I have never really believed in pure total absolute altruism, neither that it exists, or that it would be a good thing if it did. It only really exists in the Christian/Islamic moral systems, many religions are quite free of it. While in Christian culture it seems to exist only in order to set up impossible demands on people, so that they are doomed to fail. Which then means that they have to resort to the church, which controls a monopoly on moral forgiveness, for a way out of the quite unjustified guilt.
Setting people up to fail with fake beliefs that extreme behavior is required of them, is perhaps the nastiest of all religions crimes. Especially since with Christians the idea often fails, so that instead of going to the church in search of forgiveness, which is bad enough, they instead find a way to distort and manipulate the moral system to mean anything they want it to say. So that the Christian religion in the end trains its people either to guilt and depression, or it trains them and accustoms them to extreme dishonesty, which then permeates the rest of their lives. Either way it destroys their humanity.
I just do not believe in a totally "selfless" act. Theres no such thing. It has to do with with the greatest benifit being your own self esteem.....
Interesting topic and there has been lots of research on the topic. If there is a reward (which almost all religions tout) it is not true altruism. It has been said if one gives (money, time and or energy) one is thinking I might be in this situation and would want someone else to help me. However, I do strongly feel some of us have a set of principles and are willing to sacrifice our own well being to maintain those principles. Altruism doesn't have to mean ding something for another but includes making a sacrifice for the potential good of a system.
The un-seen reward in a "selfless" act is paid in benifit to your own self-esteem. That ole sin " pride"
@HankSherman And what if the 'selfless' act turns out to be selfish and goes on to kill and destroy? If one wants to know what this does to ones self-esteem look no further than Putin (and many of his fellow followers and predecessors).
@jackjr it may be that you are mis-takeing selfeshness, with self-centerness, Putin wouldn't know selfish if it bit him on his insane, psycho ass
First of all, pure altruism exists, and it is nothing special, and it is not an "extreme behaviour" (millions of people in France alone donate money or blood every year). Everybody who makes donations like this is an altruist by definition (costs for the altruist + benefits for someone else)
Second, I do not believe that you have to be a special altruist in order to count as a good Christian; it is sufficient to be a nice person.
Maybe what you have in mind is a saint? Or a martyr? Well, in order to qualify as one of these groups, simply donating money or blood would not be enough, but religious authorities do not expect their sheep to become saints or martyrs (at least not in the Christian worlds I'm familiar with; maybe in some Muslim sects?)
Yes ordinary everyday altruism, is quite normal, healthy and I do indulge in it just like everyone else.
But the idea of total neglect of self interest certainly does exist in Christian dogma, as exampled by making the saints objects of praise and sainthood the ultimate goal. And while it is perhaps easier to defend many of the requirements of that dogma, than many of the harmless sins, set up by the church, such as respecting the sabath. It is none the less true, that altruism is seen as an absolute limitless goal, for which the church does pose as the only institution able to offer forgiveness, for falling short of the absolute. And it no doubt gains much power from that.
@Fernapple That's a strawman argument.
"Total neglect of self-interest" has never been a goal for ordinary Christians, at least not in Catholicism. I've received a Catholic upbringing (ordinary, plain vanilla style, nothing special, not severe), and nobody ever told me that I should strive to become a saint. On the contrary: unlike some Protestant sects (Puritans) , the Catholic church is quite lenient when it comes to human weakness: they know that we are all sinners, that the "flesh is weak", and that perfection (aka sainthood) is reserved for a few exceptional humans, not for ordinary folks.
Saints do not exist in reality. No one does things because it might make them a saint. Everyone wants to leave a legacy (yes, even the Putin's of the world). Most saints are not really saints but made so after the fact. It is a groups way of getting others to emulate a certain behavior and make the group look good.
