I once had a teacher raise the argument that there is no true altruism. Just for clarification, the definition of altruism is posted below. n. noun \tUnselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. \t \nI don't believe that there is. In my experience, helping someone out has become a byproduct of making myself feel good. When I used to drop pizzas off to homeless people after work, I did it because it made me feel good. It was just a positive side effect that it also made other people feel good. \nNobody can commit an act of kindness without feeling good themselves, which they typically know before committing the kind act. \nJust curious what the opinions are that fellow blades have on this topic.
I believe it's possible with experience if that makes sense. You can get to a certain point where you really care for all people that deserve that unselfish attention.
When parents drive their kids around and drop them off at friends or whatever despite having loads of shit to do themselves, they're certainly not doing that to make themselves feel good. They're selflessly putting their child before them. So really I think this is very, very easy to argue against if you come from a semi-functional/loving family.
In this case I believe it's the other way around. That feeling good was a byproduct of giving out those pizzas. Just because you get something out of helping others doesn't mean your actions can't still be altruistic. The end result doesn't ruin the intent. For example, I give a monthly donation to the ASPCA. Even though it makes me feel good, my actual intent is to help mistreated and abandoned animals. I don't tell everyone I know that I donate, or belt it out from the rooftops. My intent isn't to get a warm fuzzy feeling from it, it's to help a cause I feel passionately about. As does a lot of things in life, it all boils down to intent...
The debate comes from selflessness, cause without the self, one could not have performed that act. Being altruistic is a concious act that tries to secure the feeling of positive energy, to make the experience of life enjoyable. So with somatics argued, of course there is no true altruism. But being positive for the sake of being positive and spreading positive energy is what altruism was manifested from. At least the idea, in my opinion.
I think in a lot of cases that feeling isn't the goal, it's just something that happens afterwards. I'm sure a lot of people act in good faith to others for the sole purpose of feeling good about themselves, but those people don't do those kind of things forever. Just like any drug, eventually the feeling of hapiness dampens and fades. Altruism, true altruism, is possible when put into context by intent.
The reason people are kind is because they want kindness to envelop their lives. So in a sense, it is selfish. The self is performing a set of actions that creates a positive energy filled environment and strengthens such a mentality to continue to do so. I think that'd what the person meant by no such thing as true altruism, by definition and technicalities.
I disagree. I believe true kindness comes from true empathy. When kindness comes from empathy, the intent isn't to feel good about ones self, it's to alleviate anothers misery. Those are two very seperate things, even though one inevitably brings about the other.
Truth is based on bias, perspective. Empathy is putting yourself in anothers shoes and relatibg to the stimuli they experience and the possible oytcome of emotions or thoughts thar may be brought on. To empathize in a way that defines having others feel as you like to feel, is still manipulating the stimuli around you so that both you, your self, and another is living through a positive and pleasurable experience. I too like others tp rejoice in life and find the warmth that can be. But why? Because I myself like it and empathize that may too. Positive energy, yet still, the self is entirely connected. No matter uow far apart on wishes to see this connection, its still a connection. As everything is.
But thats the opposite of what it is to empathize with someone. I'm not too sure what you are getting at here...Empathizing with someone can be either a negative or positive experience, but in both instances it's a result of the emotion. You're not deciding to feel empathy because you want to share in some good vibes; empathy is an emotion that, if present, is not controllable. You can rationalize to yourself about how it would feel to be in that persons shoes, but the two are very different. And empathizing someone elses woes is in no way a pleasurable experience. Unless of course you're a sadist.
Even if making others happy satisfies you, are you not still serving yourself? You are doing.something that makes YOU happy right? I usually resolve this moral dilema with with the idea of mitualism. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Holding the door for someone just out of habit. Its such a brief moment that you probably don't even have time to think of a motivation.
To an extant, but I think only like 1% of the population may reach it I believe more in self-actualization. Sent from my iPhone
Well doing good to others gives off chemicals that make you feel good, so ultimately no because even if someone is helping out for the greater good he or she still feels good for themselves, jus my opinion though Sent from my iPod touch using Grasscity Forum
I think that if one does a good deed out of genuine selflessness, then the 'feel good' feeling is even better. However, even if it's done with the selfish intent, it's not so bad. It's what they call a positive emotional attractor. It makes you feel good and improves your life.
Very young children show true altruism...they certainly aren't doing it for selfish reasons to make them 'feel better' about themselves. They just do it. Two year olds, for example, will bring a blanket to another child who's crying: We are born with the capacity for empathy.