altruism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 09:51 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Please providean example in which your statement would be true.

I got your back and you got mine.

A definite improvement over going it alone.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Dom's post
04-07-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 10:08 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 09:51 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Please providean example in which your statement would be true.

I got your back and you got mine.

A definite improvement over going it alone.
Exactly the definition of rational selfishness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 12:45 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Altruism is suppose to be an action which benefits the species at a cost to the individual.

No, that's not right. Altruism only requires selflessness, not self-sacrifice. That's ascetism. A clinical definition would be more like altruism is "intentional and voluntary actions that aim to enhance the welfare of another person in the absence of any quid pro quo external rewards." (some clinician). The requirement is that there is no expectation of benefit, not that there must be a cost. You're making the old and frankly rather tired argument that the theory of psychological egoism precludes "true" altruism. That's a misunderstanding of altruism. Aliza is arguing the utilitarian consequentialist case that altruism gives no shits about the "truth" of it. Girly the pragmatist gets to make the call. Aliza wins. Your position is of a no consequence. Why should I care whether so-called "true" altruism exists? What difference would it make one way or the other?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
04-07-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 10:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 09:41 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  If an individual holds that increasing the wellbeing of those around oneself increases their own wellbeing, can that individual be said to be "good".

You are asking -

if +you and +me then megood? or, by contraposition,

if ~(+you and +me) then ~megood? =>
if ~+you or ~+me then ~megood? =>

If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not good?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

Does that answer your question?

I'm going to try to make this my last post before I go to bed but let me try and rephrase just to make sure I am clearly understanding what you said.

If I hold that not increasing the well-being of those around me does not increase the well-being of myself, I am not maximizing my own well-being?
or
Maximizing the well-being of others in so far as I am able, maximizes my own well-being.
or
I help you, you help me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 12:18 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 12:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 11:21 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I'm going to try to make this my last post before I go to bed but let me try and rephrase just to make sure I am clearly understanding what you said.

If I hold that not increasing the well-being of those around me does not increase the well-being of myself, I am not maximizing my own well-being?
or
Maximizing the well-being of others in so far as I am able, maximizes my own well-being.
or
I help you, you help me.


I said none of those things. What I said was,

(04-07-2017 10:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not good?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

which is the logical equivalent of your original question and not the logical equivalent of that question or those statements. I said the same thing you said in a different way, I don't understand your confusion.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 03:14 PM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 12:45 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  So here's the thing. I really need to be asleep right now. I can't go to sleep however because of how upset I am at the arrogance of your post. I really really want to say a whole bunch of nasty things using the most uncharitable language possible. I am going to attempt to refrain from doing so because it wont be productive. I NEED you to understand how upset your post has made me thought.

When I was an early teen my mother found me in bed with another boy. Would you like to guess the result? Now imagine for a moment that you are me. Your on the street. You are hungry because you haven't eaten in two days. There is a place you've been told about where you can get food. You are angry. Very angry. You're angry because the person whom you love most in the world does not love you back because your both queer and an apostate. The unconditional love you believed in turned out to have quite the condition on it after all. You're alone. You're scared. You're wondering where you can go to pick up a john because you really need to eat. You're directed to a soup kitchen.

As they are setting up you are in a conversation with one of the volunteers. They find out you're an atheist. All you want is some fucking food. How dare you get angry because they are trying to shove Jesus down your throat. Especially after the belief in Jesus is the reason you no longer have a bed to sleep in. You fucking ungrateful child. I mean you even had the timidity to ask her not to pray for you when she offered to do so before the prayer circle. You didn't bow your head, no. but you remained respectfully silent. After all they were going to feed you.

How dare you imply that I was petty, or disrespectful.

When you offer someone the choice between starving or swallowing an unwelcome load of jesus... Well that's not a choice is it really.

All I can say about that event when you were a teenager is that it sounds very much like the circumstances you were in led you to a fork in the road. In either path ahead, something was getting jammed down your throat. I think you chose wisely. At least the Christian shelter didn’t leave you with some horrible STD and a black eye.

I’m so sorry that my words have caused you such anxiety and have caused you to lose sleep. You’re spouting an idea that hasn’t been well received, and you sound uninformed and stubborn, and you seem to have a very polarized view of the world. You’ve done it more or less very politely, so you haven’t been totally skewered, but maybe you need a thicker skin. I haven’t been unreasonable to you at all.

This victimization thing you’ve got going on is something I would expect from an angst filled teenager, but as people grow into adulthood, they typically become more confident, well-adjusted, self-actualized individuals. If they’re smart and empathetic, they may recognize that most people are just trying to do their best. Life is a learning process and we all stumble along the path. We all screw up, and most of us are trying to learn from our mistakes and better ourselves.

It sounds like (probably quite often) the people in your life fall short if your personal expectations for them, but you do not adjust those expectations or account for the vast differences that exist from person to person. Rest assured, they are not falling short to spite you; They’re just not as skilled in the things you value as you’d have hoped. I hate to break it to you, but you’re not the baseline for which all other people model their behavior.

