NationStates Jolt Archive

it will in one of two ways; by humanity's self imposed extinction, if not by our collectively waking up and using better sense.

and this IS a CHOICE, NOT a 'fate'!
You ignorant boob. Ruthlessness, cunning, deception, and speed are things to be embraced, not shunned. They are what made humanity the masters of this planet. Nature is inclined toward cruelty and selfishness, to abandon those principals for some mythical "good of the many" or misplaced sense of duty to King and country will be the true downfall of mankind.

You ignorant boob. Ruthlessness, cunning, deception, and speed are things to be embraced, not shunned. They are what made humanity the masters of this planet.
One can argue as forcefully that rationality, cooperation, communication and altruism helped humanity flourish.

Or both.

One can argue as forcefully that rationality, cooperation, communication and altruism helped humanity flourish.

Or both.
Communication and cooperation can useful but the latter is only moral if it is voluntary. It's actually crucial in war to have good communication and cooperation between units to better coordinate attacks. But altruism? How has altruism ever truly helped anyone, much less the species? It props up the weak when it isn't driving a slaughter of the unpopular in the name of some greater good.

Altruism and reason are not on the same side. Religious leaders act out of a sense of altruism, demanding that people give to their church or to some chrarity in the name of some mythical being dreamed up long ago by fearful or cruel minds to trick people into giving up their lives for a salvation that will never come. Altruism is the greatest evil ever perpitrated on mankind and the greatest lie ever told.

Things happen fast in today's world.

Although the recession began a while back and has been going on for a while, the average voter has the attention span of a fruit fly. So they're upset when bailouts and stimulus are applied, and the next thing they hear is that the adminstration knew all along that AIG guys would still be getting huge bonus payments.

We've been waiting for places like Iran to take up Obama's offer to unclench their fist, but it seems they're more in tune with insulting him and launching rockets and continuing to stockpile weapons grade uranium. Same with North Korea.

It's one thing to be an idealist and sell what sound like great ideas to the masses - but idealism rarely works out, and when you fail, the unwashed masses will turn on you - and you won't get the "years" of time you knew in advance that you would need to accomplish anything.

Still, even in the end, like Bush, he will have his die hard supporters. As Smiley once said, the more that one invests in buying a forgery, the more effort you will place in defending it, even when everyone else knows it to be a forgery.

How has altruism ever truly helped anyone, much less the species?
Are you seriously asking this?

'How has acting with the intention of benefiting another individual, without concern for one's own welfare, ever have helped anybody?'

Seriously?

Religious leaders act out of a sense of altruism, demanding that people give to their church or to some chrarity in the name of some mythical being dreamed up long ago by fearful or cruel minds to trick people into giving up their lives for a salvation that will never come.
The above is explicitly not altruistic behaviour.

Altruism is the greatest evil ever perpitrated on mankind and the greatest lie ever told.
I don't think you understand what the term 'altruism' means.

How can non-selfish concern for welfare be either (a) a perpetrated evil, or (b) a lie?

By virtue of its nature, altruism can't be a lie or an evil; not in itself.

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.

You could have just asked me. I've been saying that since day 1.

To paraphrase using your boldface:

Specific actions: Stimulus plans, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, and monetarist policies carried out by the federal reserve.

Existing fact: The existing problem is that private individuals are in too much debt- which is the current crisis we are dealing with. The government proposes to solve this problem by using all its means to incentivize and coax people and companies to get into even more debt, (in addition to actively expanding the government debt).

Facts of history: Getting into more debt does not solve existing debt. Central bank lowering interest rates has never in history corrected economic problems. Stimulus plans have never worked.



Could you clarify your request?

Lowering interest rates helped in 1982, along with tax cuts, 1991 to shorten and flatten the recession, the same holds true for 2001 and that very small recession. If lowering interests rates never worked why would both Republican and Democratic administrations do it? Of course holding too much debt is a bad thing, but so is lack of liquidity to promote growth.

"Makiavellianism" will never be checked.

Actually, Machiavellian realpolitik is quite easily checked. All it takes is humanisation of the opponent or oppressed or whomever is on the business end. This is why you rarely see it practiced at the local or community level but quite often on the level of international politics.

Are you seriously asking this?
Yes.

'How has acting with the intention of benefiting another individual, without concern for one's own welfare, ever have helped anybody?'
Does giving a man a fish really help him? No. It makes him dependant on the kindness of strangers. It makes him a parasite.

The above is explicitly not altruistic behaviour.
Poorly phrased example. Here's a better one. Slave holders of the South probably thought that they were doing their captives a great service by providing them with food, shelter, and clothing. You might even say that they believed their actions to be altruistic.

I don't think you understand what the term 'altruism' means.
I understand perferctly. You don't seem to understand that morality is subjective and people will force their beliefs upon others because they think it's in those persons best interests. It's the "greater good" and "duty" crowds that always light the torches and rally with pitchforks. No massacre has ever been instigated by one man telling all to think and work and live for themselves.

How can non-selfish concern for welfare be either (a) a perpetrated evil, or (b) a lie?

By virtue of its nature, altruism can't be a lie or an evil; not in itself.
It can cripple a person with sloth and weakness by sheilding them from challenges that would make them stronger. It can drive people to steal or even kill if they think that doing so is an act of mercy or will help society as a whole.

Does giving a man a fish really help him?
If he needs food, of course it does.

Whether that help leads to dependency is another matter.

Poorly phrased example. Here's a better one. Slave holders of the South probably thought that they were doing their captives a great service by providing them with food, shelter, and clothing. You might even say that they believed their actions to be altruistic.
If you mean that the slave holders thought slavery itself was altruistic, or that providing clothing and shelter via slavery was altruistic, then they were obviously mistaken.

