😈 The Evil Ideas thread
-
You're not getting it.
That's because you're not explaining it. You're making strange assertions that don't seem to have any basis in what I said.
Nothing new here.
Agreed.
-
I already explained it. If you're oppressing someone you're not making them happy. Altruism is not only about the physical but also the emotional well-being. Thus oppression, for whatever reasons, is not altruism.
-
-
I already explained it. If you're oppressing someone you're not making them happy. Altruism is not only about the physical but also the emotional well-being. Thus oppression, for whatever reasons, is not altruism.
But one person's altruism can be another's oppression. Just because you think you're working for and sacrificing your own well being for that of others' doesn't mean that they are actually better off.
Is there a definition of altruism that focuses on the result instead of the intentions of the actor? I'm not aware of any, but maybe this is a language / culture thing.
-
Altruism is often seen as a form of consequentialism, as it indicates that an action is ethically right if it brings good consequences to others
Or directly from the tl;dr blurb of Wikipedia:
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals,
-
Perhaps we should have an altruism thread?
-
Now, imagine that two people differ on how they view a particular consequence. One likes it, the other despises it. Often times, the actor is sure of the rightness of his action and that other people are better off even when they say they are not.
-
If you're not considering the other's feelings you're not acting altruistic.
-
If you're not considering the other's feelings you're not acting altruistic.
The feelings are the most important thing thread is
.Also, you might still believe that they feel better about the world with your altruistic act than without it. They might not understand the full picture or grasp the consequences of you not acting. This is especially common in obvious ways with children, but I don't see why it can't apply to anyone.
-
In that case it would be skewed towards utilitarianism. The outcome determines which.
-
But utilitarianism would have to be concerned with the well being of the altruistic actor. Which contradicts altruism.
-
But utilitarianism would have to be concerned with the well being of the altruistic actor. Which contradicts altruism.
No, it doesn't have to. It may but it's no requirement AFAIK.
-
Now, imagine that two people differ on how they view a particular consequence. One likes it, the other despises it.
If you're not considering the other's feelings you're not acting altruistic.
Person A sees person B drowning. Person A risks his/her own life to rescue person B. Did person A act altruistically? Obviously, yes.What if person B was (unknown to person A) attempting to commit suicide, and didn't want to be rescued? Was person A's action still altruistic?
What if person A did know know person B was attempting suicide, and rescued him/her anyway? Still altruism?
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but @Rhywden's definition would seem to say no, at least to the latter.
-
Murky. Then again, everything is when you push against the boundaries.
-
It's all about the edge cases baby!
-
It's all about the edge cases baby!
Well, those are the fun ones in philosophy, after all. The cases which are clearly adhering to one definition or another are boring. It's the "Do you throw the switch to save one baby or do you not and save five children?" questions which get you through the long boring winter nights.
-
If I time it right, can I kill all six?
-
If I time it right, can I kill all six?
And thus we have come full circle, back to the topic of the thread.
-
That said, I agree with @Rhywden's original statement in reply to @boomzilla:
What you're describing there is not altruism.
I like the C. S. Lewis quote, and I agree with it. Being "omnipotent moral busybodies" and "torment[ing] us for our own good" may fit within the letter of some definitions of altruism, but seem in rather stark opposition to the way the word is commonly used. Interestingly, the biological definition of altruism seems to come closest to common usage:
Altruism in biological organisms can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action.
The oppressive moral busybody may see his/her morality as benefiting others, but it fails the (ordinary) definition of altruism for two reasons. Oppression is rarely seen as beneficial by either the oppressed or a disinterested observer, and moral busybodyism does not seem to involve the self-sacrifice that is implied in the typical usage of altruism.
-
Oppression is rarely seen as beneficial by either the oppressed or a disinterested observer
Obviously the oppression is in the eye of the beholder.
...and moral busybodyism does not seem to involve the self-sacrifice that is implied in the typical usage of altruism.
This is a worthy critique, but I would counter by saying that the person who is never resting is spending all of their effort for the benefit of others when they could be personally more profitable if not out working for everyone else's benefit.
And the point of the quote is that people out for their self-interest aren't going to be as diligent as doing whatever they're doing to you as people out to do stuff for your own good. I suppose we can argue about the actual sacrifices being made, especially since the quote is somewhat vague on that, but I don't see anything that explicitly contradicts altruism.
-
The oppression part contradicts it pretty starkly.
-
No, not at all, in fact, as I already explained. I get that you think someone's subjective thought suddenly means that someone isn't sacrificing and attempting to act for the benefit of others, but so what?