Those shelter workers "failed" you because they wanted to share Jesus with you. They didn’t understand how they might have been offending and hurting you; it’s not like the homeless shelter hires top notch mental health professionals to dish out your soup. These people are giving their time to help you, and if they misstep, a well-adjusted person would be able to recognize that the training provided to the drop-in volunteers (when they get volunteers at all) is less than stellar. Your mother was religiously indoctrinated but rather than recognize her religious views were the root of her weakness, all you seem to see is that she failed you. Maybe she couldn't have proactively anticipated the coming events to have gotten the necessary counseling on how to handle you better. She's a victim of her culture, not a villain who just wants to hurt you. Szuchow failed you for being a little too harsh with you and didn’t automatically view things from your perspective. I failed you because I dared to suggest the possibility that you accepted and utilized services from people, and then regarded them so horribly because you disagreed with their program methods.

We’ve conversed for only a few posts, but this victimization vibe I’m picking up from you is quite palpable. Everyone hurts you, you’re the wounded victim, and your hurt and pain are justification for shutting off the learning process and carrying forward with angry indignation toward your fellow man. Only you are just and proper because your Christian up bringing (that you insist on hanging onto) teaches that there can only ever be one proper and good way of thinking. You’re right and everyone else is wrong and they need to learn from you to be better.

The reality is that there are no absolutes in a world of 7 billion free-thinking people, each of who have different genes and different experiences that shape their world-view. Unless you’ve been diagnosed with some kind of psychopathy, in which case I would understand that you’re stuck this way, try bettering yourself. Try appreciating your fellow humans as each being individuals with motives that differ from yours, but which are either valid, or at least understandable. Let go of your teenage anger toward all the people who you perceive hurt you and let you down, and try to view things from another person’s perspective.

Give people the benefit of the doubt and work from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
04-07-2017, 11:49 PM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 03:14 PM)Aliza Wrote:  All I can say about that event when you were a teenager is that it sounds very much like the circumstances you were in led you to a fork in the road. In either path ahead, something was getting jammed down your throat. I think you chose wisely. At least the Christian shelter didn’t leave you with some horrible STD and a black eye.
Hows it look from on top of that horse? Is the weather nice up there?
Have you ever known a prostitute? [url=https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/] Maggie McNeill] Listen to her interview [url=http://www.thaddeusrussell.com/podcast/]here[url]
I have to decide how to say this.
Being an underage prostitute is actually an advantage. Before I was taken in by a friends family after living on the streets for several months I am only aware of one individual who was physically abused by a john. Said John (Joan?) was a middle aged woman who may or may not have ended up in the hospital before being arrested. The power disparity between johns and teenaged prostitutes is enormous and in the favor of the teenager. With a single word such a prostitute can ruin the johns life.

What I find most interesting about what I observed during that period of my life is that I learned how that community of individuals self policed, not just the johns but themselves. They may or may not have blackmailed an individual who may or may not have blackmailed a john into giving them money without sex.

As to me making the 'wise choice'. Trauma is by its nature a subjective experience. This is why I hate it when people say "well I went through X and it was worse than your Y". Sorry but I have to call bullshit. What makes trauma trauma is the lose of control one experiences. If hypothetically I were to have picked up a john rather than have a jesus load shot down my throat it would have been/be a non-traumatic experience because I would have been/be in control. On the other hand Jesus was responsible for taking everything I ever loved and cared about from me.

Jesus is real. This is a different statement than Jesus actually exists or ever existed. Reality is subjective. The schizophrenic really does hear voices, those voices do not actually exist. Jesus, an invisible man who wants to torture me for eternity, took all of my control from me. Then a stranger who believed it was jesus's right to torture me if I didn't change my sinful choice told me how amazing and great my abuser was. Then she asked my abuser to take me back into his loving arms.

And you seriously want to tell me that was less traumatic or even better than choosing to blow some guy for 40 bucks? Again trauma is the experience of a lack of control.

Quote:I’m so sorry that my words have caused you such anxiety and have caused you to lose sleep. You’re spouting an idea that hasn’t been well received, and you sound uninformed and stubborn, and you seem to have a very polarized view of the world. You’ve done it more or less very politely, so you haven’t been totally skewered, but maybe you need a thicker skin. I haven’t been unreasonable to you at all.
Being a not white atheist queer I haven't really had much a choice but to develop a thick skin.

You say you have been reasonable. Yet you either seem incapable or unwilling to even consider something contrary to your own ideas. Half way down page 9 I responded to Thoreauvian's request that I read the selfish gene. In that post I lay out my problems with it. To sum it up my problem comes down to 3 major things. 1) Altruistic Presuppositionalism: The presupposition that selfishness is "nasty" and bad. 2) The conflation of the concept and term altruism with reciprocal altruism/rational selfishness. 3) The assumption of a zero sum world.

I explain the problems in greater detail on that post I suggest you read it.

