|
|
|
|
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 2:34:33 PM |
which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations?
Why would you think the two are mutually exclusive??
Those with the most have always, and will always, continue to be superior to those with the least.
Really? Superior in what way? I think you mean wealthier but then our definitions of "wealth" may differ somewhat. They may be wealthier, but superior? I don't think so. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 3:03:22 PM |
An altruistic act is by definition, selfless, and sacrifice certainly does not benefit the individual making it.
Selflessness is the issue with altruism. Someone earlier asked how can an individualist have a child? How can a altruist have sex? If you don't recieve pleasure, which is designed to be selfish by nature, the process cannot work. The denial of self is the act of defying one's life and values. As I said earlier, there are tremendous acts performed by people to advance the cause of freedom or protect their family. But these acts are powerful not because they are selfless but because they are expressions of that person's values.
The saddest reality of life is that not all our values can be realized. We must choose and prioritize what we value. But when we deny our "self" none of our values, including our own lives, can be realized. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 3:28:28 PM | when we deny our "self" none of our values, including our own lives, can be realized.
That is entirely contingent on our concept of "self."
If we perceive "self" as our group, we will work in the interest of the group BECAUSE it is in our "self" interest to do so.
The loss of any individual in the group is nonetheless painful to the group, but sometimes necessary for it's survival.
What I'm getting at may be likened to the story (not exactly, but it's the only analogy I can think of at the moment) of the hiker/climber who got his arm jammed between rocks and couldn't free it. Think of the altruistic individual as the arm and the man as the group. For the analogy to truly fit, we have to consider that the arm somehow cut itself off to save the man because the arm knew that the priority of saving the man was higher than the arm's priority of saving itself. If the arm had never seen itself as part of the man, it would have no motive for altruism and consequently never have cut itself off, but because the arm knew it was really only a part of a greater whole, it was "happy" to sacrifice itself to save the man. In that sense, the arm saw itself not as an individual body part, but as a body part of an individual, so it was serving it's own self-interest in sacrificing itself.
How can a body, whose parts all compete with each other for advantage even function?
How can a body whose parts all work cooperatively and in unison fail in it's function?
As I said, it all depends on our definition of "self."  | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 10:53:21 PM | He he, I knew this thread must have been started by an objectivist. The obsession with the "a" word is I find one of the more confusing aspects of that rather vulgar and misguided school of thought, the objectivist would do well to ask themselves, "why does anyone display 'altruistic' tendencies at all?".
Supposing it is because they feel any alternative action would leave them as poorer beings, that it is good for THEM to do so, what then should we call this motive? When viewed in this way, it would seem that "altruist" is a completely inappropriate way to describe the motivation for ANY course of action. It is also not hard to see why the objectivist avoids this truth, which shows a large part of their ethics to be utterly pointless, and one who rails against non existent entities usually ends up looking quite ridiculous.
Individualism: The individual has a moral obligation to remain independent, self reliant, not defined by a group of which they are a member.
What kind of individualism is this? The kind of individualism where I have an "obligation", a "duty" as it were, to comply with preconcieved notions of what is "right"? What self-refuting nonsense! When one is "obliged", one is not "independent", to suggest otherwise is absurd. Whilst Rand and her acolytes may extoll the virtues of independence and individualism, in truth it is otherwise with them. So convinced are they of their own righteousness, that they seek to impose their virtue upon the world , so that we might be "free" to live life, but only in the exact way Rand feels we ought to. If we all wish to be "individuals" they say, we must all subscribe to the same system of values, the same vulgar ethic (pleasure and wealth), in essence, we must all be the same. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 11:55:19 PM | | I have a lot to say about Rand, but most of it is unprintable. Notwithstanding my enjoyment of some of her novels, to consider her a legitimate philosopher, or her "objectivism" a worthwhile philosophy is comical. However, considering that her school of thought has an almost cultish following among capitalists, it is really nothing short of a tragedy to apply any of it to the human condition. I find myself wishing that Atlas had shrugged and dropped the world on her head. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/31/2009 1:58:58 PM | Jumbo, if one feels obliged to one's own sensibilities of right and wrong, then one could be obliged and an individualist.
DaTreeGuy:
Altrusim: The individual has a moral obligation to help, save, or benefit others or a larger collection of people (community, state, church, family, etc)
...
We some from a system which immediately selects against altruism.
These two conditions contradict each other. Where would altruism come from if not the system in place? I suppose it is possible that space aliens put some altruistic individuals amongst a planet of purely self-serving individuals, and if you want I'll go down that road as a thought experiment later, but let's start of with something less fantastical.
Realistically, altruism comes from one or both of two places: a natural response to active mirror neurons, or a conditioned response. Mirror neurons come from our internal system, and conditioning comes from our external system. If one is being altruistic primarily because of mirror neurons, they are acting in their own self-interest because relieving the pain of another relieves their pain and then they are rewarded by the good feelings stemming from the gratitude or imagined gratitude of the other. If one is being altruistic through external conditioning - how they are raise, social pressures to do the right thing, etc. - then that person is being altruistic because of the very system that you state "immediately selects against (it)." | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:57:28 AM |
Notwithstanding my enjoyment of some of her novels, to consider her a legitimate philosopher, or her "objectivism" a worthwhile philosophy is comical.
Don't get me started. When thinking of Rand, I am reminded of where Hobbes remarks in Leviathan that people will often mistake eloquence for wisdom. Surely no better example of this tendency can be offered.
Jumbo, if one feels obliged to one's own sensibilities of right and wrong, then one could be obliged and an individualist.
Perhaps I should have said "when one is obliged in this way", rather than simply "obliged". Even so, I feel this stament is quite redundant. Morality is all about how one "ought" to act. Taken in this way, there is an obligation of sorts implicit in ANY type of morality, regardless of it's source. If we are to view "one's own sensibilities of right and wrong" as being equal to "one's own view of what ought to be", we might also say it is equal to "what one wills would be".
So, I am "obliged to follow my will". Yet how could I do any differently? How could this "obligation" be broken? ANY act that I commit stems from my will, and it is what I feel I OUGHT to do. Discussion about mirror neurons and social conditioning is no doubt fascinating, and your argument would be compelling, if by "altruist" we meant "kind". However, the word means "selfless", and my contention is that a selfless act is impossible, as all action stems from the will, the "I ought". Altruism does not exist. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/4/2009 1:23:53 PM | | Nobody is purely one or the other. Extreme altruists are martyrs, extreme individualists are sociopaths. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/5/2009 9:54:35 PM |
Extreme altruists are martyrs, extreme individualists are sociopaths.
Altruism is going to save the human race from itself. No doubt some of them will be martyrs, but only because they will have the courage to be ethical and disobey orders they know to be wrong. Some will get shot for it, but they will die happy because they will know it is better not to wrong one's fellow Man, even if it means being wronged oneself and dying in the place of those he is ordered to kill.
The 5% of the population we consider psychopaths truly are, They have no conscience and will do whatever they perceive as in their own "self interest". In the future, they will be tolerated, but watched with a wary eye, because we will know that these are the people who used to run the companies, banks, corporations and nations, so we will know the kind of world they will build very well and never allow that ilk to take power away from the people again. In short, in the future, they will have no authority such as the false authority they have now, because we will put into place a system based on morality, law and justice. From where will this utopian system arise? From us, because we will finally learn from our history and realize that the reason 5% of the population can control the other 95% is because they have no caring or compassion; because they barely know the difference between truth and fables that serve their selfish interests, because they control the means of production that provides people with "jobs" they fear losing, because they own the banks that provide money (on loan of course - at usury interest) that greases the wheels of consumerism and make people afraid of losing out, because they pretend to be in charge of nations when they're only doing as their behind-the-scenes bosses bribe, blackmail, and extort them to do, killing the ethical ones who dare to want to actually help the people and thus make other decent men with the same feelings afraid to open their mouths for fear of being "next".
Do you see the common uniting principle of tyranny? - Fear! I tell you now in the not too distant future people will see the lies and deceptions and propaganda. They will see the evil and wrongness of what they are currently coerced to do out of fear of the consequences. They will finally see that all that's needed is a little more courage; courage to face sacrifice and loss and even loss of life for one's ethical principles. They will find that courage and take back the power that was so wrongly stolen from them by the psychopaths and psychopathic corporations and the central banks who quietly rule the world by controlling economies of nations.
They will unite with the same name as before, but with a courage and purpose unknown in all of human history;
THE PEOPLE will take back the power that is truly theirs and never again delegate laws and legislation to"representatives". The law will be simple, immutable and unwritten, so it cannot be twisted and altered to serve the interest of greedy powermad men. The judiciary will oversee the other branches of government to ensure the law is upheld. The military (while nations continue temporarily to exist) will be geared solely for defence to protect the nations from other nations that may not yet have transitioned, but will in time (at that point the militarys of the world won't be needed because nations won't be needed as the world melds together as a single global community of communities of people). Leaders won't be needed because THE PEOPLE will be the leaders. What were once called "leaders" will now be "administrators" and will be watched and audited in a fully open and transparent process by the watchful eye of THE PEOPLE. The administrators will for the first time in recorded history actually be "public servants", there to handle our affairs for us, but never again to rise to rule, we'll be too smart to allow it. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/5/2009 10:11:57 PM | Let me lay down the basic definitions first:
Altrusim: The individual has a moral obligation to help, save, or benefit others or a larger collection of people (community, state, church, family, etc)
Individualism: The individual has a moral obligation to remain independent, self reliant, not defined by a group of which they are a member.
So, here's the question:
Given the basics of human evolution, which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations?
We some from a system which immediately selects against altruism. Nature is ruled by the law of the jungle, kill or be killed, the ultimate in individualism. Only the genes of the fit are to be passed on, the weak perish. Any creature willing to sacrifice itself for the "common good" of the species doesn't pass on their genes, while creatures that look out specifically for themselves (and possibly their offspring) do.
But humans have developed a more complicated social system than any other animal. It's possible to theorize that we wouldn't occupy the top of the food chain i it hadn't been for our communal actions. Hunting, early agriculture, tribal survival, these are all instances where altruism played an important role in human evolution and development.
Which is more important to human beings today? Should we remain focused on the individual or the collective?
Personally, I'm a Libertarian Objectivist, so you know what I think. Me and mine, the rest of you can take a hike.
Well, i think that in the first area you are describing, law of the jungle, be or be killed, that overwhelmingly applies to animals which are significant down the evolution chain from us. They do not have the cognitive power yet to be altruistic. They have to maintain individualism to survive UNLESS they had some instinct to protect the STRONGER members of their species, thus sacrificing themselfs (the weeker ones). At this stage but would think it more instinct than altruism, but i could be wrong here.
As we evolved and socially advanced, living in civilizations, there is not longer the need to constantly look out for death at every turn. You could say that altruism (acts of saving others, giving others money, etc.) might well heighten yourself in the gene pool because, well....quite frankly.....the girls are going to notice this behavior. And there is nothing like seeing a man jumping into a Zoo- pond and rescuing a cuddly baby seal, that stimulates a woman's ovulation cycle more!!
Put in simpler words....maybe girls wont be dating arseholes anymore, instead going for the nice guy. My bet is that the baby seal saving dork with the nice, boyishly sly smile will be the one getting the motel room tonite.
Oh, and....all the stuff you posters posted above this.....yeah......that too. :) | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/5/2009 10:24:56 PM | whatever nirvana man can imagine and strive for requires an understanding of our own nature..ignoring the salaries ( not just monetary) every position pays, leads to misunderstanding the real affects on the doer.. a policeman struggles with handling power in one on one confrontations, a politician seeks approval for exercising his own desire to rule...the struggle between inside out vs outside in control of both self and society is more than just a clash of belief systems and political parties.. its the external evidence of our desires to improve our situation while still feeling good about ourselves. I listen to every voice selling their own version of lets make a deal and know its necessary .. we are all competing for the same resources ..no system is ever going to resolve this "fairly"..all we can ask for is a playing field that is large enough to offer some space and level enough to give most a meaningful chance..
perfection isnt legislated , and Shangra La isnt an election away
the struggle will be won or lost by and within each of us... | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 12:04:25 AM |
perfection isnt legislated , and Shangra La isnt an election away
the struggle will be won or lost by and within each of us...
Each of us has an internal struggle between serving self-interest and the interests of others. we might as well admit that it is in the human heart that the ongoing battle between good and evil rages. Both Heaven & hell are locations of the heart. It really boil down to where we want to live. As you say...can we live with ourselves? What is the stronger force in our hearts? Is it courage, or fear?
Most people are good, but fearful. It is that fear that makes good people do evil things and evil predominates in society. How can we offset that fear? With courage. If courage outweighs the fear in our hearts, how can good people continue to do evil things? They can't. They drop the hypocrisy of trying to excuse the actions of which they are ashamed and start doing the right thing simply because they have become ethical . They wish to do the right thing and have the courage to face the consequences, which are an unjust punishment for doing good inflicted by those who would make you fearful and wish you to "respect" their false authority.
The battle of good vs evil continues in the human heart. It will not end until one prevails over the other and extinguishes it. So the whole question of the future of humanity and whether we live in heaven or hell for the next ten thousand yearsboils down to a simple question we must each answer for ourselves:
Does your courage outweigh your fear?
Think on it long, hard, and honestly...The future of the human race is on the line and waiting for your answer. What will it be? | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 1:29:06 PM |
Well, i think that in the first area you are describing, law of the jungle, be or be killed, that overwhelmingly applies to animals which are significant down the evolution chain from us. They do not have the cognitive power yet to be altruistic. They have to maintain individualism to survive UNLESS they had some instinct to protect the STRONGER members of their species, thus sacrificing themselfs (the weeker ones). At this stage but would think it more instinct than altruism, but i could be wrong here.
As we evolved and socially advanced, living in civilizations, there is not longer the need to constantly look out for death at every turn. You could say that altruism (acts of saving others, giving others money, etc.) might well heighten yourself in the gene pool because, well....quite frankly.....the girls are going to notice this behavior.
Are you for real? Let me check the date - whoa I thought I time travelled back to a hundred years ago when people actually thought there was a LADDER of evolution. Wake up, there was NEVER a hierarchy of species or of civilizations - only different rates of change in order to adapt to changes in the environment. You have no idea what evolution is, it's a TREE that expands outwards, not a pyramid. Just because something is "more evolved" it means "more changed" - not better, not worse, not higher or lower, just different in order to survive in new ecosystems.
Animals show altruistic behaviour all of the time, and the same indiviualist behaviour as well. People who say these things must not spend much time with animals, as far as I can tell. Both of these tendencies coexist - some showing up at different times and places based on what is needed. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzee - who is not "less evolved" than us - just differently evolved, has 2 subspecies - the common chimp who engages in more individualist behaviour generally, and thus more violence and conflict. The bonobo is more "altruistic" in that the needs of the group is favoured over the individual - and so there is less conflict.
Seriously this hierarchical view of evolution is so backwards I can't believe it exists anymore. Clearly there must be some evolutionary purpose for it ... | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:45:48 PM | The original post was presented in black and white terms, that one should be superior to the other, with hopes that it would justify libertarianism better.
As many intelligent posters here have noted, as usual, there is no black and white, only shades of many hues in all species. Humans are little different than other species in their altruism balanced with individualism. Ants, bees, and many other species put us to shame with their efficiency. Coyotes, wolves, and dolphins hunt in concert as humans did long ago to ensure our survival amongst big beasts and harsh ice sheets. Much is self preservation, but it takes altruism to keep a community alive that keeps the individual alive.
I don't feel that it is an accident that most major religions have their version of the Golden Rule to remind those in the tribes that there is a personal and social benefit to being nice. There have always been libertarians but their numbers remained low enough for the community to survive them running stop lights and calling hunting parties commies.
Closer to home, I learned long ago that aggressive driving and flipping fingers only leads to guns pointed and shot at those who are not altruistic enough. I moved to a culture dominated by the old Scots/Irish tribes in the US south, who through individualistic intent, united altruistically for their communities. Many of the old mannerisms remain, the politeness, gents holding the door for women and each other, women holding the door for men, allowing merges into traffic, etc.
But, when passing through larger population areas, the mannerisms change to the individualistic, and the Golden Rule takes a back seat or is locked in the trunk. A local philosopher called it the "too many monkeys on the rock" syndrome after studying monkeys, not in their natural environment, but at zoos, where they are crowded together in unnatural conditions and fling feces at each other and display inordinate aggressiveness. As humans become too many monkey on this rock of a planet, altruism will probably decline, as will human numbers in response. We kill for oil or lesser things now and apparently have little altruism in us for the victims. If we are to survive as a species, we need to balance our selfishness, with a bit more altruism for not only our kind, but those other longer lived species that might provide insights on how to survive for millions of years. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:54:36 PM | What are you if you are only for yourself? Who are you if you are only for others?
You can only help others if you are secure with yourself first. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 6:01:51 PM |
Altrusim: The individual has a moral obligation to help, save, or benefit others or a larger collection of people (community, state, church, family, etc)
Individualism: The individual has a moral obligation to remain independent, self reliant, not defined by a group of which they are a member.
So, here's the question:
Given the basics of human evolution, which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations? You tell me, what kind of a situation has individualism gotten our country in? | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/6/2009 6:37:18 PM | | I like to think that people are capable of being mutli leveled - combining both aspects of altrusim and individualism. When we can find a balance of both in our lives we can be of benefit to others and ourselves at a desirable level to maintain a fulfilling life! | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/7/2009 11:55:23 AM | >>>What kind of individualism is this? The kind of individualism where I have an "obligation", a "duty" as it were, to comply with preconcieved notions of what is "right"? What self-refuting nonsense! When one is "obliged", one is not "independent", to suggest otherwise is absurd. Whilst Rand and her acolytes may extoll the virtues of independence and individualism, in truth it is otherwise with them. So convinced are they of their own righteousness, that they seek to impose their virtue upon the world , so that we might be "free" to live life, but only in the exact way Rand feels we ought to. If we all wish to be "individuals" they say, we must all subscribe to the same system of values, the same vulgar ethic (pleasure and wealth), in essence, we must all be the same.
Extremely well put- although I completely disagree. Still, its refreshing to see someone argue the counter so effectively.
I disagree on one simple basis- Objectivists should, in theory, be opposed to the intition of force. So to claim that a philosophy of self-interest and self-defense is evil because its based on a system of right and wrong fails to realise the very basic premise that ALL philosophies will be based on that premise. There is no philosphy you can't scoff and say "it is intolerant of other feilds of thought and implies that society would be forced to follow a form of morality"
If you oppose Objectivism because it is based on a system of right and wrong, that doesn't mean that the alteratives will not equally be based on the same premise.
Not to mention, you never actually addressed what is the flaws in the assertions of the morality of Objectivists- you've just stated that its short-sighted to assume that the morality is absolute. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/7/2009 5:34:11 PM |
Objectivists should, in theory, be opposed to the intition of force.
Oh Jiperly...I'm not gonna have the time to argue the case. but I have a keen interest in the concept of property in our society, so I wanna make a few comments for your consideration. It is not my intention to "arm" your opposition in this one, but I'm temporarily in "no man's land" and just wanna fire a couple of rounds before I skedaddle back to a safe foxhole to watch the battle unfold.
First, I think you'll have to clarify for everyone which word your quoted typo was. (You may find it crucial at some point to your argument) Was it "initiation", "institution", or "instantiation"?
Secondly, I feel there is something wrong with "property" altogether and disagree with Locke on his derivation of "property rights" as I feel they are based on erroneous assumptions. Rather than launch into a long-winded thesis I have no time for, I think I can best express where I'm comoing from with a couple of examples, one of them from "The Fountainhead" (if my senile, beer-soaked brain still remembers it correctly).
You recall that Rourke(? - can't remember if that's the hero's name) had an idea in his mind that he was sitting on IF such time arose that he could build it with complete control. Until then he was happy to deny humanity access to his genius for fear of his vision being perverted. You'll recall that the design was bribed out of him with a contract promising fidelity to his vision and that the contract was broken and a perverse, "status quo" version of his design was built.
He had every "right" to do as he did under any property laws, and in particular, intellectual property laws. The problem I have with this picture is that he was willing to deny his genius to his fellow man and keep it for himself. Suppose Einstein had done that. Suppose all the major physicists and mathematicians of the time had held their ideas "hostage" and only offered to "ransom them off" to the highest bidder without even talking to their "competitors" about it for fear that something might be perverted or stolen from them? How far would science & math advance in such a free market of intellectual property? No, I think there is something horribly wrong with a society that conceals its individual ideas from one another like Scrooge hoarding his gold. I think it makes that society poorer, not richer, as what is lost is priceless and never offset by any personal gain that might be realized by an individual.
Do I think there should be no such thing as intellectual property? Again, no, but I think it should be redefined in a less monetary fashion, where one gives credit where it's due, and it isn't bought & sold in the marketplace at a markup by middlemen whose only interest is the bottom line and profit (and an attitude of "To hell with the author's or artists intent - he sold his rights didn't he?"). This brings me to my second example for consideration...Einstein.
What property may a man own if not his face? while Einstein was alive he was offered truckloads of money for commercial endorsements of every description. He was better-known then than Tiger Woods today and they were down on their knees begging him for a picture or a comment they could buy. He never sold them a scrap of himself because he despised commercialism and would have nothing to do with it. In short , he was too ethical to be bribed with mere money (or anything else, I'm sure, though I'll bet he might have reconsidered for a bowl of good tobacco, but maybe not)
Did you know that you lose any right to your visage after you die? Unless expressed in your will, it is assumed you didn't care, so it then becomes public domain. Einstein knew this (Toldja he was a smart cookie) and willed (most of?) his images to the University of Jerusalem(? - or one in it) and I think he willed the rights to his name to his descendents with the idea of protecting his good name from commercial exploitation, but can't be sure, 'cause I don't remember exactly what he did (and can't speak of knowledge of his intentions, but it seems a reasonable assumption, considering his attitude while alive.
At any rate, the university with control of his image currently grants rights to it (I suspect) based on his wishes, which is fine, but if you think you can use it under "fair use" you'll probably have a court battle over it (I think they're being too strict, but that's only my opinion)
Anyway, you can probably see what I'm getting at here,as I'm sure you see Einsteins all over the place in all kinds of ads for all kinds of products. I suspect he's spinning like a top in his grave. Do you not feel he has been somehow "wronged"? (this one's an argument of sorts FOR some forms of property, but not one that ever would have occurred to Rand; she wasn't that bright.)
I seriously think some concepts about property have to be changed.
Anyway, have a beer & then "have at it" (if you still feel like it)...I'm off to that foxhole... | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 7:37:02 AM |
Altrusim: The individual has a moral obligation to help, save, or benefit others or a larger collection of people (community, state, church, family, etc) What do you mean by altruism? Is it still altruism if I get some benefit from it, as well as others?
You see, if I do something for someone else, even if I get nothing back directly, then humanity gets a benefit from it, and I am part of humanity. If I do something to help an animal, then the ecology of the planet gains, and I am part of that. Either way, as long as I do something that benefits any part of the universe, then the universe gains as a whole. As I am part of the universe, I benefit in part as well. So it's impossible for me to do anything that I do not gain from.
So if altrusim is only that which I can never benefit from, not even indirectly, but others do, then it could only apply to things that would benefit nothing at all, and then it could not be altruism, because no-one else has benefitted. Therefore, it would not describe anything at all, not even a hypothesis.
I therefore refer to the etymology of the word:
1853, "unselfishness, opposite of egoism," from Fr. altruisme, coined or popularized 1830 by Fr. philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), from autrui, from O.Fr. altrui "of or to others," from L. alteri, dat. of alter "other" (see alter). Apparently suggested to Comte by Fr. legal phrase l'autrui, or in full, le bien, le droit d'autrui. The -l- is perhaps from the L. word. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=altruism&searchmode=none
Since altruism would then be the opposite of egoism, pure selfishness, altruism would then mean something in which I am not the only one to gain, an action in which others gain AS WELL.
Individualism: The individual has a moral obligation to remain independent, self reliant, not defined by a group of which they are a member. Here, too, I have a question on the definition. No man is an island. We need oxygen to breathe. But we need plants to make that oxygen. So none of us are truly completely independent.
However, we can be non-individuals, if we let ALL our decisions be made by others. IF we also define individualism in which we try to stand on our own 2 feet where it is possible and practical, then that becomes a worthy motive as well.
We some from a system which immediately selects against altruism. Nature is ruled by the law of the jungle, kill or be killed, the ultimate in individualism. Only the genes of the fit are to be passed on, the weak perish. Any creature willing to sacrifice itself for the "common good" of the species doesn't pass on their genes, while creatures that look out specifically for themselves (and possibly their offspring) do. Again, I have a problem. The lions and cheetahs tend to kill the weakest young and the weakest old. They cull the herd, and thus make the herd stronger as a result. Since altruism is that which benefits both us AND others, and lions and cheetahs killing gazelles do benefit the gazelles by this action, then surely this is altruism.
So, here's the question:
Given the basics of human evolution, which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations? Why are they exclusive?
Altruism is just about not making decisions based on ONLY your needs, and no-one else's. It's like putting pollution into the atmosphere, because it won't kill YOU. In the end, it will mean that the world cannot produce the same quality of food, so you DO suffer, just not today, but next month, or next year. In reality, non-altruism is just short-term short-sighted thinking.
Individualism is equally altruistic, when it is to stand on one's own 2 feet where practical and possible, because that takes the burden off others. But where it comes egoism, just thinking about your own needs, then it becomes the above, short-term short-sighted thinking, that will hurt you very badly, but next month or next year, and probably not today.
We need to start thinking practically. No man is an island. We're all part of a massive complex system. What we do affects others, and that comes back on us later on, far enough away that we can pretend that it won't hurt us, but not far enough away that it won't. Only far enough away that when it does come back to hurt us, it will hurt us far more than any gains we got from our selfishness.
