is altruism possible?

[ark200]

is altruism possible? can we do welfare of all people? if we do welfare of industrialists, the labor class will suffer. if we do welfare of rich, the poor will suffer and vice versa.

[fiveworlds]

It depends on how you define altruism. A preacher might care weather or not you go to hell. But would be annoyed if somebody preached to them. Or alternatively a student may be happy to listen to a teacher but wouldn't want to answer the teacher's questions.

Edited September 23, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Dekan]

Fiveworld's examples raises some interesting points. Take the case of the preacher. Is the preacher really interested in whether you personally go to Hell?

 

Or is the preacher more concerned with this question - how many souls can I save? The preacher might be calculating on these lines - if my preaching is high-quality and efficacious, and causes a lot of souls to be saved from eternal Damnation, that's bound to put me in God's good books. Which will guarantee me a ticket to Heaven. So the preacher's motive might really be self-interest, not altruism.

 

On the student/teacher example, that's an issue which I'd like perhaps to go into, at some other time.

[ark200]

Fiveworld's examples raises some interesting points. Take the case of the preacher. Is the preacher really interested in whether you personally go to Hell?

 

Or is the preacher more concerned with this question - how many souls can I save? The preacher might be calculating on these lines - if my preaching is high-quality and efficacious, and causes a lot of souls to be saved from eternal Damnation, that's bound to put me in God's good books. Which will guarantee me a ticket to Heaven. So the preacher's motive might really be self-interest, not altruism.

 

On the student/teacher example, that's an issue which I'd like perhaps to go into, at some other time.

 

but we do things for a purpose of our own. can't we do altruism with an interest of our own i.e preacher save soul to go to heaven?

also i wanted to know if we can do wellfare for all people?

[Pozessed]

 

but we do things for a purpose of our own. can't we do altruism with an interest of our own i.e preacher save soul to go to heaven?

also i wanted to know if we can do wellfare for all people?

 

It seems, if we had welfare for all, majorities may become lazy and unproductive. Also rather expensive.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Pozessed

[iNow]

This thread has a lack of clarity and little precision around the language so I'm honestly not sure to what specifically I'm actually responding other than the thread title.

 

With that said, the most cogent argument today seems to be that, yes. Altruism does certainly exist, and not just in humans, but we almost certainly engage in it for selfish reasons (or at least for reasons related to survival, whether that be of the individual or the kin or even the larger group). There is also the sense of wellbeing and happiness altruistic acts seem to nurture within us, but again... That could be argued to be selfish, as well.

 

 

 

It seems, if we had welfare for all, majorities may become lazy and unproductive.

The data around universal healthcare and guaranteed food availability and basic minimum income doesn't support this assertion. Human nature is such that we are curious and do things we enjoy. While we of course seek ways to maximize return while minimizing expenditure, it's too remedial and simplistic to jump to calling that lazy and make the assumption that this leads to a lack of productivity. Of course there will be some out on the margins for whom this is true, but you commented on majorities and that's where my reply is targeted.

.

 

i wanted to know if we can do wellfare for all people?

 

What specific risks or obstacles do you feel would prevent this from being successful? Why couldn't we? Edited September 27, 2014 by iNow

[Pozessed]

Maybe a better question would be, how can a altruism most effectively be achieved if directed to educate, motivate, maintain, and benefit a large social community.

[Tzurain]

Maybe a better question would be, how can a altruism most effectively be achieved if directed to educate, motivate, maintain, and benefit a large social community.

 

Be kind to each other, be compassionate, and reflect upon your own actions.

Teach the younger generation to do the same.

 

(True idea...)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then, if they don't wish to do the stated above, we kill them. >

The 'killers' will be separated from the 'altruistic' community though, and are selected by the higher ranking officials.

Don't worry, the 'altruistic' people will make most part of the community, and will be the largest one.

We will have to pass a lot of laws to go for this idea though.

 

(...with added drama)

 

Edited September 29, 2014 by Tzurain

[iNow]

i wanted to know if we can do wellfare for all people?

 

Arguments that it is inevitable are becoming more common with the ever growing increases in unemployment coming from continued technological advance.

 

http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459

"We are now entering the beginning of an era in which technology has started to destroy employment faster than it creates it," he told io9. "The advance of information technology, artificial intelligence and robotics will eventually reduce the demand for all forms of human labor, including those dependent on 'human skills' like empathy and creativity."

 

He offers the example of Expedia. The online program may not be as creative at travel planning as an experienced travel agent, but it still displaces travel agents because it's considerably cheaper and more accessible. It's also an example of another impact of information technology, that of cutting out the middle man.

[Bill Angel]

Fiveworld's examples raises some interesting points. Take the case of the preacher. Is the preacher really interested in whether you personally go to Hell?

 

Or is the preacher more concerned with this question - how many souls can I save? The preacher might be calculating on these lines - if my preaching is high-quality and efficacious, and causes a lot of souls to be saved from eternal Damnation, that's bound to put me in God's good books. Which will guarantee me a ticket to Heaven. So the preacher's motive might really be self-interest, not altruism.

 

That's a possibility, but not all religious groups hold views consistent with that preacher's hypothetical agenda. Evangelical Christians believe that once you have accepted the offer of salvation from Jesus Christ, you are assured of spending eternity in paradise. A preacher of this belief is convinced that his own soul has already been guaranteed eternity in paradise, and therefore has no personal motive or need to convince others of this in order to gain some personal benefit in terms of his own salvation.

But one should not be naive about the motivations of some preachers, especially televangelists, some of whom can enjoy affluent lifestyles as a result of their success in attracting financial donations to their organizations.

[Willie71]

The question in the OP is incredibly difficult to answer.

There are several theories that try to address the question including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue-based ethics, and relationship-based ethics. I am coming from a perspective taught to me in healthcare ethics environment. One of the greatest challenges surfaces when one tries to quantify benefit. Different cultures have different definitions and different social roles so universal application becomes impossible. When we tried to define any universal moral law as is advocated in deontology, the premise is based on what a reasonable person would think is right, but we know that people's definitions and sense of reason vary greatly.

Coming back to altruism, every action that we take is ultimately related to our survival at some level. Under that guise, nothing can be truly altruistic, as there is an inherently selfish motivation.

 

I think it is more appropriate to think in terms of the yin/yang, with two faces to each problem/solution.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Willie71