NationStates Jolt Archive

out of these two choices, which would you choose?

Altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)

or

Egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)



and don't say "neither"... choose one!


its my opinion that the (perhaps unconcious) upholding of one of these two opposing philosophies has a massive impact on the way we live our lifes.

poll coming

Egoism :)

Hume pwns.

All humans should naturaly be egoists. It is not our evolutionary mean to "share." Obviously, this is what brings problems in the world.

Although I think I can be both (or anyone can, for that matter),
I mainly associate with Egoism

All humans should naturaly be egoists. It is not our evolutionary mean to "share." Obviously, this is what brings problems in the world.

Although I think I can be both (or anyone can, for that matter),
I mainly choose Egoism

Yes it is. We are social creatures, not solitary predators. If it weren't in our nature to share and cooperate, we would never have formed tribes or cities.

Yes it is. We are social creatures, not solitary predators. If it weren't in our nature to share and cooperate, we would never have formed tribes or cities.
agreed. besides, i don't think there is one 'set' human nature. our nature can change - according to our circumstances for example

agreed. besides, i don't think there is one 'set' human nature. our nature can change - according to our circumstances for example

Definitely :)

Yes it is. We are social creatures, not solitary predators. If it weren't in our nature to share and cooperate, we would never have formed tribes or cities.
Precisely.

Also, consider the following question: If human altruism isn't favoured by evolution, then how come nearly all human societies, past and present, have held altruism as their very definition of "good"?

You have to be a selfish bastard to choose egoism

Its a black hole of an ethical theory, it permits all kind of forms of being a twat to promote your own self interests.

Precisely.

Also, consider the following question: If human altruism isn't favoured by evolution, then how come nearly all human societies, past and present, have held altruism as their very definition of "good"?
i would disagree that altruism is upheld as good by most people in modern society. shame.

Precisely.

Also, consider the following question: If human altruism isn't favoured by evolution, then how come nearly all human societies, past and present, have held altruism as their very definition of "good"?

Can you please give me an example of any moral system that has held altruism as the definition of good. The only one I know of that comes close is Kant's which regards doing your duty as good.

There is an argument that the Christian religious system does this, but you would have to convince me that this is a moral system in any way. It, to me, is a social control system which actually looks to offset personal morals by introducing a credo to substitute them.

As for myself, I have chosen Altruism as my highest moral ideal a long time ago. I am a Christian, a Utilitarian, and a Communist.

The battle between Altruism and Egoism is nothing less than the battle between Good and Evil. On one side you have Love, Life and Happiness, the maximization of which is the goal of Altruism, and on the other side you have Hate, Death and Suffering, which plague the world every time Egoism shows its ugly head.

Can you please give me an example of any moral system that has held altruism as the definition of good. The only one I know of that comes close is Kant's which regards doing your duty as good.

There is an argument that the Christian religious system does this, but you would have to convince me that this is a moral system in any way. It, to me, is a social control system which actually looks to offset personal morals by introducing a credo to substitute them.

I suppose Act utilitraianism, as you are to premote happyness to the point of self sacrifice.

Thats pretty much a self less good deed, as duty is definded as.

You have to be a selfish bastard to choose egoism

Its a black hole of an ethical theory, it permits all kind of forms of being a twat to promote your own self interests.

Read "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins.

You have to be a selfish bastard to choose egoism

Its a black hole of an ethical theory, it permits all kind of forms of being a twat to promote your own self interests.

Well that shows a depth of considered and critical thinking.

Take any emergency situation you care to name. What behaviour pattern guarantees the greatest number of survivors? If you don't know, go and find out.

If I am intelligent, and humans are intelligent to some degree, then I can see that helping others is in my own interest, in a lot of cases. Helping others without it being in the interest of the person so acting simply does not happen. We act according to our desires and not according to some abstract set of rules that are rationally but impersonally constructed. Acting so as to satisfy our desires is the definition of egoism. We are all egoists, like it or not.
You are a socialist and will act according to your beliefs and desires, act in such a way as you feel good. If this happens to mean helping others, it does not make it altruism. Your motivation, at root, is not the other, but your own satisfaction with yourself.

It, to me, is a social control system which actually looks to offset personal morals by introducing a credo to substitute them.
A human society cannot function if everyone is allowed to follow any personal moral code they choose. There are moral codes that would consider it a good thing if you were dead, for example. Unless you think chaos and dark ages are okay, you'll have to accept the fact that society needs to enforce at least some basic pillars of morality - such as, for example, the ideas that murder and slavery are evil.

I suppose Act utilitraianism, as you are to premote happyness to the point of self sacrifice.

Thats pretty much a self less good deed, as duty is definded as.

Act Utilitarianism prmotes total utility, it says nothing about happiness whatsoever, nor does it differentiate between the other and yourself. If it is useful to society, then it is useful to you, as part of that society. It is neutral on the altruist/egoist scale. Act Utilitarianism is also completely bankrupt as an ethical or moral theory as it requires omniscience to function.

Act Utilitarianism prmotes total utility, it says nothing about happiness whatsoever, nor does it differentiate between the other and yourself. If it is useful to society, then it is useful to you, as part of that society. It is neutral on the altruist/egoist scale. Act Utilitarianism is also completely bankrupt as an ethical or moral theory as it requires omniscience to function.

Um the hedonistic calculus prehaps?

And all teleological theories would in theory require omniscience to function, dosent mean they still are not good theories with only our ability to predict.

Its far far far more moral if an action is commited with a good interntion and a bad outcome,

Than a bad intention with a good outcome.

i chose altruism
the idea that serving yourself will inevitably benifit others is, at best, convenient. it is true in some cases, but expecting it can only cause trouble. in my experience it is more rewarding to benifit from your actions if you were not expecting that benefit.

i chose altruism
the idea that serving yourself will inevitably benifit others is, at best, convenient. it is true in some cases, but expecting it can only cause trouble. in my experience it is more rewarding to benifit from your actions if you were not expecting that benefit.
Yeah its the underpining idea of capatalism, that whole invisible hand bollucks, that by pursing your own intrests your bound to help some people.

Maybe but you'll screw plenty others over too.

Take any emergency situation you care to name. What behaviour pattern guarantees the greatest number of survivors? If you don't know, go and find out.
That's easy: The number of survivors will be maximized if all the people in the emergency situation act altruistically and help each other.

Helping others without it being in the interest of the person so acting simply does not happen.
Ok, then please explain how a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades is acting in his own interest.

You are a socialist and will act according to your beliefs and desires, act in such a way as you feel good. If this happens to mean helping others, it does not make it altruism. Your motivation, at root, is not the other, but your own satisfaction with yourself.
Speak for yourself and your own motivations. Do not presume to know what's going on in other people's minds. Doing "good" is bound to give you some sort of moral satisfaction, but that doesn't mean that you did good because you expected a moral satisfaction.

In addition, if a person acts exactly like an altruist in every way, then it doesn't really matter what his inner motivations are. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, he is an altruist.

A human society cannot function if everyone is allowed to follow any personal moral code they choose. There are moral codes that would consider it a good thing if you were dead, for example. Unless you think chaos and dark ages are okay, you'll have to accept the fact that society needs to enforce at least some basic pillars of morality - such as, for example, the ideas that murder and slavery are evil.

Why are murder and slavery almost universally regarded as evil today? For the majority of our history slavery was acceptable. Only after the invention of autonomy and the appearance of the individual as an item of concern in society does slavery become a problem. This reflects the egoism that is inherent in a society that is made up of people rather than social roles. Murder has always been evil as it is, by definition the killing of people contrary to the rules of the society. Religious human sacrifice in some societies was accepted, and thereby not murder. (It is a tautology to argue that murder is wrong.)

So we have placed value on the individual. This is a necessary precondition for the initial question to make any sense at all. If only social role were important them egoism and altruism would be null concepts, as the self and the other were not identified as individulas but as classes. (See Schneewind "The invention of Autonomy") Now if we have a society that has as its units individuals, then the morals or ethics of the society are necessarily individualistic. They have to concern themselves with my behaviour, your behaviour, the behaviour of the specific person. If any social organisation or institution tries to define what these individual morals or ethics should be, it is not in and of itself being moral, it is instead trying to socially engineer society according to a set of values that its leaders have. It is trying to impose a credo. This credo may contain the concept that altruism is to be valued, but as it is a propganda tool and not a moral system per se, I still wish to know which moral system is behind this propaganda. I do not know of any that clearly state, or even vaguely state, thet altruism is the basis of goodness.

I disagree with the notion that egoism is bad. Altruism may be the basis of society, but egoism is the basis of basic survival.

As has been mentioned before, most of human actions are based on the ego. Even when acting altruistically, you gain a pleasant feeling of doing good. The few extreme moments where true altruism occurs, like the grenade example above, usually ends in some form of harm to the self. It may be noble, but in the end they die.

Note that the poll was a definite choice; what you would rather be all the time For one to act purely altruistically, you would not own anything, you would share all your food with those who have none, you would go to great lengths to prevent the harm of others even though it meant self-sacrifice. People like that wouldn't survive very long, though they may do a great deal of good (or none at all; as the saying goes: "the path to hell is paved with good intentions").

In reality, life will always be a mix of the two. Egoism for survival, altruism for society. Anyone claiming they aren't egoistic at all are most likely lying to others and themselves.

That's easy: The number of survivors will be maximized if all the people in the emergency situation act altruistically and help each other.
You don't know. In fact it has been shown that the number of survivors is maximised by each and every one acting purely and simply to save themself. They concentrate on surviving, rather than have two people die because they tried to help someone who could not be helped etc. Think about it a minute.


Ok, then please explain how a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades is acting in his own interest.
If a person has the opportunity to save the lives of many others by saxcrificing his or her own in a situation wherein his or her own life is almost certainly forfeit anyway, then they have nothing to lose by doing so. Egoism does not mean disregard the others, it simply means that you act according to your own desires. I am an egoist, however if I were in the situation whereby I had to chose between a quick death and saving others or a potentially slow and painful death and having others suffer the same fate, I would clearly chose the first.


Speak for yourself and your own motivations. Do not presume to know what's going on in other people's minds. Doing "good" is bound to give you some sort of moral satisfaction, but that doesn't mean that you did good because you expected a moral satisfaction.
If you do not act because of your desire, the only other possibility is that you act because you have no choice. If you wish to have freedom of will as a factor, and any moral discussion sort of pressumes this, then your actions are a result of your choices. Now your personal choice has to be a result of your personal opinions. Should I have tea or coffee, I feel like having a coffee, I have a coffee because I wanted it. Can you give any other reason why I, freely, chose a coffee? I believe not. To act because you want something is to act on desire. My assertion here is a logical one. It is not something you can negate by saying "speak for yourself", as it is not speaking about any individual it is speaking about the nature of choice and action.

Why do we call "good" actions "good"? Simply because they are either useful to us in some way or because they give pleasure in some way. You can argue that they are good because the are in accordance with the will of some external being (God), but this then leaves anything whatsoever, including murder, as being potentially "good".

In addition, if a person acts exactly like an altruist in every way, then it doesn't really matter what his inner motivations are. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, he is an altruist.
Of course it matters. Morality and philosophy is internal. Behaviour is external. The question here is what is your philosophy? It is not How do you behave?

Um the hedonistic calculus prehaps?

And all teleological theories would in theory require omniscience to function, dosent mean they still are not good theories with only our ability to predict.

Its far far far more moral if an action is commited with a good interntion and a bad outcome,

Than a bad intention with a good outcome.

Hedonistic calculus? Hedonism is concerned with imediate pleasure. With what feels good now. And Hedonism != Egoism

Any theory that requires us to have an ability that we don't have to function is not a good theory for us to adopt. Bad outcomes are bad outcomes, regardless of intentions. "The road to hell is paved . . ."

The intention of an agent is relevant, yes, but the outcome is also relevant. How do you measure or identify something as being Good, if only the intention is to be included. By this standard the Holocaust could be denominated good. Hitler's intention was to populate the world with what was, to him, the best possible people and to eliminate the faulty and weak. To try to make something the best possible, regardless of the cost or outcome, has to be called "good" if only intention matters.

Jesus was an altruist of sorts

Both

egoist

I think the true altruism (work for the good of all) is just wrong and against human nature because it excludes myself. But I have a responsibility for myself. If I have no interest in my person why should I live at all?
The true egoism on the other hand doesn't completely exclude the others. I need them to achieve some of my objectives. That's why I try to help them so I can get their help in return. The Human society is based on this principle.

On
Yes it is. We are social creatures, not solitary predators. If it weren't in our nature to share and cooperate, we would never have formed tribes or cities.
I think it's in our nature to survive and thus we live in groups because it has shown to be the best way to survive. Many animals do the same and I don't think they know the difference between altruism and egoism.

Jesus was an altruist of sorts

To be accurate, Jesus is presented as having been an altruist of sorts. We have no writing, no record, of what Jesus actually thought or believed, only the writings and opinions of others about him.

Can you please give me an example of any moral system that has held altruism as the definition of good. The only one I know of that comes close is Kant's which regards doing your duty as good.

There is an argument that the Christian religious system does this, but you would have to convince me that this is a moral system in any way. It, to me, is a social control system which actually looks to offset personal morals by introducing a credo to substitute them.
don't know if its already been said, but the obvious answer is socialism (& its implied/included moral systems)
plus, what of Rousseau's social contract? its a political system but again it entails a moral system

Well that shows a depth of considered and critical thinking.

Take any emergency situation you care to name. What behaviour pattern guarantees the greatest number of survivors? If you don't know, go and find out.

If I am intelligent, and humans are intelligent to some degree, then I can see that helping others is in my own interest, in a lot of cases. Helping others without it being in the interest of the person so acting simply does not happen. We act according to our desires and not according to some abstract set of rules that are rationally but impersonally constructed. Acting so as to satisfy our desires is the definition of egoism. We are all egoists, like it or not.
You are a socialist and will act according to your beliefs and desires, act in such a way as you feel good. If this happens to mean helping others, it does not make it altruism. Your motivation, at root, is not the other, but your own satisfaction with yourself.
in a way, yes. that is one (well, the offical) meaning of the egoist philosophy, but i think the term can be used to include other, shall we say, egotistical ideals as well.
or at least, egotistical behaviour follows on from egoism - this is especially important to seperate the altruism and egoism if they share the same common 'base' of people only being able to act for their own self-interest (as you described above)
basically i think there are two levels to egoism, but thats just me

The battle between Altruism and Egoism is nothing less than the battle between Good and Evil. On one side you have Love, Life and Happiness, the maximization of which is the goal of Altruism, and on the other side you have Hate, Death and Suffering, which plague the world every time Egoism shows its ugly head.
this i also agree with

and btw, i'll admit now that i haven't read up on egoism very much, so i may be saying a lot of obvious/stupid shit...