They were obviously getting something out of the situation.

I understand perferctly. You don't seem to understand that morality is subjective and people will force their beliefs upon others because they think it's in those persons best interests.
Again, not the greatest example of altruism.

Moreover, I'd dispute the notion that morality is subjective, but that's for another thread.

It's the "greater good" and "duty" crowds that always light the torches and rally with pitchforks. No massacre has ever been instigated by one man telling all to think and work and live for themselves.
What has this little rant got to do with altruistic behaviour being "the greatest evil ever perpitrated [sic] on mankind and the greatest lie ever told"?

It can cripple a person with sloth and weakness by sheilding them from challenges that would make them stronger. It can drive people to steal or even kill if they think that doing so is an act of mercy or will help society as a whole.
I don't see the above as any examples of altruism being 'evil' or 'a lie'.

All it possibly shows is that altruism can be misguided at times.

we always need a reality check

make mine folding cash. the reality check might bounce. I'd hate to be without a reality.

If he needs food, of course it does.
Not really if it creates dependency. If he ends up a parasite then he'd probably be just as well off dead because now not only is his life in jeopardy, he's also placing extra strain on another and potentially endangering his benefactor. What seems like helping one man is actually hurting two.

If you mean that the slave holders thought slavery itself was altruistic, or that providing clothing and shelter via slavery was altruistic, then they were obviously mistaken.
So every time you think that an altruistic action is evil or results in something you consider evil then it isn't altruism but every time it seems to benefit someone then it is. That seems kind of strange coming from someone who doesn't believe in subjective morality. And if you believe that you are always morally correct then that's just plain fucking arrogant.

Again, not the greatest example of altruism.
It's a perfect example of altruism. Altruism is all about devotion to and concern for the welfare of others. Whether or not a person wants your "charity" doesn't make your actions any less altruistic. See, that's the problem with altruism; it's not about choice, it's about doing what you think is best for others.

Moreover, I'd dispute the notion that morality is subjective, but that's for another thread.
I know you think that. And you have yet to provide any tangible evidence of this, any way of objectively measuring or otherwise analyzing morality. You see, the burden of proof is always on he who makes the claim. I see no way of objectively assessing cultural values (morals), no double-blind studies, no units of measure. Ethics cannot be quantified so they will remain a subjective philosophical matter.

What has this little rant got to do with altruistic behaviour being "the greatest evil ever perpetrated on mankind and the greatest lie ever told"?
The point is that until you give up your stubborn arrogance there can be no debate on the morality of simply giving people what they want or forcing kindness upon others.

I don't see the above as any examples of altruism being 'evil' or 'a lie'.

All it possibly shows is that altruism can be misguided at times.
That is just because you are unwilling to accept or even entertain the possibility that everything you were ever told by your parents, your society, and possibly any religion you had or still adhere to was wrong. You don't want to consider that there may not be such a thing as good and evil or that if those things do exist you were on the wrong side.

It was a few people acting in what they thought was the best interests of others that led to the imposition of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe and Fascism in Germany and Italy. Altruism has nothing to do with consent of the people. It has nothing to do with freedom of choice. That is why I believe it is wrong and evil. I believe that it is a con because it creates depenency while appearing to unselfishly "help" others, it creates parasites.

Prooo-oooooof!

You're asking for proof that something will happen in the future? Oh very well done.

You're asking for proof that something will happen in the future? Oh very well done.

Unless he can argue that there is a likelihood, yes, he needs to provide evidence.

Not really if it creates dependency. If he ends up a parasite then he'd probably be just as well off dead...
I'd refute such a terrible suggestion.

So every time you think that an altruistic action is evil or results in something you consider evil then it isn't altruism but every time it seems to benefit someone then it is.
No, I think that actions which benefit those who act on them, i.e. non-altruistic actions, aren't altruistic actions.

Funny, that.

It's a perfect example of altruism. Altruism is all about devotion to and concern for the welfare of others... See, that's the problem with altruism; it's not about choice, it's about doing what you think is best for others.
Again, no. It's simply acting with the intention to benefit others, which is a subtle, yet important division.

You initially stated that altruism was a 'perpetrated evil' and a 'lie', yet you haven't shown this to be the case. You've come up with some convoluted scenarios where the intention to do good harms another, along with examples that are clearly not altruistic, but you've not shown in any way how altruism is intrinsically evil or a lie.

I know you think that. And you have yet to provide any tangible evidence of this, any way of objectively measuring or otherwise analyzing morality.
I was under the impression that this was not the subject of the thread. You write as if I have been dodging an issue, which is plain dishonesty.

As I said previously, moral realism isn't the purview of this thread, but if your keen for 'evidence', for "any way of objectively measuring or otherwise analyzing morality", then I'd point you towards all manner of variations of Kantian ethics, utilitarianism and virtue ethics.

You see, the burden of proof is always on he who makes the claim.
A rather pertinent point, seeing as it was yourself who brought up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14612136#post14612136) moral subjectivity with the statement of "You don't seem to understand that morality is subjective".

The point is that until you give up your stubborn arrogance...
My what?

Kindly point out to me my 'stubborn arrogance'.

That is just because you are unwilling to accept or even entertain the possibility that everything you were ever told by your parents, your society, and possibly any religion you had or still adhere to was wrong. You don't want to bla bla bla bla...
Let's reel back that fertile imagination for a second.

I am merely noting that a number of instances where selflessly helping another can lead to poor consequences is not adequate proof that altruism is an 'evil' or a 'lie', or that it automatically creates dependency and turns folk into 'parasites'.