No man is an island. We're all part of a massive complex system. We need to start thinking that way. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 9:08:04 AM | @ Scorp
A beautifully put, beautifully logical argument...Nice going Scorp! (Where've you been anyway?)
I did want to comment on a couple of things you said (because it intrigues me to think of self-serving behaviour as altruism):
Since altruism is that which benefits both us AND others, and lions and cheetahs killing gazelles do benefit the gazelles by this action, then surely this is altruism.
Predators kill to survive. It is a self-serving act of necessity. To the lions and cheetahs, this is not altruism, however, in the utilitarian view, good consequences (predator survival and "strengthening " of the herd) come from their actions and they are in that sense, "moral" actions. But still, there seems to be something wrong with this picture. How can doing the job you are "destined" to do, without regard to the "greater good" be a moral action? Is a computer then "moral" because it can calculate spreadsheets and improve the intellectual efficiency of our species? Since all computers are able to do is improve that efficiency and can do no other than follow instructions, could we not then consider them as "ethical"? It is my newfound contention that anything (be it a computer, a lion, or a man) is ethical because it does what it is "programmed" to do (whether by evolution, or instruction input) by following a set of implicit instructions (usually made explicit by the "coding")
The problem arises that in being ethical and "self serving" in that sense (independent of the system) "good" is achieved for the system and self-serving behaviour can be erroneously considered moral, (there is no freedom of choice involved - lions must eat and computers are not "self-programming") but definitely considered ethical. When we consider the behaviour in the context of the "system", we now reach the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that serving self-interest IS altruism (polar opposites).
From where does this contradiction (which we cannot logically allow) come? It comes from our introduction and judgement of what is "good" with whatever we choose to apply it to. WE make the judgment of what is good for the system, or the lions, or the herd; WE apply our concepts of morality to our observations and call them "good" because (and for no other reason than) we think it so. In truth, there is no morality involved in the lion's "decision" to kill and eat because it is necessary for his own survival (his self-interest). The lion's self-interest conflicts with a particular gazelle's "right to life" and the laws of nature would define his might as "right" by necessity and therefore ethical and not immoral, but not moral either. The lion has no real choice and is therefore not a moral agent. He is therefore acting amorally, not morally, or immorally. Since morality is not part of the equation, the laws of nature are then AMORAL.
We all know there is no justice in nature. Volcanoes kill saint & sinner alike without discrimination. Yet there is a felt need for justice arising from our compassion for other living things. How many of us watching a lion catch, kill and eat a baby gazelle, who has just been born could do so with complete moral detachment? How many of us would feel like thanking the lion for doing his "job" and strengtening the gazelle herd? More likely we would feel some of the pain and terror of the baby gazelle as it was torn to shreds before our eyes and watched it's very lifeblood being lapped up by a "cold-hearted killer". How many of us would feel at some level that the "evil" lion ought to be "punished" for his crime. Do these feelings arise from our own (justifiable) fear of being ourselves eaten? Possibly at some subconscious level, but I suspect it's more than that.
Each of us carries in his "heart" a desire for fairness in a system that is inherently unfair. We want to "level the playing field" where we have the power to do so and therefore might consider ourselves inherently "just" beings and so it is Man who introduces to nature the concept of justice. We build systems around the concept and call them "courts"...But I digress...
From whence comes the desire for justice? Does it come from fear? (fear of being eaten, say), or does it come from compassion? (feeling, or empathy for living things like people & gazelles) I'm sure it comes from one of them, perhaps both, but I feel in my heart that it simply comes from an innate wish for fairness in nature because we don't like watching lions eat gazelles; we feel his relentless teeth biting into our heart and feel disgust because it isn't fair to that poor gazelle.
This gives rise to Natural Law, the very moral law of compassion and the unwritten law upon which all real law is based, but that's a whole other post and argument in itself, so I'll just close it off here with the observation that law and justice probably arose thousands of years ago, when some compassionate caveman saw a lion eat a gazelle and he said to himself "Something must be done about this gross injustice." and he became the first "judge." | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 10:22:40 AM | Our moral compasses on this earth will probably always swing somewhere between altruism and individualism depending on the circumstances. Humanity will never be able to do away with "the law of the jungle" entirely; competition for jobs increasing productivity and increased productivity raising profits and all this painfully factual and necessary.