Egoism should not be mistaken for egotism.

don't know if its already been said, but the obvious answer is socialism (& its implied/included moral systems)
plus, what of Rousseau's social contract? its a political system but again it entails a moral system
What moral system? These entails something that has never been explained by anyone anywhere. This may be a reason why they have never been really widely accepted as viable systems.
When one thinks about morality as being practical, something that influences our actions, then it reverts every time to some form of egoism. Altruistic morality is often described as the morality of angels, and then it is claimed by some (Kant for example again) that angels are amoral as they are incapable of doing wrong. they have no choice in the matter.

in a way, yes. that is one (well, the offical) meaning of the egoist philosophy, but i think the term can be used to include other, shall we say, egotistical ideals as well.
or at least, egotistical behaviour follows on from egoism - this is especially important to seperate the altruism and egoism if they share the same common 'base' of people only being able to act for their own self-interest (as you described above)
basically i think there are two levels to egoism, but thats just me
There is egoism and there is hedonism. One is an intelligent considered approach to getting what you want, the other is a to heck with it give me the pleasure now approach. One would say that dealing heroin to children is wrong, the other would not care about the consequences if the result was pleasure now. Many people confuse the two, and understand egoism to be pure hedonism. It is not. The egoist thinks ahead, deals with likely consequences and outcomes, can defer some satisfaction now for greater satisfaction later or to avoid privation later. The hedonist has no pension plan, the egoist has the best available.

@Willamena: Please define the terms egoism and egotism, if you want people not to confuse them. I confuse them a lot.

What moral system? These entails something that has never been explained by anyone anywhere. This may be a reason why they have never been really widely accepted as viable systems.
When one thinks about morality as being practical, something that influences our actions, then it reverts every time to some form of egoism. Altruistic morality is often described as the morality of angels, and then it is claimed by some (Kant for example again) that angels are amoral as they are incapable of doing wrong. they have no choice in the matter.

There is egoism and there is hedonism. One is an intelligent considered approach to getting what you want, the other is a to heck with it give me the pleasure now approach. One would say that dealing heroin to children is wrong, the other would not care about the consequences if the result was pleasure now. Many people confuse the two, and understand egoism to be pure hedonism. It is not. The egoist thinks ahead, deals with likely consequences and outcomes, can defer some satisfaction now for greater satisfaction later or to avoid privation later. The hedonist has no pension plan, the egoist has the best available.



that's kind of my point - if, as you argue, even "altruistic" actions are motivated by an egoistic desire for, for example, self-worth or satisfaction (lets call it personal utility), then altruism cannot exist.

however, evidently some form of the ideal of altruism exists, as people are clearly influenced by its moral guidelines (just look at some of the posts on this thread). equally, there are people who will do whatever it takes - step on however many people - just to get what they want. i'm saying that, perhaps, as altruism and egoism share the same egoistic base (to fulfil personal utility, just in different ways - one directly, the other by, apparently, selflessly helping others) the way to distinguish between them is to look at how the philosophies actually affect people in the real world.
basically, the true ideal of altruism cannot exist as it is based on egoistic fulfilment, so we must have a different, practical meaning of both philosophies.
the practical meaning of altruism may be simply helping others as much as possible, often negating personal utility (but yes, obviously gaining it back through the helping of another); and egoism in the real world may be fulfiling one's own utility sometimes at the expense of others' (within the moral boundaries of the philosophy or of society (ie, law), hence it is not hedonism as you pointed out)

basically what i'm saying is that because true altruism cannot exist (by your own arguements) we must ignore the ideologies and focus on real life - and in RL there is a clear link between egoism and 'hedonism' (behaviour of fulfilling the self over others - behaviour more towards hedonism, though not necessarily hedonism itself), and a link between altruism and selflessness (behaviour of fulfilling others' utility over one's own, dispite this not exactly being the case).
there is, in my eyes, a very clear link between the philosophy and behaviour, and we should focus on the behaviour because the philosophy is moot.
wow i hope that made sense - its a little rambling! :headbang:

Genetics favors the ego. Ego favors genetics. If you display TRUE altruism (sacrificing yourself for your country or non-related random people) you die, your genes are not passed on and over time, there are less altruists.

Of course when talking 'personal philosophy' all bets are off, since I can certainly call myself an altruist and you'll just have to take me at my word.

that's kind of my point - if, as you argue, even "altruistic" actions are motivated by an egoistic desire for, for example, self-worth or satisfaction (lets call it personal utility), then altruism cannot exist.

however, evidently some form of the ideal of altruism exists, as people are clearly influenced by its moral guidelines (just look at some of the posts on this thread). equally, there are people who will do whatever it takes - step on however many people - just to get what they want. i'm saying that, perhaps, as altruism and egoism share the same egoistic base (to fulfil personal utility, just in different ways - one directly, the other by, apparently, selflessly helping others) the way to distinguish between them is to look at how the philosophies actually affect people in the real world.

While I agree that behaviour is a vital factor in morality, it is generally a little more complex than just the behaviour. A moral judgement of someone depends upon what they do, what they say and what we consider to be right. A judgement about a philosophy, for example whether egoism or altruism is the right way to go, also depends upon what is said and what we believe to be right. This time, however, there is no behaviour to judge. The system does not behave, it describes, it explains, and it condones or criticises certain things.

