Is Altruism a weakness?

[Mayhem]

To be fair, you can't do much at all without knowledge.

Well except from learning.

[lokinrond713]

When ur dumb enough to be scammed but there are plenty of ways to be scammed that have little to do with altruism

[Deleted]

Depends on how you look at it.

Yes, it's a form of weakness in some ways. It is, strictly speaking, an inefficient way of using limited resources.

At the same time, kindness and/or altruism are probably the only reason I'm still around at all. Not because I'm weak, but because I wouldn't want to live in a world as blind and selfish as the one you sketched. (And yes, I know large parts of the world already is that way. Yet I also know that other parts aren't. I know those people. I love them intensely.)

[AeneasBK]

Altruism individually is weak; sure.

But without it we would probably still be living in tiny family tribes trying to fuck out some offspring before we become somethings lunch or die of exposure.

[mvaliz]

You missunderstand. The definition of altruism is helping others when there is no benefit for yourself, whether is be direct or indirect.

There will always be benefits to it and you will always get something. Always. Weither that is that it feels good, or makes society a stronger place. Either way it's a win/win situation.

[Tzalix]

Well except from learning.

Well, the debate about the origin of knowledge and how it evolved is another matter entirely. Let's not go off-topic.

There will always be benefits to it and you will always get something. Always. Weither that is that it feels good, or makes society a stronger place. Either way it's a win/win situation.

Which in turn would mean that altruism doesn't exist.

[Mayhem]

When ur dumb enough to be scammed but there are plenty of ways to be scammed that have little to do with altruism

Well, you can´t be scammed. That´s kind of the point. Selfish people can be scammed.

Not saying everything one does that benefits the group and him-/herself is selfish.

There´s got to be a middle ground, a word.

- - - Updated - - -

Which in turn would mean that altruism doesn't exist.

Not really. Difference is the focus. The why you do it. If there´s always a reward but you don´t do it for a specific reward it´s not selfish.

[AeneasBK]

Not really. Difference is the focus. The why you do it. If there´s always a reward but you don´t do it for a specific reward it´s not selfish.

It also depends on the value you place on the 'reward'

[Tzalix]

Not really. Difference is the focus. The why you do it. If there´s always a reward but you don´t do it for a specific reward it´s not selfish.

No, but again, if there's if you do it for any reward, it's not altruistic.

[Mayhem]

It also depends on the value you place on the 'reward'

That´s the why i´m talking about. Language barrier?

- - - Updated - - -

No, but again, if there's if you do it for any reward, it's not altruistic.

If you always get some reward you can´t do it for no reward. But if you don´t do it for the reward, it´s altruistic even if you get something out of it.

[Ravenblade]

He made good arguments for the possiblity of altruism being real. We don't have a definitive answer one way or the other.

It's trainable and improvable. Our social norms and sense of justice are a result of that. We are forming our laws around it. So even if we cannot count on a Francis of Assisi level of altruism in every human being we can make people act altruistically out of duty. Since the end is still based on exclusion of the self it's still altruistic albeit it's normative altruism as opposed to autonomous ones. In that sense autonomous altruism is not universally based on same principles. This is where "feel good" can play a role, or actual dedication, compassion and empathy. However it still can be equally real as normative ones - it just depends on motives.

[Kryos]

True Altruism is a weakness and very rare outside a family.
Fake Altruism is a good tactic and beneficial.

What ist true? If you don't expect anything in return - ever. Usually only parents are true altruistic to their children.

What is fake? If you don't expect anything in return - at this moment - but later you expect and get favours, gifts in return or other benefits. People and Companys that donate are usually fake altruistic. They just lower their taxes and get good PR resulting in better sales with that tactic.

[Mayhem]

True Altruism is a weakness.
Fake Altruism is a good tactic and will give you advantages later.

What ist true? If you don't expect anything in return - ever.
What is fake? If you don't expect anything in return - at this moment - but later you expect and get favours, gifts in return or other benefits.

How is the one that can´t be exploited a weakness?

[DocHibb]

I think (psuedo-?) Altruism is a strength to a certain point. Just like others have already said, our society would not exist without it. The extremes of altruism, like in Ayn Rand novels, would obviously be a weakness.
On the other hand, Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and egoism also would be a strength to a certain point. The extremes she talks about would not work very well, and people would just be uncaring a-holes to eachother. But it's good not to be too dependent upon others to get shit done.

Take home message: Don't be an extreme shithead, for either (or any) philosophy! Be balanced and kind and help others when you can, and if you want! Don't ignore that starving man down the street from you, unless giving him your food will make you starve.

Also, I'm a fan of a couple of Rand novels, but the extremes she talks about wouldn't work very well. I think any rationally thinking person realises that.

[Tzalix]

If you always get some reward you can´t do it for no reward. But if you don´t do it for the reward, it´s altruistic even if you get something out of it.

True, but the question then becomes, do people ever do that?

It's trainable and improvable. Our social norms and sense of justice are a result of that. We are forming our laws around it. So even if we cannot count on a Francis of Assisi level of altruism in every human being we can make people act altruistically out of duty. Since the end is still based on exclusion of the self it's still altruistic albeit it's normative altruism as opposed to autonomous ones. In that sense autonomous altruism is not universally based on same principles. This is where "feel good" can play a role, or actual dedication, compassion and empathy. However it still can be equally real as normative ones - it just depends on motives.

Well, this is where the issue lies, isn't it... We created social norms and ideas of justice and laws for the benefit of all, or at least, that's the idea. Is it altruism if it's done out of a sense of duty? Or is it simply me complying with the norms we've decided would be best for us as a collective? If it benefits our species as a whole, it also benefits me indirectly. Does it count as altruism then?

[Mayhem]

True, but the question then becomes, do people ever do that?

Yes, i believe so.

[Tzalix]

Yes, i believe so.

And some people don't. That's why there's no simple answer and why this discussion is so fascinating!

[Simulacrum]

Well except from learning.

How do you learn, without knowing that learning is a good thing?

[Independent voter]

I just.. Eh. Your definitions focused ONLY on the financial aspect, and would mean anyone still in school using student loans or similar past 18 would be considered "weak". Most people who have helped progress " science, technology and intellect." would be weak in your definition.

This is a not uncommon sentiment in the US.

[Mayhem]

How do you learn, without knowing that learning is a good thing?

What? Learning isn´t good or bad.