Activism

[MonkeyCatcher]

Oh but I understand completely-ish the way in which the concept of altruism is being applied here; you asked me what the golden rule was.

Yes, after you had tried to relate it to the discussion on altruism.

You said that If one individual carries out an act that meets the above guidelines, then it is an example of altruism weither the individual wishes to believe it or not. Then what if, as you say one individual does something for another which results in the first individual not benefitting at all., what if he un-knowingly benefits?

Then he still benefits and it is not an instance of altruism. As I have already stated, people's beliefs have no effect on altruism.

I was comparing a philosophical theory with your flat earth example. There are many people who still believe the earth is flat.

That's true there are - but how does that in any way relate to the theory that you cited in your previous post?

One small point...I know I`m being exacting but you said an assertion which I do not need to point out is utter rot, that is pointing it out.

I am aware of that and it was intended. I'm not quite sure of the word to use for it - a figure of speech comes to mind, but that is quite possibly wrong.

If, altruism refers to one individual doing something for another which results in the first individual not benefiting at all, does self satisfaction count as a benefit?

I personally think that it counts as a benefit if they were doing that deed only to gain self-satisfaction - but I believe that this question is a highly debatable one. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[novella]

To be fair, Mother Theresa had surely been taught to believe she was pleasing God by her actions and could conceivably be accused of trying to garner points for herself. The human infants and chimps were just helping out because they could.

I just simply cannot agree that doing something because your conscience dictates it is self-serving. If we are to judge anyone at all, by their actions and their words, can't we at least give some credit for those whose moral compass is working?

 

[StillILearn]

I just simply cannot agree that doing something because your conscience dictates it is self-serving. If we are to judge anyone at all, by their actions and their words, can't we at least give some credit for those whose moral compass is working?

I can, but (unlike Libre, and where did that guy go anyway?) I'm only about 7% cynical.

 

[StillILearn]

Altruism is the Golden rule

There's room for thought here. What if we're dealing with folks who have developed warped or even masochistic leanings?

 

[Libre]

I can, but (unlike Libre, and where did that guy go anyway?) I'm only about 7% cynical.

I'm still around.
My belief is that people can do good things for others, but they are gaining some sort of positive reinforcement for their action. Infants are not altruists - positive reinforcement is how they learn to speak, after all. Not sure about the chimps - to be fair I've not read all the references in this thread.
Every action you take in your life is the ONE thing you MUST do at that MOMENT.
And hey, what about poeple that are SURE they are doing good for others, except the "others" don't really want or need their help at all?

 

[ylris611203]

I personally think that it counts as a benefit if they were doing that deed only to gain self-satisfaction - but I believe that this question is a highly debatable one. What are your thoughts on it?

I am not sure. But thinking it through I would think that 99.99% of people do gain self-satisfaction in one way or another. I think that self-satisfaction is unavoidable. Most of us feel better for being able to help someone else, even just their 'thank you' is enough to give us a sort of self-satisfaction. But if that is the case, then it would be quite rare to find true altruism, if at all.

There's room for thought here. What if we're dealing with folks who have developed warped or even masochistic leanings?

This, I think would still depend on whether this person is able to put others before him/herself.

This may be better answered by MonkeyCatcher.

 

[novella]

An interesting sideline of inquiry has been introduced: the misguided but well-intentioned.

So many are against genetically modified food, but what if GM rice eliminates world hunger? What price are we paying, either way?

There are activists who regret their actions sometimes, I'm sure. I hope I'm never one of them--which is why I give time and money to local causes that I know something about, but not to national causes, which I think are prone to corruption and diverse political agendas.

 

[Libre]

An interesting sideline of inquiry has been introduced: the misguided but well-intentioned.

One thing that comes to mind are religious zealots, who want to "save" you by converting you. They seem so sure that the only way to YOUR salvation is to follow THEIR faith. They stand to gain nothing personally, they only want to "help" you.
They may be altruists, but, well, GOD save me from them.

Or

How about the several cases of "mercy" killings by psychotic nurses. Maybe they really thought they were doing good by putting those people out of their misery. Should have at least asked them first, though.

 

[novella]

Definitely in agreement with you on that, Libre.

 

[veggiedog]

There are activists who regret their actions sometimes, I'm sure. I hope I'm never one of them--which is why I give time and money to local causes that I know something about, but not to national causes, which I think are prone to corruption and diverse political agendas.