Now if you take an altruistic position you are in essence denying the possibility of attributing value to self interest, value resides in the society only, and not in the person. If you take an egoist position, then you are saying that value rests in self interest, in the person and not in the society at large. This is a fundamental difference of opinion, and will make people, in RL have differences of opinion about what is morally right. What is good for me is good, what is good for the other is good, are seen as opposed positions. The egoist is accused of being self centred, arrogant, cold, heartless etc. The altruist is accused of being idealist, a dreamer, weak, spineless etc. This spills over into political opinions, with most capitalists being, fundamentally egoists, and most socialists being altruists. (Note I say most, there are always exceptions).



basically, the true ideal of altruism cannot exist as it is based on egoistic fulfilment, so we must have a different, practical meaning of both philosophies.
the practical meaning of altruism may be simply helping others as much as possible, often negating personal utility (but yes, obviously gaining it back through the helping of another); and egoism in the real world may be fulfiling one's own utility sometimes at the expense of others' (within the moral boundaries of the philosophy or of society (ie, law), hence it is not hedonism as you pointed out)
The concern for the wellbeing of the other is not absent in egoism. I can not be sure, as I still have no workable example of altruistic moral philosophy, but surely the concern for the self can not be absent in altruism. A true egoist does not do anything "at the expense of the others" as that would be at his or her own expense in the long run. What they will do is to benefit themself if doing so does not harm the other. The altruist is surely the opposite of this. Someone who will benefit the other if it does not hurt them to do so. (To benefit the other and hurt yourself in the process is either being stupid, because you did not see the harm that would result, or insane.)

basically what i'm saying is that because true altruism cannot exist (by your own arguements) we must ignore the ideologies and focus on real life - and in RL there is a clear link between egoism and 'hedonism' (behaviour of fulfilling the self over others - behaviour more towards hedonism, though not necessarily hedonism itself), and a link between altruism and selflessness (behaviour of fulfilling others' utility over one's own, dispite this not exactly being the case).
there is, in my eyes, a very clear link between the philosophy and behaviour, and we should focus on the behaviour because the philosophy is moot.
wow i hope that made sense - its a little rambling! :headbang:

Good behaviour of the society as a whole is one of the objects sought by any moral code or system. If such a system is based upopn a false assumption, then the probability of it producing a worthwhile result is negligable. Altruism is based on a false assumption. When, and only when, there is a recognition of the self interest that lies at the root of apparently altruistic behaviour it will be possible to devise a fair and equitable system on these principles. While socialism and communism keep arguing that it is for the benefit of society, and not for the benefit of the individual, they will be abused and fail. (See Lenin or Mao for evidence.) If socialism can be shown to benefit the listener, the individual, then there will be support for it. This has happened in Scandanavia for example (Yes, USAians, Scandanavia is socialist in its politics.) The practical consequences depend upon the honest recognition of the basis of the system.

@Willamena: Please define the terms egoism and egotism, if you want people not to confuse them. I confuse them a lot.
Quite simply put, egoism is a philosophical idea that defines man's nature in terms of doing what is best for himself; egotism is a state of mind where self-satisfaction causes boastful pride in oneself. The latter has nothing to do with a moral system; the former does not necessarily lead to the latter. One can engage in egoism (and its my belief that we all do every moment of every day) without being egotistical.

A distinction should be made, too, between self-centredness and selfishness, in that use of the latter as an adjective usually means there has been some harm to others as a result of an individual's actions.

I know people have been using the distinctions properly in this discussion thus far, for the most part. I also want to applaud Chiller Vagabonds for the line, "I think the true altruism (work for the good of all) is just wrong and against human nature because it excludes myself. But I have a responsibility for myself." Both egoism and altruism philosophically look at only one side of an equation at the expense of the other (similarly with idealism and materialism). I think reality lies somewhere in-between.

IMO altruism is ideal and frequently the definition of "good" as was previously stated. However, egoism is clearly the natural state of man. IMO, only by divine intervention is altruism even possible. Yes, I know that some people claim to be athiests and still altruists, but it is my belief that their altruistic nature is still a product of divine intervention, though it may be unknown to the altruistic individual.

IMO altruism is ideal and frequently the definition of "good" as was previously stated. However, egoism is clearly the natural state of man. IMO, only by divine intervention is altruism even possible. Yes, I know that some people claim to be athiests and still altruists, but it is my belief that their altruistic nature is still a product of divine intervention, though it may be unknown to the altruistic individual.
i disagree wholeheartedly. egoism is the natural state of man in society. specifically, in this society we have built for ourselves.
if it weren't for the pressures and competition of the society we have made, and the fact that this 'natural' behaviour is passed down through the generations, egoism would not be 'natural' at all, imo. look at Rousseau's work for more (yeah i know, AB, you can't stand Rousseau :D ... oh and i'll reply to your post later when i have more time)


one of my favourite quotes from Rousseau:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

of course this relies heavily on believing the socialist idea that human nature is malleable.

