Debate : 21832


Off-Topic / Debate / 21832	21831 \| 21833

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 15:14:49 GMT
Viewed:	284 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: > feel free to demonstrate that altruism IS a > good idea, if you like... But make sure you're working from the right > definition. I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're working from a Randian definition of altruism, which is like working from a Falwellian definition of pornography. I don't know why we'd want to pick that particular slant as the "right" definition of altruism, except to predispose the argument to favor Objectivism. > For an act to be altruistic: > - the person (or organization) you are aiding must be unworthy of your > charity I have trouble with this aspect of your definition. Why must the recipient be unworthy? And by what standard? And what if you simply have no means of determining the recipient's relative worthiness? > - you cannot get any personal satisfaction or pleasure from giving the aid I agree with this, because it's the logical extension of "the act of giving cannot give a positive return to the giver." That's pure B.F. Skinner, IIRC. > - it's better if it's a person that you actively dislike than it be one that > you are related to or friends with. Not sure if this is a necessary aspect, and I don't know whether I agree or disagree, since "better" is kind of a slippery term. Rather than using "like" or "dislike" as a gauge, might we suggest simply that it's more purely altruistic if the giver doesn't know the recipient (or maybe doesn't know who will be the recipient) of the gift? > Under that definition, altruism, in my view, is a bad idea, as it fosters > incorrect behaviour. If circumstances drove you to destitution, and the only way that you could survive (or could ensure your children's survival) would be to accept altruistic (by your definition) charity, would you accept it? Dave!

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
(...) Isn't it pretty sad to think that there is nothing you could do to "earn" charity? Wouldn't it be better if you went up to a church (or any other building) and offered to pick up trash in their parking lot for a hot meal and a roof to sleep (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Custom Search