I don't donate money to national or international foundations either, or at least not regularly. Even if the organization isn't corrupt, there is really no way to know how exactly these people are spending your money. There are disease research organizations that have millions and millions of dollars poured into their budgets year after year, and yet they yield hardly any fruit. I understand that research takes time, but where does all that money go? With local projects, at least, you can observe progress more easily.

As for altruism, as MonkeyCatcher and/or chris have stated, the definition is very ambiguous. Most actions are motivated by some form of 'selfishness,' for lack of a better word. Whether you want the feeling that comes from doing a good deed, appreciation from the recipient, etc. there is usually some motivation behind it. In my religion, we believe in karma theory (you pay for bad choices, benefit from good choices) so if a good deed sheds bad karma, would that prevent it from being an altruistic deed? Even if the shedding of karma was an unprecedented side effect? I don't know, I am just asking for your opinions. If someone abstains from bad deeds because they wish to go to Heaven, do they really not deserve Heaven because of their ingenuity? For most people, religion is also a motivation. Does applying religion to an action prevent it from being an altruistic one?

And back to activism, most loud, obnoxious activists want something beyond just what they are support (I say most, not all). We all have certain beliefs, usually selfishly motivated, and we are granted the rights to fight for them (press, speech, petition, assembly, etc.) which does not make us bad people. But there comes a point when some people begin to view their way as being the only right way. They respect no other opinions or beliefs (this can also be argued of religion) and all other ideas are stupid to them. There is no willingness to compromise. It is an unfortunate thing when something like this happens. Most of these 'activists' are far left-wing or far right-wing. The majority of the population (of the United States at least) would be classified as moderate. Very few are completely left or completely right, which is why most of these "We are totally right, they are totally wrong" claims are utterly ridiculous. Most of us support a compromise that activists refuse to reach.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

There are disease research organizations that have millions and millions of dollars poured into their budgets year after year, and yet they yield hardly any fruit. I understand that research takes time, but where does all that money go? With local projects, at least, you can observe progress more easily.

Research is not only time-consuming, but guzzles up a lot of money. The machinery they use to complete this research is extremely expensive to run, let alone purchase. The numerous scientists working on the project all must be paid. It's mind-boggling to hear of how expensive some lab equipment is, even the comparitive rubbish they use in high school labs. There are some activist groups which are a bit suss in their use of donated money, sure, but I don't believe that disease research groups are included with that lot.

In my religion, we believe in karma theory (you pay for bad choices, benefit from good choices) so if a good deed sheds bad karma, would that prevent it from being an altruistic deed?

I suppose that depends on weither karma exists or not. If we assume that it does, then the person is benefitting in a way, and I wouldn't consider it to be an instance of pure altruism.

If someone abstains from bad deeds because they wish to go to Heaven, do they really not deserve Heaven because of their ingenuity?

But being admitted into Heaven depends totally on this abstinance of bad deeds. Should the obedience of Christians be referred to as "ingenuity"? All they are doing is following the guidelines set down by their God, one of which includes the refriant from sin. I'm not sure why this necessity for the entrance into Heaven would suddenly be a cause for rejection.

Does applying religion to an action prevent it from being an altruistic one?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here - applying it in what way?

 

[GreenKnight]

I have often felt that concepts such as 'karma' or 'divine grace' are how cultures have, over history, attempted to impose some sort of order on the social imperative: namely, 'how can we all just get along?'

It's no mystery that stealing from someone creates bad karma - it makes it more likely that you'll suffer retaliation, or that someone else will learn bad habits from you, and then steal from you. And you may not in actuality go to hell for murder, but you sure as hell make it more likely that you yourself will be murdered.

We have known instinctively for millions of years that there are certain codes of practice that make our society function, and certain behaviours that cause it to shake or collapse. This is observable in our living primate relatives. We have simply taken that deep down 'instinct' for what is 'good for ourselves as a society' and created a more sophisticated framework within which to place it, which we call 'morality'.

That is not to say that we have no free will, that all our morals are merely biological; what it is saying is that being 'good' helps us to survive as a species, and being 'bad', in the long term, is likely to damage us.

So why do some people have massively differing moral standpoints? These are the peaks and troughs on the overall graph. But look at history and world culture and you will see a general trend: most successful societies value compassion, nurture, tolerance and a degree of altruism - at least within social groups/tribes/nations. Societies that discarded most or all of these elements quickly headed up blind allies.

 

[veggiedog]

Research is not only time-consuming, but guzzles up a lot of money. The machinery they use to complete this research is extremely expensive to run, let alone purchase. The numerous scientists working on the project all must be paid. It's mind-boggling to hear of how expensive some lab equipment is, even the comparitive rubbish they use in high school labs. There are some activist groups which are a bit suss in their use of donated money, sure, but I don't believe that disease research groups are included with that lot.

I am not saying that they are dishonest, but after literally hundreds of millions of dollars donated over the years, and no results, it makes me wonder...

I suppose that depends on weither karma exists or not. If we assume that it does, then the person is benefitting in a way, and I wouldn't consider it to be an instance of pure altruism.

But being admitted into Heaven depends totally on this abstinance of bad deeds. Should the obedience of Christians be referred to as "ingenuity"? All they are doing is following the guidelines set down by their God, one of which includes the refriant from sin. I'm not sure why this necessity for the entrance into Heaven would suddenly be a cause for rejection.

These are essentially the same thing. You are either abstaining from bad deeds to prevent accumulation of bad karma in order to attain a state of Nirvan, or you are abstaining from bad things to go to Heaven. They are both benefitting. This may or may not be "ingenuine" behavior, depending on the person, because some people may be avoiding these bad deeds simply to reach Nirvan or to go to Heaven, not to be just good people. If people are scared or bribed into behaving well, that isn't really altruism, is it? If religion is the reason they do or avoid something, then would you call it altruism?

I have often felt that concepts such as 'karma' or 'divine grace' are how cultures have, over history, attempted to impose some sort of order on the social imperative: namely, 'how can we all just get along?'

I agree. Not to offend anybody, but I believe the purpose of religion was to find a way to force people to be good. The same goes for government. In a state of nature, people have no motivation to be nice to each other. There is even more selfishness and greed. Religion and government pose limits as to how extreme selfishness and greed can be.

The karma effect makes more sense it that if you kill someone, you are likely to get caught and go to jail, or at least spend the rest of your life worrying that one day the authorities will figure it out and drag you to prison. You have no peace. There is really no end to it.

 

[ylris611203]

I have often felt that concepts such as 'karma' or 'divine grace' are how cultures have, over history, attempted to impose some sort of order on the social imperative: namely, 'how can we all just get along?'

It's no mystery that stealing from someone creates bad karma - it makes it more likely that you'll suffer retaliation, or that someone else will learn bad habits from you, and then steal from you. And you may not in actuality go to hell for murder, but you sure as hell make it more likely that you yourself will be murdered.

We have known instinctively for millions of years that there are certain codes of practice that make our society function, and certain behaviours that cause it to shake or collapse. This is observable in our living primate relatives. We have simply taken that deep down 'instinct' for what is 'good for ourselves as a society' and created a more sophisticated framework within which to place it, which we call 'morality'.

That is not to say that we have no free will, that all our morals are merely biological; what it is saying is that being 'good' helps us to survive as a species, and being 'bad', in the long term, is likely to damage us.

So why do some people have massively differing moral standpoints? These are the peaks and troughs on the overall graph. But look at history and world culture and you will see a general trend: most successful societies value compassion, nurture, tolerance and a degree of altruism - at least within social groups/tribes/nations. Societies that discarded most or all of these elements quickly headed up blind allies.

I mostly agree with you Green Knight.

Regarding good and bad; something one person/group/tribe/nation will see as bad another will see as good. There is a train of thought that if someone sees something as genuinely and truly good even though most others know it to be bad, to that person it cannot be bad. This can be a major problem in society.

There are religions that are up to 300 years behind other religions, in other words they have not moved on with the times and do not mix well with modern society and the codes of practice that make our society function.

 

[GreenKnight]

Not to offend anybody, but I believe the purpose of religion was to find a way to force people to be good. The same goes for government. In a state of nature, people have no motivation to be nice to each other. There is even more selfishness and greed. Religion and government pose limits as to how extreme selfishness and greed can be.

I'm not sure that any culture has ever consciously 'invented' a religion with a purpose like that in mind. Rather, I think they evolve from a necessity. For example, if you don't know why some people get sick while others are healthy, you look at what the healty people do; and if they are avoiding eating shellfish (which is indeed taboo in some religions) you follow suit. A simple example, but vast dogmas grow from that simple principle.

We like having simple rules (like the Ten Commandments) in order to stop us going mad from having to start from scratch every time we try to decide what to do. I think we created religions to help ourselves, not repress people, even though they are often used for that.