The evaluation of others benefit is often subjective. If your definition of altruism is that everyone in the world has to agree on the benefit, then it's a pretty worthless definition. And I don't see anything other than your assertion that it's included in the definition.
-
By that same yardstick, your definition of "opression" becomes equally worthless as you'd also have to get everyone to agree that the person is actually opressed.
-
I don't think so. I'm just saying that different people react to different situations differently. And certainly not rationally or even always in their best interest. Likewise, judgments about what's good for someone can be wrong.
-
You're arguing a-priori. I'm saying ex-posteriori. And as altruism is determined by consequence it falls straightly into the latter.
-
You're arguing a-priori. I'm saying ex-posteriori. And as altruism is determined by consequence it falls straightly into the latter.
I would say that both intent and outcome matter. One can come up with many situations in which one's actions might benefit others, but are not altruistic. Consider an entrepreneur who starts a business, hires employees, and pays them reasonable wages. The employees benefit: They earn money, their families are fed, housed and clothed. But from the entrepreneur's point of view, these benefits to others are (typically) incidental to the entrepreneur's primary goal of benefiting himself. The consequence is benefit to others, but it is not altruism.
OTOH, the moral busybody has the intent of benefiting others. One can easily hypothesize a situation in which he/she is contributing his/her own resources that might otherwise be used for personal enjoyment to The Cause; one might even argue that this is the norm. He/she would certainly see themselves acting altruistically. However, you yourself would argue that this is not altruism because the erstwhile beneficiary is not actually benefiting.
-
As I said, there are other types of consequentialism besides altruism. It's not as if philosophers run out of terms to coin :)
-
As I said
Well, there's the problem. I have no of knowing what you did or didn't say, only what you wrote (and then only if I read it :aintNobodyGotTimeForThat.mp4: ). ;P
-
Can we get a pendantry-badge over here, stat?
-
I suddenly got new insight into the one about whether you push the fat guy in front of the train to save five people. It's a moral dilemma for you, but what if the fat guy chooses to jump in front of the train himself to save the other five? Was he morally justified in performing this selfless act?
-
-
Can we get a pendantry-badge over here, stat?
You know where the flag button is. /FrostCat.
-
whether you push the fat guy in front of the train to save five people
Well, he probably wanted to lose weight anyway, right?As a fat guy who commutes by train daily, I probably shouldn't say things like this...
-
I'm just saying that different people react to different situations differently. And certainly not rationally or even always in their best interest.
Here, have some supporting evidence, in case one of the Hard Facts trolls comes to the "rescue"
@Scarlet_Manuka said:As a fat guy who commutes by train daily, I probably shouldn't say things like this...
And no, you probably shouldn't. The Bad Ideas Thread is
-
Alabama sends message: We are too broke to care about right and wrong
Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one.
Disenfranchising voters.
-
That's evil - is there a new take on it tho? is there any prior art discovery done AT ALL for this thread? Did not read article, I expect you'll summarize tho :D.
-
Discobjectivism is the religious dogma that the User Group is always Doing It entirely Wrongâ„¢.
DTFY
-
Objectivity is the scientific axiom that an individual is never entirely correct.Objectivism is the religious dogma that the Group is always entirely wrong.Try not to confuse the two.
I missed this yesterday. The trans flamewar is becoming a real
to keeping up with the other threads. Anyway, my compliments on a first-class troll.
-
Person A sees person B drowning. Person A risks his/her own life to rescue person B. Did person A act altruistically? Obviously, yes.
Did they? As long as we have conscience hooked up to our brains' reward mechanisms, can altruism even exist?
There's an awful lot of people who do good, heroic things, but I don't think I've seen one that wouldn't ultimately be happy about it. And conversely, if person B just let the other guy drown, they'd probably have to fight with regret for a sizeable chunk of their life.
So even in a society of selfish bastards, we're still hardwired to help others, because we all get off on it.
-
can altruism even exist?
There is, apparently debate over whether true altruism can exist in humans. I'm not a philosopher, so I don't have a lot of interest in splitting hairs over finely twisted definitions of just what makes altruism true; I just use the common, everyday definition that risking oneself for the sake of another is altruism. Yes, you get a good feeling out of it (assuming you survive), but you're still putting another's needs ahead of your own, and that's pretty much the definition of altruism.
-
Seems to be hardwired, too. There have been studies which show that toddlers can behave altruistically.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/01/slander_app_founder_slandered/ - A gender based attack on a female-owned business.
-
Seems to be hardwired, too. There have been studies which show that toddlers can behave altruistically.