I practice Altruism

i disagree wholeheartedly. egoism is the natural state of man in society. specifically, in this society we have built for ourselves.
if it weren't for the pressures and competition of the society we have made, and the fact that this 'natural' behaviour is passed down through the generations, egoism would not be 'natural' at all, imo. look at Rousseau's work for more (yeah i know, AB, you can't stand Rousseau :D ... oh and i'll reply to your post later when i have more time)


I recognize that this has been and will continue to be debated throughout history and the future. It is also possible to argue that the natural state of man is tableu le rossa (spelling? don't feel like getting out my skinnerian textbooks.). You are certainly entitled to disagree with my original position, which essentially means we will have to agree to disagree... :)

I recognize that this has been and will continue to be debated throughout history and the future. It is also possible to argue that the natural state of man is tableu le rossa (spelling? don't feel like getting out my skinnerian textbooks.). You are certainly entitled to disagree with my original position, which essentially means we will have to agree to disagree... :)
that we will :)

in a way this debate is like those religious debates i try so hard to stay away from - neither side can possibly prove their case :p

I practice Altruism
Why?

Most people are altruistic on some issues, egoist on others. I will selflessly help children and the elderly, but everything else is all about me!

Why?
Because it's the best for society

Because it's the best for society

So you would sacrifice your life for 'society?'

So you would sacrifice your life for 'society?'
No, because then I would be unable to help others after that

No, because then I would be unable to help others after that

So therefore you practice egoism!

I should clarify for everyone, I am using the more biological definition of altruism: "Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species." Rather than the common definition: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."

I am using this because if we accept the second definition, it may just be that EVERY POLITICIAN IS ALTRUIST if we're to believe them. We're not, how concerned someone is is pretty difficult to measure. Detriment and behavior are more well defined, however.

And I think humans are not inherently altruistic species. I do not think any species really is. No one does things for the SPECIES, what possible benefit is there to that? If I'm a lion and there are more lions, what does that mean?

More competition for mates
More competition for food
Ecosystem/imbalance/starvation type issues resulting from the above

It's really the same with humans. Having more competitors may be good for the economy, but it sure makes things a lot more difficult for everyone.

Altruism is ridiculous.

The only reason people become altruists is that they think they know what is best for everyone.

So therefore you practice egoism!

I should clarify for everyone, I am using the more biological definition of altruism: "Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species." Rather than the common definition: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."

I am using this because if we accept the second definition, it may just be that EVERY POLITICIAN IS ALTRUIST if we're to believe them. We're not, how concerned someone is is pretty difficult to measure. Detriment and behavior are more well defined, however.

And I think humans are not inherently altruistic species. I do not think any species really is. No one does things for the SPECIES, what possible benefit is there to that? If I'm a lion and there are more lions, what does that mean?

More competition for mates
More competition for food
Ecosystem/imbalance/starvation type issues resulting from the above

It's really the same with humans. Having more competitors may be good for the economy, but it sure makes things a lot more difficult for everyone.
PM is speaking about individuals, not species. If that was the question I would have agreed with you that humans are egoists

PM is speaking about individuals, not species. If that was the question I would have agreed with you that humans are egoists

How is it that as a species, we are egoists when we are not necessarily so as individual members of that species?

If I had the strength of conviction to do so, I'd say Altruism.

I have far more respect for people like Ghandi, the Dalai lama, Mother Teresa and Princess Di than I have for people that are self centered in every motivation they have (no need to give examples for that - it would incite a riot I'm sure, and you know who they are).

That said, I haven't the will to exercise pure altruism, and I feel that most people don't (not even considering the obvious philosophical fallacy of it).

In the end, I think that most people, and myself as well - are somewhere in between the two.

While I agree that behaviour is a vital factor in morality, it is generally a little more complex than just the behaviour. A moral judgement of someone depends upon what they do, what they say and what we consider to be right. A judgement about a philosophy, for example whether egoism or altruism is the right way to go, also depends upon what is said and what we believe to be right. This time, however, there is no behaviour to judge. The system does not behave, it describes, it explains, and it condones or criticises certain things.

Now if you take an altruistic position you are in essence denying the possibility of attributing value to self interest, value resides in the society only, and not in the person. If you take an egoist position, then you are saying that value rests in self interest, in the person and not in the society at large. This is a fundamental difference of opinion, and will make people, in RL have differences of opinion about what is morally right. What is good for me is good, what is good for the other is good, are seen as opposed positions. The egoist is accused of being self centred, arrogant, cold, heartless etc. The altruist is accused of being idealist, a dreamer, weak, spineless etc. This spills over into political opinions, with most capitalists being, fundamentally egoists, and most socialists being altruists. (Note I say most, there are always exceptions).

for the most part, agreed. most people have some vague idea as to where their allegiance to either of these philisophical extremes lies, and that is what influences behaviour. hence why egoists are often described as (i quote) "self centred, arrogant, cold, heartless etc" because their behaviour, caused by the philosophy they subscribe to, is concurrent, to some degree, with those damning descriptions. ditto with altruists being "idealist, a dreamer, weak, spineless etc." In my eyes this is undeniable as the connection IS there, in most people's minds.


