Is it possible to be truly altruistic?

Banned Account

Was listening to the radio about the aid drive for the victims of the floods in Pakistan and just got to thinking whether it is possible for people to be truly altruistic?

I give money to various charities during the year but being honest, I reckon most of that is down to appeasing my own conscience. I'd like to think that it's pure selfless devotion to helping others but I reckon it's not.

What do you reckon and do you give - if so, being 100% frank what's your reason for doing so?

chin_grin

Cos I can't take it with me now can I?

MrStuffins

There are A LOT of AH posters who reckon they are, they give out about Bono not giving money for this, Gates and Buffett giving money to wrong causes or in the right way blah blah..............

.......... as they continue to overpay for Broadband, Sky TV and many other things they don't need when they could be giving the money to help others!

(just for the record, i don't give any money to charity)

Earthhorse

Another way of looking at it is, is it possible to be truly selfish?

Pretty much any act you do will benefit someone other than yourself even if you're the primary beneficiary.

Notorious97

I give money to Irish Cancer each month, but its a disease im terrified of so i reckon any help it can get is worthwhile for it.

I give what i can when i can, but im sure there are a hell of a lot more on this forum who donate more regularaly than i would to these causes.

AAAAAAAHHH

A better question would be, is it possible to do even one truly altruistic thing? I don't think so.

Dravokivich

IMO, paying out to charity in most cases is just like buying yer way out of purgatory... it's all just playing on yer guilt...

WindSock

This may be of some relevance, dunno. But it has pictures in it.

enda1

Everyone has emotions so there's no way your actions can not affect your emotions.

So any act is emotionally motivated to some level, whether it be for your benefit or self-destructive.

Charity plays on peoples' guilt and desire to appear altruistic to their friends and family. Basically all selfish reasons for giving money in the end.

starbelgrade

Charity & altruism - though sometimes can be interlinked - are usually quite separate things.

It is possible to be altruistic without ever giving to charity & it is equally possible to be charitable without ever being altruistic.

I would suspect that the words are usually used in conjunction by those who are charitable as they like to see themselves as also being altruistic. Usually however, this is not the case.

Banned Account

WindSock wrote: »

This may be of some relevance, dunno. But it has pictures in it.

That's excellent windsock - thanks a million.

mickydoomsux

I only give money to animal charities because i believe that they are the only truly deserving ones.

Humanity should be able to take care of itself at this stage what with all the social structures etc. we have in place or should have in place but an abused/neglected domesticated animal has no capability of caring for itself so they need help.

Banned Account

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I only give money to animal charities because i believe that they are the only truly deserving ones.

Humanity should be able to take care of itself at this stage what with all the social structures etc. we have in place or should have in place but an abused/neglected domesticated animal has no capability of caring for itself so they need help.

Hmmmm dunno about that - read a story recently about two hungry foxes in England who helped themselves to a take away from a house in suburbia;)

AAAAAAAHHH

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I only give money to animal charities because i believe that they are the only truly deserving ones.

Humanity should be able to take care of itself at this stage what with all the social structures etc. we have in place or should have in place but an abused/neglected domesticated animal has no capability of caring for itself so they need help.

Like an abused or neglected child?

mickydoomsux

AAAAAAAHHH wrote: »

Like an abused or neglected child?

Well idealy the child protective services we pay millions if not billions for in tax should take care of this but they don't because of human failings.

brummytom

Earthhorse wrote: »

Another way of looking at it is, is it possible to be truly selfish?



Pretty much any act you do will benefit someone other than yourself even if you're the primary beneficiary.

What about theft/burglary/mugging? Those could be of benefit to the person committing them, but they wouldn't be to anyone else would they?

Banned Account

brummytom wrote: »

What about theft/burglary/mugging? Those could be of benefit to the person committing them, but they wouldn't be to anyone else would they?

*note to self - do not give money to Brummytom's charity - ever.*

enda1

Earthhorse wrote: »

Another way of looking at it is, is it possible to be truly selfish?

Pretty much any act you do will benefit someone other than yourself even if you're the primary beneficiary.

its about the motive, not the consequence.

If the motive is selfish then its a selfish act regardless of who benefits.

Earthhorse

brummytom wrote: »

What about theft/burglary/mugging? Those could be of benefit to the person committing them, but they wouldn't be to anyone else would they?

It keeps the police employed, doesn't it?

enda1 wrote: »

its about the motive, not the consequence.

If the motive is selfish then its a selfish act regardless of who benefits.

In that case, of course it's possible to be altruistic. If your motive is to help someone else, the fact that you feel good about it doesn't matter.

enda1

Earthhorse wrote: »

It keeps the police employed, doesn't it?



In that case, of course it's possible to be altruistic. If your motive is to help someone else, the fact that you feel good about it doesn't matter.

But you know you will feel good about helping someone else. How do you separate the two?

aDeener

AAAAAAAHHH wrote: »

A better question would be, is it possible to do even one truly altruistic thing? I don't think so.

ahh the selfless good deed conundrum!