You have also not been reasonable in that when I keep asking for proof of altruism you have not provided it, only stated that it does exist. Show me the evidence.
Give me a thesis which I can use to test your theory of altruism.
Quote:This victimization thing you’ve got going on is something I would expect from an angst filled teenager, but as people grow into adulthood, they typically become more confident, well-adjusted, self-actualized individuals. If they’re smart and empathetic, they may recognize that most people are just trying to do their best. Life is a learning process and we all stumble along the path. We all screw up, and most of us are trying to learn from our mistakes and better ourselves.
Ad hominem
Stop attacking me and start attacking the idea. Prove that Altruism exists.
Quote:It sounds like (probably quite often) the people in your life fall short if your personal expectations for them, but you do not adjust those expectations or account for the vast differences that exist from person to person. Rest assured, they are not falling short to spite you; They’re just not as skilled in the things you value as you’d have hoped. I hate to break it to you, but you’re not the baseline for which all other people model their behavior.
Prove Altruism exists and again stop making this personal.
As a side note I live in a wonderful poly relationship and have for the past eight years. This is not even to mention the wonderful people who helped pick me up and helped me put myself back together before that.

Quote:Those shelter workers "failed" you because they wanted to share Jesus with you. They didn’t understand how they might have been offending and hurting you; it’s not like the homeless shelter hires top notch mental health professionals to dish out your soup. These people are giving their time to help you, and if they misstep, a well-adjusted person would be able to recognize that the training provided to the drop-in volunteers (when they get volunteers at all) is less than stellar. Your mother was religiously indoctrinated but rather than recognize her religious views were the root of her weakness, all you seem to see is that she failed you. Maybe she couldn't have proactively anticipated the coming events to have gotten the necessary counseling on how to handle you better. She's a victim of her culture, not a villain who just wants to hurt you. Szuchow failed you for being a little too harsh with you and didn’t automatically view things from your perspective. I failed you because I dared to suggest the possibility that you accepted and utilized services from people, and then regarded them so horribly because you disagreed with their program methods.
Again the problem is that you cannot conceive of a world view outside of your own. Allow me to try and explain the problem in so far as I can see it.
I assume that at one point you were a Christian (please correct me if I am wrong). As a Christian were you capable of groking the Skeptic world view? Or did the very idea that someone could conceive of a world without a "higher power" blow your mind.

We keep talking past each other. I am aware of this. I keep trying to get us to a point where we are talking about the same things. In order to do so we need to agree on terms of the definition. Neither you or I need to accept the other persons term long run.

Forget for a moment if you agree with term that I use to define Q. If concept Q is as defined then what is the conclusion. If I am wrong then please stop making it personal and show me how I am wrong. Go back through your own posts and ask yourself "Given Q have I demonstrated proof of my position". If you want to discuss concept R which is as alternative concept to term c fine. but please lets focus on the concept and show me proof.


Quote:Give people the benefit of the doubt and work from there.

*Bangs head on wall.
It's not victimization is frustration there is a difference.

Let's try something else. Please explain my position using your own words. I want to communicate and stop talking past each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2017 01:13 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 12:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 11:21 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I'm going to try to make this my last post before I go to bed but let me try and rephrase just to make sure I am clearly understanding what you said.

If I hold that not increasing the well-being of those around me does not increase the well-being of myself, I am not maximizing my own well-being?
or
Maximizing the well-being of others in so far as I am able, maximizes my own well-being.
or
I help you, you help me.


I said none of those things. What I said was,

(04-07-2017 10:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not good?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

which is the logical equivalent of your original question and not the logical equivalent of that question or those statements. I said the same thing you said in a different way, I don't understand your confusion.
I'm sorry.

I don't understand what you mean by "good" so I tried to restate what I thought you meant.
let me try it this way

if +you and +me then +mewell-being? or, by contraposition,

if ~(+you and +me) then+mewell-being? =>
if ~+you or ~+me then +mewell-being? =>

I am defining well-being/good as that which refers to one's general positive physical and/or mental status.

if -you and +me then - mewell-being? or, by contraposition,

if ~ (-you and +me) then - mewell-being? =<
if ~ -you or ~+me then - mewell-being? =<
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 12:16 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 11:49 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  ...
Prove that Altruism exists.
...

[Image: WFDweb.jpg]

Empathy is the software.

Altruism is the output.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
05-07-2017, 12:46 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2017 01:23 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
(05-07-2017 12:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 11:49 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  ...
Prove that Altruism exists.
...

[Image: WFDweb.jpg]

Empathy is the software.

Altruism is the output.

Wink
this is not proof of altruism. It is proof that a man ran into a burning building, not why he did it. I can think of several reasons he might have done so.

They could have gone into the fire because they are a thrill seeker.
They could have gone into the fire because they want admiration.
They could have gone into the fire because a past trauma involving fire drives want to help others in a similar circumstance.

Sympathy is walking beside someone else.
Empathy is walking in someone elses shoes.

Empathy causes real pain to the individual experiencing it.

Empathy precludes Q.

Q is defined by the taking of an action which does not benefit the actor in any way.

An individual who is acting out of empathy acts to reduce their own pain. Thus Q is precluded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: