As far as I see it all human interaction stems from some kind of personal motivation other than helping for helpings sake.
What do you think?
Interestingly one of my son's touched on this iin his HPQ - I would say no - because even if someone is just doing it for the good of another - they get the "feel good" factor, so are getting something out of it.
It is always possible to argue that a self-sacrificing act brings personal reward to the actor. If the sacrifice has been made unconsciously, then it can be argued that it was not truly altruistic. If it was made consciously, then one can always suggest that some sort of psychological reward was obtained - and this is not a testable proposition.
The argument that "True altruism does not exist" seems to be favoured by people who want to soothe their own bad conscience after they've done something selfish.
I would say donating ones organs to people after death is altruistic. You don not benefit when you are alive and you certainly don't benefit when you're dead.
No, I don't think it does. We are all selfish by nature. Some more than others, some less than others.
I think something that comes very close to true altruism is a mother's love for her child.
But you know that whomever recieved your organs is going to be very grateful to the person who gave them over....you are that person....you can anticipate that gratitude now....
Of course true altrusim exists. And there is no excuse for it not to be more frequent.Without altrusim that doesn't have a selfish motive, society erodes like an eventually unrepairable rust.
Without society, family loses it confidence within a generation (and that is what Thatcher neglected to mention or didn't realise).
Because a family is not just a selfish unit selfishly protecting individuals but it is a kind of vehicle through society. If there is no society to be a vehicle through then family itself, rightly or wrongly, becomes regarded as a selfish unit.
And then, finally, without family, individuals lose their confidence.
So, all from the neo liberalist Thatcherist lie that to be 'individual' you must defeat or look down on socialist unions, the destruction of the individual in to scared, dull, superficially nice, neo-liberalist robots. The Conservatives had the gall to run the campaign 'Labour isn't working' about the supposedly high unemployment rate of 1 million under Labour in the 1970s. Within a few years, the unemployment rate had risen to 3 million under the Conservatives. As this means that more people were dependent on welfare, the Conservatives are utter liars about what they think of welfare. They don't mind people being on it as long as it results in more Conservative votes overall.
Last edited by Picnic1; 2 weeks ago