The concern for the wellbeing of the other is not absent in egoism. I can not be sure, as I still have no workable example of altruistic moral philosophy, but surely the concern for the self can not be absent in altruism. A true egoist does not do anything "at the expense of the others" as that would be at his or her own expense in the long run. What they will do is to benefit themself if doing so does not harm the other. The altruist is surely the opposite of this. Someone who will benefit the other if it does not hurt them to do so. (To benefit the other and hurt yourself in the process is either being stupid, because you did not see the harm that would result, or insane.)

good point, well made; i concede. i started this thread honestly knowing little about egoism - i just wanted to see the correlation between these two philosophies and people's politics.


Good behaviour of the society as a whole is one of the objects sought by any moral code or system. If such a system is based upopn a false assumption, then the probability of it producing a worthwhile result is negligable. Altruism is based on a false assumption. When, and only when, there is a recognition of the self interest that lies at the root of apparently altruistic behaviour it will be possible to devise a fair and equitable system on these principles. While socialism and communism keep arguing that it is for the benefit of society, and not for the benefit of the individual, they will be abused and fail. (See Lenin or Mao for evidence.) If socialism can be shown to benefit the listener, the individual, then there will be support for it. This has happened in Scandanavia for example (Yes, USAians, Scandanavia is socialist in its politics.) The practical consequences depend upon the honest recognition of the basis of the system.
ok, but i fail to see how, if altruism is taken up by every member of a socialist society, the system "will be abused and fail."
yes, altruism is based on the desire for self-fulfilment, but this is not the outward/external 'end-product' of the ideal. if everyone is bent on helping each other, does it really matter (in practical terms) whether they are, at some, perhaps unknown level, doing it for themselves?


and what system might there be which builds on altruism but understands its egoistic roots? a rhetorical question i suppose - i certainly can't think of an existing ideal, or even what such a system could be...

(well actually i have an idea, but i'm still working on it after a couple of years of slow thought :)
i never thought about it from this angle before, but it just about fits that description...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

what about nihilism? i kind of believe that, but not exactly as that definition is. i just think that nothing can be proven, and we must accept that everything exist but nothing is real, but that we must assume that things do exist for normal practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

what about nihilism? i kind of believe that, but not exactly as that definition is. i just think that nothing can be proven, and we must accept that everything exist but nothing is real, but that we must assume that things do exist for normal practices.
Why is nothing real? or more accurately, what is it that makes nothing more real than something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

what about nihilism? i kind of believe that, but not exactly as that definition is. i just think that nothing can be proven, and we must accept that everything exist but nothing is real, but that we must assume that things do exist for normal practices.

This is an ontological concern. It worries about whether anything really exists. The general discussion here has been in a different direction, it has been one of personal and/or society values. Now, you could be nihilistic about society having values, but it is almost impossible to be nihilistic about personal values.

For you some actions, behaviours, beliefs, are good, and others are bad. Why? Whether anything external to you exists is, to start with anyway, irrelevant.

for the most part, agreed. most people have some vague idea as to where their allegiance to either of these philisophical extremes lies, and that is what influences behaviour. hence why egoists are often described as (i quote) "self centred, arrogant, cold, heartless etc" because their behaviour, caused by the philosophy they subscribe to, is concurrent, to some degree, with those damning descriptions. ditto with altruists being "idealist, a dreamer, weak, spineless etc." In my eyes this is undeniable as the connection IS there, in most people's minds.
Agreed then.

good point, well made; i concede. i started this thread honestly knowing little about egoism - i just wanted to see the correlation between these two philosophies and people's politics.
Thank you



ok, but i fail to see how, if altruism is taken up by every member of a socialist society, the system "will be abused and fail."
yes, altruism is based on the desire for self-fulfilment, but this is not the outward/external 'end-product' of the ideal. if everyone is bent on helping each other, does it really matter (in practical terms) whether they are, at some, perhaps unknown level, doing it for themselves?
If everyone takes up the system, then a true socialist state could emerge. How long this would last though, is a big question. The few times it has emerged, it has failed very rapidly under external and or internal pressures (Paris commune, Spanish Civil War, Zapatistas). The requirement toi know that you are doing it for your own sake is to stop you switching to a more explicitly egoistic system with short term goals in mind, which if more than a very few people do, would cripple the socialist system by producing an excessive number of free loaders and dead weights.

and what system might there be which builds on altruism but understands its egoistic roots? a rhetorical question i suppose - i certainly can't think of an existing ideal, or even what such a system could be...
Any socialist system. Anything that holds that it is the duty of us all to help those that require help. Early Christianity, Islam (true, not militant) are examples of this.

(well actually i have an idea, but i'm still working on it after a couple of years of slow thought :)
i never thought about it from this angle before, but it just about fits that description...)

I have to go now, for a while *mounts virtual Harley and rides off into the rain*

egoism

Altruism, easily. Egoism really doesn't have much of a point. People think of themselves to begin with and don't need a moral code to tell them to be selfish. In addition, being nice to others is pretty much necessary for a society to function effectively.

a song on philosophers :)

From Monty Python's Matching Tie and Handkerchief
by Eric Idle
Sung by the Pythons


Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Froederich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.




John Stewart Mill, of his own free will
on half a pint of shanty was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
'alf a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!