Is it really altruism when the toddler doesn't really understand that they are risking something? Young kids can have a very difficult time evaluating risk and incorporating it into their decision making. Also, given the same situation multiple times, the same toddler could flip between altruistic behavior and asshole behavior with little indication as to why.
The hardwiring thing based on studying toddlers seems suspect to me.
-
Understanding is not a requirement for altruistic behaviour.
-
After reviewing the definition again, I need to reconsider my position. It appears that altruism does not require the risk of anything:
@oxforddictionaries.com said:
###altruism
noun
1Â Â Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of othersThere is nothing in there about sacrificing anything for the well-being of others. It only indicates that altruism requires selfless concern in seeking that well-being. So if you are trying to ensure the well-being of others, with no thought of what the consequences to yourself may be, that is altruism.
Now, that only leads me to remove a part of my previous post:
Is it really altruism when the toddler doesn't really understand that they are risking something? Young kids can have a very difficult time evaluating risk and incorporating it into their decision making. Also, gGiven the same situation multiple times, the same toddler could flip between altruistic behavior and asshole behavior with little indication as to why.The hardwiring thing based on studying toddlers seems suspect to me.
This also leads me back to @Maciejasjmj's question:
As long as we have conscience hooked up to our brains' reward mechanisms, can altruism even exist?
I'd argue that yes, it can. If someone is consciously acting for the well-being of another in order to trip that self-reward circuit in their brain, then that is not really altruism, because they don't meet the "disinterest and selfless" condition. They are consciously seeking a reward. But if they aren't consciously seeking to trigger that reward circuit, then I believe it would qualify.
-
So the same actions under the same circumstances might or might not be classified as altruistic depending on how self-conscious the actor is?
Well, that is a solution, but one that's hardly applicable in real life...
-
Vaccines cause altruism.
-
So the same actions under the same circumstances might or might not be classified as altruistic depending on how self-conscious the actor is?
That is how I interpret the definition. Of course, this interpretation raises another question. Since altruism is disinterested and selfless concern, can you ever really determine if another person is acting altruistically? Can you ever really determine their motivation?
For example, say that you have recently fallen in love, to the point where you cannot imagine life without that individual. Now that individual's life is endangered, and you are given a choice between saving them at significant risk to yourself, or letting them die and having to deal with loss, grief, possibly depression. Most people in that situation would choose to save their partner. I think we can agree that this is not an altruistic act, as you are acting to save a loved one and avoid negative consequences.
Now imagine that instead of being in that situation you are a third party observer who is unaware of the relationship. Your observation only allows you to see the act of saving and you gain no insight at all into the relationship. From this perspective, the act appears altruistic, simply because we are not aware of the motivations.
tl;dr: you can only really tell when you are being altruistic, you can only guess when someone else is being altruistic.
Well, that is a solution, but one that's hardly applicable in real life...
Yeah, maybe I need to work on a looser interpretation …
-
For example, say that you have recently fallen in love, to the point where you cannot imagine life without that individual. Now that individual's life is endangered, and you are given a choice between saving them at significant risk to yourself, or letting them die and having to deal with loss, grief, possibly depression. Most people in that situation would choose to save their partner. I think we can agree that this is not an altruistic act, as you are acting to save a loved one and avoid negative consequences.
No, I don't think we can. While I have not personally been in that situation, nor do I personally know anyone who has, I have thought about what I would do. In that situation, I — and I think most other people — would be motivated by saving the other person (the motivation would be strengthened by the fact that the other person is a loved one, but not changed qualitatively), not by the positive consequences to me of saving them, nor by the negative consequences to me of not saving them. (The negative consequences to me of coming to harm in the attempt would, of course, be acting to weaken the motivation; assume, as we have throughout this discussion, the motivation to save the other overcomes the motivation for self-preservation.) The consideration of relative positive and negative consequences might come into play if I had to decide between rescuing one person or another, but I don't think it's a significant factor in whether to rescue.
OTOH, maybe I'm just projecting my own feelings onto others, and I'm really not representative of people in general. Maybe even I'm not as good at analyzing my own motivations as I think I am.
-
So you really don't think that your desire to save a loved one and avoid the possible emotional turmoil associated with losing them are motivating factors? You would save your significant other based on a purely non-emotional response? In a real life scenario, no one is that good at separating their emotions from the decision making process.
Even if saving a loved one and avoiding emotional pain aren't you primary motivations, they are still contributing motivations in that scenario, and as a result your actions cannot be considered "Disinterested and selfless concern". Once your emotions become a factor in the decision making you are an interested party, and you can no longer exhibit selfless concern. You cannot act with pure altruism in that scenario because of your emotional attachment.
Altruism (ethics) - Wikipedia
