Hey /his/.
I'm part of a philosophy club at my school and next week we will be meeting to discuss the topic of altruism. The professor heading the club assigned us some excerpts from Ayn Rand and Nietzsche critiquing altruism (they haven't been emailed to us yet, so I have nothing to show you guys at the moment).
I'd like to make some kind of case for altruism, if possible, and so I'd like some perspectives on the matter. It's not a philosophic issue I've ever looked into before, although I am basically already familiar with Rand and Nietzsche's views.
Is altruism possible? How? What I'd really like is if anyone could refer me to what church fathers have said on this, or even Christian or secular philosophers if they have valuable perspectives.
>>883447
Principle of reciprocity
Kin selection
>>883447
Cultural group selection
Look into spatial, iterated and evolutionary versions of the prisoner's dilemma
>>883447
>Nietzche and Rand in the same discussion
What a joke.
>>883830
Why? There's a lot of people in the club. One person suggested Rand. The professor suggested Nietzsche. So we're gonna look at both. Hopefully I'll get some other short texts and excerpts to bring with me so we can bring those up as well.
Feel free to make suggestions.
I'm not partial to Rand either. Nietzsche, to my mind, is a genius, though these days I all too often disagree with him.
>>883447
trees practice altruism all the time
>>883447
Altruism is practiced through small scale interactions constantly. Just look at 4chan. Yes, people are mostly assholes, but there is a constant stream of requests being fulfilled for no reason other than for the benefit of others.
>>883447
Use Siddhartha Gautama's and Jesus' view on altruism. Compare Dana with Christian charity. Then explain how both (Christianity mainly) have influenced the world's view on morals and ethics.
>>884043
That was just an example, sadiq. Society's backbone lies in altruism at the individual level.
>>884030
I'll be sure to bring up this malaysian erotic postage stamp collector's discussion board during our next club meeting. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed by the saintly conduct of its posters.
[spoiler]jk, thank your for your altruistic contribution to this thread senpai[/spoiler]
>>884031
when you strip away sentimentality, what is altruism? a harmonionus contribution to a system based on reciprocal benefit, which is what the balance of life is founded on
trees offer this and more.
>>884052
why cant i spoiler damn it
>>884055
altruism is supposed to be voluntary
can a tree act voluntarily?
>>884061
No spoilers on /his/.
>>884065
not that we know of. philosophically if we were to apply an orientation to the plant kingdom it would have to be altruisitic rather than self-centered. animals can be altruistic in their behavior. in human beings it goes without saying. you aren't discediting my point in any way
>>883447
Start by going that any sort of society start with a modicum of altruism because social contract.
And if you want to go economics because Rand, tell them about what has happened in the economy in the past 20 years.
How almost everything biz uses has been open-sourced and collaborized.
From proprietary software giving way to open one, to architecture(such as bodyplans for cars, to seatbelts, to servers http://www.wired.com/2016/03/google-facebook-designing-open-source-data-center-gear-together/), to B2B evolving into c-commerce.
And this is raw capitalism.
If all are converging to it, it means it works cost-wise, which puts a dent in Rand's rugged individualism.
Sharing means you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time.
>>884122
What? Altruism is a freely chosen (voluntary) behavior. You can characterize trees and animals as expressing behavior that resembles altruism, but it wouldn't be altruism.
>>884154
Right but you could make the case that this would only prove that "altruistic behavior" or seemingly altruistic behavior could be chosen because of tangible benefits it offers, and that therefore it would be selfishly motivated.
The question is deeper than whether altruistic behavior is advantageous. The question is whether behavior that isn't selfishly motivated at bottom is possible. "Genuine" altruism.
>>884192
When people in business share data, they do so with the full awareness that any information transfer may lead to the advancement of a competitor's goals over their own. Any information transfer can lead to the decay of their own enterprise.
Yet they still do share data.
Information open sourcing and sharing is motivated by promoting a greater social benefit for society. This is done at the cost of allowing competitors to possibly supersede you.