@jackjr It is also setting up the ideas of absolute values. No nobody really wants, or expects to be a saint today, but then nobody wanted or expected in the tenth century to be a fearless viking warrior out of the sagas. But a societies idealized models are used, like it or not, to punish those who that society considers do not live up to what it wants of them, by using guilt, among other things. And since wants, all wants, even societies wants, are often limitless, failing is always inevitable, soiety will always say, why did you not do more. Except for the lucky few who are seen as saints and heros.
Thibaud above states that. "we are all sinners, that the flesh is weak". But of course the flesh is not weak, the flesh is merely a given. As well adapted to our needs as evolution could make it, but ultimately value free. (Though it may include moral instincts.) No more weak or strong, or to be judged than a rock or a pile of sand The fact that such phrases are so easily used as a commonplace shows just how deeply ingrained is the idea of a failed creature, in need of forgiveness, that we do not even stop to think about the indoctrination behind that, or how the religion has implanted it.
@Fernapple No, I think we disagree. Your main argument was that Christian culture sets up impossible demands on people, so that they are doomed to fail.
But a key tenet of Christian doctrine is original sin, which means that we all all born deeply flawed. The pope himself has to see another priest from time to time to confess his sins and to make some atonement. Mainstream Christianity actually makes few demands on people!
It is rather the secular modern culture that prones and prescribes self-perfection, and sets up impossible demands on people, so that they are doomed to fail. Whereas Christianity knows that human beings are weak and flawed, the "happycracy" of Positive Psychology and comparable movements put a strain on us to become better and better, a demand too high for most of us, which is one reason why conditions like depression, anxiety or burn-out are on the rise.
@Thibaud70 As I said to jack above. Thibaud above states that. "we are all sinners, that the flesh is weak". But of course the flesh is not weak, the flesh is merely a given. As well adapted to our needs as evolution could make it, but ultimately value free. (Though it may include moral instincts.) No more weak or strong, or to be judged than a rock or a pile of sand The fact that such phrases are so easily used as a commonplace shows just how deeply ingrained is the idea of a failed creature, in need of forgiveness, that we do not even stop to think about the indoctrination behind that, or how the religion has implanted it.
@Thibaud70 The last thing we needed around here was another Christian apologist. The way you make things up and misrepresent information to support your arguments is equally offensive.
In this thread, for instance, you have completely misrepresented the science of Positive Psychology. But to suggest that mainstream Christianity "makes very few demands on people" when it requires them to devote their lives to things unsupported by evidence should win you some kind of trophy even in your bizarro world.
Setting people up with demands that are impossible to fulfil ensures that they fail in their attemtps.
Impossible ? If you have ever donated blood or money, you are an altruist.
I just had an unholy thought : all my posts here are either altruistic or not.
They may be altruistic, but not purely so.
Impure thoughts are us?
When I was in the Navy I got stranded in Chicago once.
In desperation I went to a church to ask for help.
They shooed me away with no help.
A guy outside on the street asked me if I wanted too buy some drugs.
I told him I couldn't because I got stranded in the city.
He took me to the train station and bought me a ticket back to the Great Lakes Navel Training Center.
There's true pure altruism, just not where the establishment tells you it is.
Altruism is unrelated to religion.
I attest to the fact that altruism exists. Details unavailable. In my opinion, altruism is the highest form of human conduct and is properly the ultimate human goal.
Please distinguish between altruism and "pure altruism".
I speak for myself and not necessarily Fernapple. Pure altruism is where one renders aid as a matter of empathy or just helpfulness. Religion, Christianity as the most familiar example, adds the threat of eternal damnation, a motive that overwhelms the humanistic impulse, and substitutes absurd and ugly mind control in it's place. Indeed, the good behavior of Christians becomes suspect, and rightfully so given the short distance to bad behavior that can be triggered with the wrong word.
@racocn8 Thank you. I accept your definition but isn't that also the definition of just plain "altruism"? I think adding the "pure" part might be redundant although if I am wrong I would like to he corrected please.
Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, traditionally demanded by Christian dogma. Which can be very costly to society at large, which has to deal with the mental health and family trauma problems which result.
@Fernapple One can act in the interest of another in an act of altruism and still incidentally and unintentionally benefit themselves, especially if one believes that there is inherent self benefit to helping another and as such "pure altruism" may be a fallacy.
@LovinLarge Exactly.
@Fernapple But you do believe that altruism exists as more than just a concept?
@LovinLarge Oh yes certainly, indeed I think that it is widespead and important. A lot of people seem to have missed, the fact that I was making a point about specifically "pure altruism" as demanded by religion, where you are not even suppossed to get the satisfaction of feeling good about helping, or think that your society may benefit, and altruism generally. This is my fault, I should know better by now than to write quickly late at night after a couple of drinks.
@Fernapple No, I apologize for missing your point originally, but in retrospect I'm sure that you are right.
Religion has never been a part of my life so I don't really know or want to know much about it, but I do respect attempts to analyze it even though I'm not always able to follow along.
In short, I understand you to say that Christianity cruelly requires the impossible goal of pure altruism of its followers in order to reinforce their reliance on the church when they inevitably fail in the pursuit. I suppose I took the discussion in a different direction because I didn't have anything to add and that wasn't fair of me. Yours is a valid point and I'm glad you made it. It is certainly is worthy of further reflection on my part.
How does your “pure altruism” differ from ordinary altruism?
I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, as required by Christian dogma. Which can be very costly to society at large, which has to deal with the mental health and family trauma problems which result.
I've always felt that altruism exists because it's the right thing to do, not out of duty or reward, but because we care about others as much or more than about ourselves. We do get a good feeling about ourselves when we do good for others, even if it diminishes our own pleasure in life, but it's a good trade off.
I feel a bit guilty when I know I could have done something to ease someone's pain or stress and I don't, so I do try to do the right thing as much as possible. Sometimes I don't think of it in time, but I'm learning not to beat myself up about it too much. In other words, I'm not as nice as I used to be, for whatever reason. I guess there is something to learning how to help oneself first, before being able to help another, that is learned with maturity.
I think to do good only for a heavenly reward isn't truly a good deed, but is a selfish act, an investment in some imaginary brownie points. But to do good simply because there is need and someone would appreciate it, is more of a humanistic value.
Agree~ you said it well. Harvard's neurologist
have seen actions in people( and animals).
I do like your version/ I do random acts- needing no reward or motive , except to help (maybe they pass it on ??? ) I am OK- you are ok
@BBJong Yeah, the pay it forward type things make it easier to accept help when I need it. In the community where I live, there is a lot of kindness (in the spirit of aloha) and it's a bit contagious, making life a whole lot more enjoyable and give us a feeling of being surrounded by love everywhere we go.
Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest.
Numerous examples of altruism as performed by other species are documented. The presence of this behavior explains our own behavior. However, in our society we see that fundamentalists commonly lack empathy to the point of being psychopathic, and this does seem to be caused by religious indoctrination. Indeed, religious indoctrination appears to CAUSE a broad variety of behavioral maladies and some of this may be attributable to damage in the prefrontal cortex. Some of this damage may be due to the infliction of trauma.
RELIGIOSITY IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE. We would do well to continue documenting this problem and treat it as a social disease.
Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, as required by Christian dogma.
I'm not sure about altruism personally but I do know of one thing I did years ago when my sister died at home of a heart attack in her own bathroom. Her stepson heard a thump but did not go investigate immediately. My family damned him and said he could have acted quickly and saved her. I picked a time when the boy was home alone and went to see him. My words were that there was nothing anyone could have done and he cried like a baby. I feel that I helped lift a burden from him that day.
If the topic is how shit religion is then you've certainly sunk another nail in the crucifix.
If the topic is altruism then pure forms of abstract nouns exist only as paragons.
Altruism's expression as the evolved trait of co-operation has nothing whatsoever to do with the belief in super beings.