There are religions that are up to 300 years behind other religions, in other words they have not moved on with the times and do not mix well with modern society and the codes of practice that make our society function.

This may not be quite fair - it's easy to perceive that by looking at a subject dear to all our hearts I'm sure (Extremist Islamist Fundamentalism) but this and phenomena like it are minority activities. I believe there will always be elements in any society that wish to perpetrate violence and/or repression, and that some merely seize on religion as an excuse to do it. (In the UK, for example, our national religion is football, and we have football hooliganism by those who don't really care much for the game itself).

Religion I think is not so much the problem - it is that we are so lamentably poor at following the central tenets of our many faiths, all of which generally boil down to one thing: be good to each other.

 

[StillILearn]

This may not be quite fair - it's easy to perceive that by looking at a subject dear to all our hearts I'm sure (Extremist Islamist Fundamentalism) but this and phenomena like it are minority activities.

To be quite fair, GreenKnight, I'll bet you were meaning to refer to any and all extreme religious fundamentalism that would deny individuals their basic human rights?

 

[GreenKnight]

To be quite fair, GreenKnight, I'll bet you were meaning to refer to any and all extreme religious fundamentalism that would deny individuals their basic human rights?

Absolutely Just using the highest-profile example. Could just as easily have referred to the Catholic-Protestant conflicts of Northern Ireland, the Hindu-Muslim feuds of India, or the secular but equally fundamentalist repressions of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.

My point being, it is not the religions per se that are at fault, but something fundamental to human nature. There are those who fancy that the overnight abolition of all religions would put an end to most mindless, bigoted intolerance. This is manifestly not the case. Evil doesn't care which form it takes (good tag-line for a movie, there.)

 

[StillILearn]

Absolutely Just using the highest-profile example. Could just as easily have referred to the Catholic-Protestant conflicts of Northern Ireland, the Hindu-Muslim feuds of India, or the secular but equally fundamentalist repressions of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.

Not to put too fine a point upon it, but you seem to be traveling pretty far afield for your examples of religious fundamentalism when we could just as easily find them at home (in our very own respective backyards), so to speak.

Travel broadens, I guess, but I'm just sayin'.

 

[veggiedog]

I'm not sure that any culture has ever consciously 'invented' a religion with a purpose like that in mind. Rather, I think they evolve from a necessity. For example, if you don't know why some people get sick while others are healthy, you look at what the healty people do; and if they are avoiding eating shellfish (which is indeed taboo in some religions) you follow suit. A simple example, but vast dogmas grow from that simple principle.

I mean that humanity in general invented religion and government to protect ourselves from each other (I know that sounds a little Machiavellan); not that any culture designed religion specifically for the purpose. In my opinion religion evolved from a need to feel safe, and to feel rewarded for being good to others. Cheaters never prosper.

Religion I think is not so much the problem - it is that we are so lamentably poor at following the central tenets of our many faiths, all of which generally boil down to one thing: be good to each other.

I find it interesting that almost every major religion has its own version of the Golden Rule, all are virtually the same. I did a Google search and this was the first hit:

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

​

Christianity
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[SIZE=-1]Matthew 7:1[/SIZE]
Confucianism
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
[SIZE=-1]Analects 12:2[/SIZE]
Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [SIZE=-1]
Udana-Varga 5,1[/SIZE]
Hinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
[SIZE=-1]Mahabharata 5,1517[/SIZE]
Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
[SIZE=-1]Sunnah[/SIZE]
Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
[SIZE=-1]Talmud, Shabbat 3id[/SIZE]
Taoism
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
[SIZE=-1]Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien[/SIZE]
Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
[SIZE=-1]Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5[/SIZE]

​

​

 

[veggiedog]

Not to put too fine a point upon it, but you seem to be traveling pretty far afield for your examples of religious fundamentalism when we could just as easily find them at home (in our very own respective backyards), so to speak.

Travel broadens, I guess, but I'm just sayin'.

Agreed! I don't know if this is really religious fundamentalism, but I have a personal experience:

The town I live in is mostly Christian, and a few of them don't like non-Christians invading their territory. A few years ago (sixth grade, I believe) someone taped to my locker a sign saying "Go back to your country heathen trash." And I was thinking I have as much right to be here as you! I'm a citizen of the United States too! I was prepared to tell the person who wrote that sign this, but I never found out who it was. Messages like that really hurt and turn me off to Americans. I know that most Americans aren't like that, but such a negative experience can have an enormous impact on a sensitive person like me.