It is literally giving up private gain or even accepting private loss for the sake of greater public good. That is literally the definition of altruism.
In what way is it 'selfish'?
>>884055
>reciprocal
Altruism is anything but reciprocal. If the tree is getting something in return which biologically fuels the drive towards continuously contributing to the ecosystem, then the tree is not being altruistic.
>>884061
History is in the past, anon. [spoiler]Carthage, The White Russians, and Germany all lost in the end btw [/spoiler]
>>883447
>>816443
yes, in hedonism [=you like pleasures and hate pains, you seek pleasures and avoid pains, you take for personal your pleasures and your pains, up to defining you through what you feel and think]. this is why, for centuries, the liberals have been fantasizing about a structure which makes you altruistic while keeping you hedonistic [any liberal doctrine is all about making hedonism moral (their trick is to say that it is moral to be hedonistic anywhere but less on public domain) ].
The bad news, for the hedonists, is that altruism is possible once you see the failure of hedonism to have a happy life. The best that most people can do is to get spiritual hedonism, which is too materially ascetic for most people. Once you see the failure of spiritual hedonism as well, you reach a state where you are what people call altruist.
>>884237
let's recall that the fantasy in humanist societies is the free thinker.
this liberal uberman is a man corresponds to the fantasy of a man being ''altruistic (for more than a few moments) while being hedonistic''.
Indeed, as in any doctrine, there are people who despise hedonism and think they are less hedonistic than they presently are.
These liberal speak of the motto ''liberalism is not about hedonism''.
The best activity of the occidental humanist is to design a structure which would ''change people from animals/hedonists to rational people who act for, who embrace, in a disinterested manner, the Human Rights''
The national education begins here with the faith that people, if educated to love the HR, will embrace the HR at the end of school.
Now, after a few decades if not centuries of this, this structure still fails. In fact, the failure leads people to still ''try to change the system''.
This fantasy of having a structure to change people dates back from thousands of year. So far, no structure is able to make people control if not ''eradicate the desires with evil consequences (wrt to the HR)''.
This is why the liberals and libertarians LOVE the asian doctrines. Buddhism promises that altruism is achieved, but at the cost of giving up hedonism. This situation is despised by the liberals, since they create their doctrine to better enjoy themselves.
The asian doctrines are only look at, by the liberals and libertarians, as an exotic doctrine which permit these people to appear, once more, as less hedonistic than they are.
The worst part is that these doctrines are traditional, but they do not install the tradition of the occidental humanism. so it is a problem for the europeans.
These asian doctrines lack the structure that the europeans have been craving for thousands of year. this leads the europeans to seek such a structure in these exotic doctrine and of course, they are disappointed once they fail to find the object of their desire.
>>884211
But we all benefit from public good. I mean...I don't even know what I mean anymore desu. I guess the question isn't whether or not you benefit, but whether that benefit is your motivation or not. If it is, is that really altruism?
>>884258
No you fucking idiot, if I'm taking a personal loss in order to further a public gain, that is dictionary altruism.
Don't you shift the semantic goalposts on me you little shit.
Your prof is probably a nihilist bitch too, be wary.
>>884360
>Your prof is probably a nihilist
He's a lapsed Catholic apparently
>>884258
>I guess the question isn't whether or not you benefit, but whether that benefit is your motivation or not. If it is, is that really altruism?
Well, everything we do is for a benefit(and that's ok. No one does shit for no purpose)
Thing is, does the benefit for you outweigh the benefit others gain from?
Well, that's a difficult question to answer.
>>884387
Well I would say, even if something happens to massively benefit you but your motive genuinely isn't that benefit then you are acting altruistically, no?
>>884391
Yeah.
>>884368
Is lapsed Catholic basically an apostate atheist?
>>884473
Ex-Catholic. Grew up Catholic, rejected it. Atheist I guess. Maybe he is a deist, but I find that unlikely. Seems like an ex-hippy.
>>883447
Altruism (reproductive advantage to those you like) has essentially the same effect as spite (reproductive disadvantage to those you don't like)