Earthhorse

enda1 wrote: »

But you know you will feel good about helping someone else. How do you separate the two?

You may not be able to in all cases but you will in many.

Black Swan

Can't afford to donate money on my student budget, but I occasionally help other students in their studies without the expectation of reward. Sure, it feels grand to do so, but to write-it-off as selfish behaviour may rule out any chance for altruistic action.

Scanlas The 2nd

Everthing everyone does is selfish. I've written extensive posts on it in Humanties.

When you help an old lady across the road you do it to feel like a good person or to be a good member of society or it just simply feels good.

When people talk about selfishness what they really mean is that you broke the unwritten contract of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. So when you scratch someone's back and they don't bother scratching your back we call that person a selfish. They are a defector and often lose the benefits that an "unselfish" person gets. For example it no longer is rude to be rude to the "selfish" person.

Its all about mutual benefit. When someone defects we label them "selfish". We are no longer required to give them all the benefits of the unwritten contract without ourselves then becoming a breaker of the unwritten contract.

sock puppet

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I only give money to animal charities because i believe that they are the only truly deserving ones.

Humanity should be able to take care of itself at this stage what with all the social structures etc. we have in place or should have in place but an abused/neglected domesticated animal has no capability of caring for itself so they need help.

We also have the structures in place to ensure that every domestic animal is neutered/spayed but many don't do that and let their pets breed. So by your logic abandoned animals deserve no help either.

Lorrs33

I studied altruism in college and it seems that basically if you gain any sort of benefit, physically or emotionally, when you do a good deed then it's not considered altruistic. I do believe that word needs to be redefined. I volunteer for the Blue Cross and a small Stroke Club in Dundrum, and it does make me feel good, therefore I am not being altruistic. Just generous

Black Swan

Lorrs33 wrote: »

I studied altruism in college and it seems that basically if you gain any sort of benefit, physically or emotionally, when you do a good deed then it's not considered altruistic.

Well, unless you are Data on Startrek, or perhaps Spock, then as defined here, altruism is myth.

IrishZeus

I sponsor a child and give to ISPCC monthly..

Reason 1: TBH, there's a feel good factor.

Reason 2: 23quid a month to sponsor a child = 4 pints at the weekend. Well worth the trade IMO.

Would someone giving up something they cant afford to give be considered truly altruistic? Whether it be money or time? I.e. someone wants a new gadget but instead they give the money to charity? Self-sacrifice for others basically....

Banned Account

IrishZeus wrote: »

I sponsor a child and give to ISPCC monthly..

Reason 1: TBH, there's a feel good factor.

Reason 2: 23quid a month to sponsor a child = 4 pints at the weekend. Well worth the trade IMO.

Would someone giving up something they cant afford to give be considered truly altruistic? Whether it be money or time? I.e. someone wants a new gadget but instead they give the money to charity? Self-sacrifice for others basically....

I suppose it comes back to motive - for example, if i have a friend in a bind i'll put myself out to help them even if it upsets other things. I would do this not because i'm afraid of losing friendship but just because I want to make sure they're ok.

If I give money to a charity it is usually done for two reasons - one to help and the other to make myself feel better.

mickydoomsux

sock puppet wrote: »

We also have the structures in place to ensure that every domestic animal is neutered/spayed but many don't do that and let their pets breed. So by your logic abandoned animals deserve no help either.

That doesn't make sense. Firstly the animal can't go and get itself neutered and also how does an animal breeding have anything to do with it being abandoned?

sock puppet

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. Firstly the animal can go and get itself neutered and also how does an animal breeding have anything to do with it being abandoned?

And children can't go get themselves good parents can they? Are you serious? Go into a pound and have a look at how many young dogs there are there. If their parents' owners had been forced to neuter their pets they wouldn't be in that situation. Likewise if we had proper systems in place children wouldn't grow up in abusive households (though expecting the government to ensure everyone has a happy childhood is totally unrealistic on your part). But we don't have adequate legislation/enforcement to deal with either problem so singling out one cause as more deserving is quite strange.

mickydoomsux

Once again, human failings, as i said earlier.

sock puppet

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Once again, human failings, as i said earlier.

So humans fail to deal with the problems of neglected children and also neglected animals and only the animals are deserving o help?

IrishZeus

sock puppet wrote: »

So humans fail to deal with the problems of neglected children and also neglected animals and only the animals are deserving o help?

Children before animals in my opinion. Always. I understand animals need help but c’mon like, a stray dog or an abused child….

mickydoomsux

sock puppet wrote: »

So humans fail to deal with the problems of neglected children and also neglected animals and only the animals are deserving o help?

In my mind, yes, simply because of the amount of tax money that goes into child protection. Not my problem that it's all mishandled. I'm already doing my bit so if i choose to give to a charity i won't be giving to one that does the job that tax money should be doing.

sock puppet

mickydoomsux wrote: »

In my mind, yes, simply because of the amount of tax money that goes into child protection. Not my problem that it's all mishandled. I'm already doing my bit so if i choose to give to a charity i won't be giving to one that does the job that tax money should be doing.

Fair enough I suppose.