It is when we turn our eyes to those who fall by the wayside in this process that our hearts are tested; whether we may contain any measure of vicarious compassion. It is here where opportunity for spiritual growth emerges, where we may approach the Divine, the Ubermensch. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 10:48:40 AM | all this painfully factual and necessary.
It is that very assumption that keeps us locked in to an "evil" and amoral system.
It may be "factual" in the sense that we've always done it that way, but we don't really like it.
We keep doing it that way because it's the way we've always done it. Because we don't like it, we keep saying "Maybe this time it'll be different.", which brings us back to the classic definition of insanity. It is my contention that we aren't really insane, but that we have always felt we had no other option.
I suggest it is time to look for another option and try the damn thing out. Maybe if we do, it won't work and we'll wind up going back to the crap we have now. On the other hand, it might just work and we'll have built a better society. We won't know either way if we don't at least try. So why don't we try? we think it's "impossible" and never step out of our "boxed-in" thoughts. Why don't we step out? Because we always did it this way and it's not THAT bad, is it?
We are caught in a loop of unimaginative thinking (have been for eons), and yes; it is THAT bad! | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 5:11:54 PM | The Dalai Lamas view is as follows and he's a pretty altruistic being.
"Practicing altruism is the real source of compromise and cooperation; merely recognizing our need for harmony is not enough. A mind committed to compassion is like an overflowing reservoir - a constant source of energy, determination and kindness. This is like a seed; when cultivated, gives rise to many other good qualities, such as forgiveness, tolerance, inner strength and the confidence to overcome fear and insecurity. The compassionate mind is like an elixir; it is capable of transforming bad situation into beneficial ones. Therefore, we should not limit our expressions of love and compassion to our family and friends. Nor is the compassion only the responsibility of clergy, health care and social workers. It is the necessary business of every part of the human community.
Whether a conflict lies in the field of politics, business or religion, an altruistic approach is frequently the sole means of resolving it. Sometimes the very concepts we use to meditate a dispute are themselves the cause of the problem. At such times, when a resolution seems impossible, both sides should recall the basic human nature that unites them. This will help break the impasse and, in the long run, make it easier for everyone to attain their goal. Although neither side may be fully satisfied, if both make concessions, at the very least, the danger of further conflict will be averted. We all know that this form of compromise is the most effective way of solving problems - why, then, do we not use it more often?
When I consider the lack of cooperation in human society, I can only conclude that it stems from ignorance of our interdependent nature. I am often moved by the example of small insects, such as bees. The laws of nature dictate that bees work together in order to survive. As a result, they possess an instinctive sense of social responsibility. They have no constitution, laws, police, religion or moral training, but because of their nature they labour faithfully together. Occasionally they may fight, but in general the whole colony survives on the basis of cooperation. Human beings, on the other hand, have constitutions, vast legal systems and police forces; we have religion, remarkable intelligence and a heart with great capacity to love. But despite our many extraordinary qualities, in actual practice we lag behind those small insects; in some ways, I feel we are poorer than the bees.
For instance, millions of people live together in large cities all over the world, but despite this proximity, many are lonely. Some do not have even one human being with whom to share their deepest feelings, and live in a state of perpetual agitation. This is very sad. We are not solitary animals that associate only in order to mate. If we were, why would we build large cities and towns? But even though we are social animals compelled to live together, unfortunately, we lack sense of responsibility towards our fellow humans. Does the fault lies in our social architecture -the basic structures of family and community that support our society? Is it our own external facilities - our machines, science and technology? I do not think so.
I believe that despite the rapid advances made by civilization in this century, the most immediate cause of our present dilemma is our undue emphasis on material development alone. We have become so engrossed in its pursuit that, without even knowing it, we have neglected to foster the most basic human needs of love, kindness, cooperation and caring. If we do not know someone or find another reason for not feeling connected with a particular individual or group, we simply ignore them. But the development of human society is based entirely on people helping each other. Once we have lost the essential humanity that is our foundation, what is the point of pursuing only material improvement.
To me, it is clear: a genuine sense of responsibility can result only if we develop compassion. Only a spontaneous feeling of empathy for others can really motivate us to act on their behalf." | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 8/9/2009 7:54:29 PM |
To me, it is clear: a genuine sense of responsibility can result only if we develop compassion. Only a spontaneous feeling of empathy for others can really motivate us to act on their behalf."
You are exactly right. This is the message I have been attempting to convey. It's nice to see that some others feel likewise.  | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
