Subject:
|
Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:49:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
234 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > And altruism is a bad idea {-snip-} and is morally wrong,{-snip-}
>
> And here I was thinking that "all rights are property rights" was a strange
> belief.
I grant that the assertion that altruism is a bad idea sounds a bit unusual.
It's not a new assertion, however. I've made it before.
Either review what was said then, or feel free to demonstrate that altruism IS a
good idea, if you like... But make sure you're working from the right
definition.
For an act to be altruistic:
- the person (or organization) you are aiding must be unworthy of your charity
- you cannot get any personal satisfaction or pleasure from giving the aid
- it's better if it's a person that you actively dislike than it be one that you
are related to or friends with.
Under that definition, altruism, in my view, is a bad idea, as it fosters
incorrect behaviour. Giving money directly to panhandlers that you know nothing
about only gets you more panhandlers. Giving the same money to the Salvation
Army (note that I'm an atheist and I nevertheless favor this) is likely to have
a much more desirable outcome.
If you want to feel good about yourself, find a *worthy* charity for that tenner
burning a hole in your pocket. But if it's worthy, it's not altruism. Altruism
requires selflessness.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