Altruism, easily. Egoism really doesn't have much of a point. People think of themselves to begin with and don't need a moral code to tell them to be selfish. In addition, being nice to others is pretty much necessary for a society to function effectively.
There's nothing in egoism that disallows one from being nice to others, especially as it makes one feel good oneself.

I'm nice to others, occassionally putting myself before them. But I have no qualms in stating that I'm mainly egoist. I'm not nasty, and I'm fairly socialist. But I'm top priority for the most part. I don't see why that's in any way wrong, either.


(ack.... poor post. Nevermind.)

Altruism. I already follow it, to a degree. Actually, I'm motivated to follow it because I believe most people are Egoists.

Though I would note that I am mostly a Stoic.

a song on philosophers :)

From Monty Python's Matching Tie and Handkerchief
by Eric Idle
Sung by the Pythons


Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Froederich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.




John Stewart Mill, of his own free will
on half a pint of shanty was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
'alf a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!



look!!!

I seems following either in its purest sense would be problematic if not impossible.

There is a site that illustrates what usually happens as far as altruism/egoism goes fairly well, though I can't remember what the address is. Basically, you play a game with another "person' wherein you either vote for or against them every round. You get the most money for voting against the other person and them voting for you, a mid-sized amount for you both voting for and lesser amounts for both voting against or being voted against.

It starts out all nice and good, but when you eventually take advantage of the other person by voting against them, the will no longer vote for you after that, which hurts both of you, so you have to vote for them to regain their trust and so forth. I think this is a pretty good illustration of how things work. I could look up the actual name, but my philosophy book is in the car and I'm lazy! :)

Egoism for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

what about nihilism? i kind of believe that, but not exactly as that definition is. i just think that nothing can be proven, and we must accept that everything exist but nothing is real, but that we must assume that things do exist for normal practices.
mm i'm also something of a nihilist. unfortunatley i let the ideas of nihilism depress the shit out of me, so i try not to think about it :p


btw, check out Altruists International http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/ :)

I like helping other people and I really don't give a damn if I ever get credit for it. People who want credit, who want to be recognized and praised, they annoy me. "Look at me, I helped you! Notice me and give me a reward."

and yet, and yet, I am a firm capitalist, because no system has ever delivered more for its peoples. Capitalist countries enjoy the highest standards of living, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Whenever I think about philosophies or political/economic theories, I look for contradictions. One of the fundamental truths about this world is that contradictions do not exist in nature. If you find one, you should examine your premise or your variables. The utter lack of contradictions in the universe is present in math, science, nature: you name it. Thus, it is my belief that one should follow a philosophy that's air tight.

I have yet to find a contradiction in Egoism. Pretty much everything I had looked into prior to finding this philosophy had some manner of contradiction in it. My favorite was brought up last night while I was on the phone with my brother: Just about all religions teach you that self interest is bad, and following it in most cases will lead you to Hell, but it's within your self interests to listen to us and go to Heaven. So which is it? Is self interest good or is it bad?

Altruism, in my opnion, is a virtue when employed by the individual, and a curse when employed by the State. I don't care how nice you are, or how Liberal you think you are, I count you as a fascist the second you presume to know what's best for society and go about imposing it on everyone else.

I also think I have to address this misconception that Egoism is a "Black Hole" of an ideology, that allows people to be "twats" to each other [the key here, then, is rational self interest which Egoism promotes and Altruism inherently abhors]. My answer to that is this: You reap what you sow. Fucking people over all the time is not good for rational self interest. It's bad. Do you really think our major coroprations got where they are today by fucking Joe Everyman in the ass for the last 25 years? Are you going to get off the ground as a car dealership if you sell people heaps of trash that break down as soon as they roll off the lot?

So really, when you think about it, anyone who goes about being a 'twat' to everyone he meets, and lies through his teeth at the office really isn't being true to Egoism, since he will inevitably pay for it later. Every story you've read, every movie you've ever seen has some character in it who is going to capitalize on the misfortune of a certain people or a certain group of people. Who can tell me what usually happens to this character?

Altruism. I cannot accept the notion that the selfish needs of some should be deemed more worthy of upholding than the essential needs of others - which is why I oppose capitalism, and why I think taxes are a good and necessary thing, and should not be lowered. It's that same philosophy that makes me a vegetarian.

Every story you've read, every movie you've ever seen has some character in it who is going to capitalize on the misfortune of a certain people or a certain group of people. Who can tell me what usually happens to this character?

What happens to that character is not true to real life. It happens because the story-teller wants to stay in line with the accepted standards of morality, rather than be a realist. I object to that on the grounds that such stories are simplistically Manichean.

I'm nice to others, occassionally putting myself before them. But I have no qualms in stating that I'm mainly egoist. I'm not nasty, and I'm fairly socialist. But I'm top priority for the most part. I don't see why that's in any way wrong, either.


(ack.... poor post. Nevermind.)
No, that's fine. That's normal.

egoism is the only logical and honest choice.altruism cannot exist in humans.all acts of kindness are selfish,because you do them to feel good about YOURSELF.you are a liar if you say that you try to help others over yourself.you WANT to think that you are a good person.by being kind,you get this,and that makes YOU happy.