why I suggested that altruism in its purest form cannot exist by human nature.</p>
<p>I suggested earlier that an “altruist” does what he/she does because his/her brain gets thrills from charitable actions. When this is the case, I don’t think the actions are selfless anymore; rather, they are for the pleasure and satisfaction that one gets.</p>
<p>@catchtwentythree
That is a great point. Even a completely altruistic act has a payoff of feeling good about one’s self. Nonetheless, I believe people commit acts of altruism without looking for the emotional payoff; observe the baby/fireman example. If the payoff occurs after one is altruistic, without one being aware of the payoff, then where is the motivation outside pure altruism?</p>
<p>@msteiny1212
Haha I love Hitchens! I’ve been meaning to read “Missionary Position” for a while.</p>
<p>Even though I think acts of pure altruism are possible, the great thing about humans is the amount of beauty and cruelty the same people are capable of. I love this quote by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman from Good Omens: “It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”</p>
<p>Fundamentally people.</p>
<p>I liked the fireman/baby example. The fireman would not have had time to be selfish. He gave up his life to save anothers. But, evidently, his motivations can be interpreted differently (Fame as an ulterior motive? Really?)</p>
<p>Heres a similar (hypothetical) example. Although unlikely, its plausible. </p>
<p>Joe goes for a walk in a forest. On his walk, he encounters a burning house, where he hears a crying baby. Theres not a soul around for miles and no time to call for help, and the baby’s parents are already dead. Since the fire is getting worse, he rushes into the house. Regardless of whether or not he rescued the baby, Joe dies in the process </p>
<p>Even if the baby had survived, it would not have remembered Joe. If Joe had no familial ties and hadnt told anyone he was going on a walk, no one would know what had happened to Joe. If the fire had been strong enough to burn away Joes remains, no one would even know he had been in the house. Obviously, Joe hadnt planned on rescuing anyone on his walk, so his actions werent premeditated. The parents were dead, so Joe couldn’t have gotten any monetary reward from saving the baby. Joe, being a bachelor, didn’t want a kid, and he had no “paternal” instincts toward the baby. And since the emotional payoff for Joe is basically non-existent (he would have been too paralyzed with fear to feel much else), it all boils down to his morals: Joe couldnt let a helpless baby die in front of him without doing something about it, even at the cost of his own life.
I would say that this is an example of true altruism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not really sure if this will be relevant, but Ghandi was abusive towards his wife. he changed later on though. both he and his wife greatly respected and loved each other by the time they reached old age. he did a lot of bad things when he was young. it’s all in his autobiography</p>
<p>as for Joe and the baby, the altruistic purpose can be the compassion he feels (I explained it in my prior post), but like turntabler mentioned, that could be interpreted by altruism (and is by most people I suppose).
there was a REALLY good Tolkien quote that I think relates to all this, but I can’t find my book anywhere -___-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@catchtwentythree but doesn’t that mean he’s acting in such a way to avoid future guilt? He has two choices, one results in possible death and the other in a haunting from having let an innocent child die without trying to save it.</p>
<p>It’s not that I think people are inherently bad, I just think this definition of altruism is far too constrictive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>probably the best way to put it. but I feel like we’re just missing something because some things go beyond logic</p>
<p>Touche. </p>
<p>(Although I gotta say, if I were in Joe’s place I would’ve done the same thing. And my primary motivation wouldn’t have been guilt.)</p>
<p>This came to me during english today:</p>
<p>After eating, we become full, and don’t want to eat anymore. After learning something difficult, we may become tired, and don’t want to learn anymore. So, after loving, is it possible to be ‘full’ and never want to love anymore? Or is there some sort of side-effect/consequence from doing so? This isn’t personal, but more of a general thought.</p>