Altruism

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Altruism

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Sheks Crows Eye Virginia 10 Jan 18 1.46pm
I think we are all aware the meaning of Altruism, 'the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others', and I believe in more ways than one most people in the western world have committed some sort of Altruistic deed or the other, its engrained in our culture. But are we as a society wrong to put so much emphahsis on philsophy and the ethics of putting others above ourselves? Altruism is technically a philosophy that upholds other people as that standard of value, that these other peoples well being is more important than our own. If society and governments build a culture of putting others above ourselves and our families, does that really improve our lives? On an individual basis, with principles that imply that the world and man itself cannot survive without one another and sort of sacrifice, then thats all a bit collectivist isn't? These alturistic ethics and philosophys are seen as a slippery slope to authortarianism by objectivist thinkers and writers like Ayn Rand. (Disclaimer, Fountainhead is on my reading list but I haven't read any Rand yet.) On the other side is a sort of ethical egoism. That each individual can and should act on entirely their own personal interests and put their needs above others. Would society be better off with this code of ethics? Would it help the less fortunate? Would it drive better policy and shape better people? Would it offer more upward mobility for people? Our time is finite in this world, why should I live for anyone else other than myself and family? A part of me thinks yes, but the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, as usual. Thoughts? Edited by Sheks Crows Eye (10 Jan 2018 1.46pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Sheks Crows Eye

Virginia 10 Jan 18 1.46pm

Send a Private Message to Sheks Crows Eye

I think we are all aware the meaning of Altruism, 'the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others', and I believe in more ways than one most people in the western world have committed some sort of Altruistic deed or the other, its engrained in our culture.

But are we as a society wrong to put so much emphahsis on philsophy and the ethics of putting others above ourselves? Altruism is technically a philosophy that upholds other people as that standard of value, that these other peoples well being is more important than our own. If society and governments build a culture of putting others above ourselves and our families, does that really improve our lives? On an individual basis, with principles that imply that the world and man itself cannot survive without one another and sort of sacrifice, then thats all a bit collectivist isn't? These alturistic ethics and philosophys are seen as a slippery slope to authortarianism by objectivist thinkers and writers like Ayn Rand. (Disclaimer, Fountainhead is on my reading list but I haven't read any Rand yet.)

On the other side is a sort of ethical egoism. That each individual can and should act on entirely their own personal interests and put their needs above others. Would society be better off with this code of ethics? Would it help the less fortunate? Would it drive better policy and shape better people? Would it offer more upward mobility for people? Our time is finite in this world, why should I live for anyone else other than myself and family? A part of me thinks yes, but the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, as usual.

Thoughts?

Edited by Sheks Crows Eye (10 Jan 2018 1.46pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 10 Jan 18 2.31pm
Originally posted by Sheks Crows Eye I think we are all aware the meaning of Altruism, 'the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others', and I believe in more ways than one most people in the western world have committed some sort of Altruistic deed or the other, its engrained in our culture. But are we as a society wrong to put so much emphahsis on philsophy and the ethics of putting others above ourselves? Altruism is technically a philosophy that upholds other people as that standard of value, that these other peoples well being is more important than our own. If society and governments build a culture of putting others above ourselves and our families, does that really improve our lives? On an individual basis, with principles that imply that the world and man itself cannot survive without one another and sort of sacrifice, then thats all a bit collectivist isn't? These alturistic ethics and philosophys are seen as a slippery slope to authortarianism by objectivist thinkers and writers like Ayn Rand. (Disclaimer, Fountainhead is on my reading list but I haven't read any Rand yet.) On the other side is a sort of ethical egoism. That each individual can and should act on entirely their own personal interests and put their needs above others. Would society be better off with this code of ethics? Would it help the less fortunate? Would it drive better policy and shape better people? Would it offer more upward mobility for people? Our time is finite in this world, why should I live for anyone else other than myself and family? A part of me thinks yes, but the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, as usual. Thoughts? Edited by Sheks Crows Eye (10 Jan 2018 1.46pm) I feel that altruistic behaviour can sometimes be counterproductive. If you feed the starving in Africa, they will have more children and they too will be starving in the near future. By preserving life on this finite planet we are helping to destroy our own futures or at least those that come after. In any society there must be an element of alturism to make it function to serve the many. Without it there is only dog eat dog and that is not what a civilised society does.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

10 Jan 18 2.31pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Sheks Crows Eye

Thoughts?

Edited by Sheks Crows Eye (10 Jan 2018 1.46pm)

I feel that altruistic behaviour can sometimes be counterproductive. If you feed the starving in Africa, they will have more children and they too will be starving in the near future.
By preserving life on this finite planet we are helping to destroy our own futures or at least those that come after.
In any society there must be an element of alturism to make it function to serve the many. Without it there is only dog eat dog and that is not what a civilised society does.

Alert a moderator to this post

chelys London 11 Jan 18 1.22pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I feel that altruistic behaviour can sometimes be counterproductive. If you feed the starving in Africa, they will have more children and they too will be starving in the near future. By preserving life on this finite planet we are helping to destroy our own futures or at least those that come after. In any society there must be an element of alturism to make it function to serve the many. Without it there is only dog eat dog and that is not what a civilised society does. We should do more to try to get rid of the bad governments in Africa and help the good ones.
Alert a moderator to this post

chelys

London 11 Jan 18 1.22pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

We should do more to try to get rid of the bad governments in Africa and help the good ones.

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 11 Jan 18 1.33pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I feel that altruistic behaviour can sometimes be counterproductive. If you feed the starving in Africa, they will have more children and they too will be starving in the near future. By preserving life on this finite planet we are helping to destroy our own futures or at least those that come after. In any society there must be an element of alturism to make it function to serve the many. Without it there is only dog eat dog and that is not what a civilised society does. If you are arguing a theory initially based on "Limits to Growth" (1972), there would have to be similar treatment to the white lower classes in the UK as you suggest for Africa. "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 11 Jan 18 1.33pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

If you are arguing a theory initially based on "Limits to Growth" (1972), there would have to be similar treatment to the white lower classes in the UK as you suggest for Africa.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Jan 18 1.59pm
Originally posted by pefwin If you are arguing a theory initially based on "Limits to Growth" (1972), there would have to be similar treatment to the white lower classes in the UK as you suggest for Africa. Well population and resources will be an issue for everyone but obviously, it will be felt first in underdeveloped countries. I don't really advocate letting people starve to death but it does seem futile to keep on with famine relief if the net result will be a bigger disaster later on. The truth I suppose is that unless the world population suffers an unforeseen or deliberate reduction, the coming centuries will see crises like never before. The issue is how one justifies a policy like sterilisation of half the world population.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Jan 18 1.59pm

Originally posted by pefwin

If you are arguing a theory initially based on "Limits to Growth" (1972), there would have to be similar treatment to the white lower classes in the UK as you suggest for Africa.

Well population and resources will be an issue for everyone but obviously, it will be felt first in underdeveloped countries. I don't really advocate letting people starve to death but it does seem futile to keep on with famine relief if the net result will be a bigger disaster later on.
The truth I suppose is that unless the world population suffers an unforeseen or deliberate reduction, the coming centuries will see crises like never before.
The issue is how one justifies a policy like sterilisation of half the world population.

Alert a moderator to this post

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Altruism

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors