/lit/ - Literature

This is a semantic issue. "True" altruism might be impossible but altruism isn't. Just because there are some self-serving reasons to be altruistic doesn't mean altruism isn't altruism. It's just that altruism by definition covers things that have certain self-serving aspects.
We only applaud people for being altruistic because it helps us through others, so why are you getting all het up about it?

lmao them 6th grade insights about humanity

i want to fuck that girl

>>6627497
Altruistic behaviour, to the point of self-sacrifice, exists even in many animals. have they been brainwashed to aspire for glory, too?

>>6627517
she's a big girl

a lot of her charm to me comes from the fact that her face is not that of a typical /fit/ girl, she looks humble and insecure

Stirner thread?

Cool. The egoism/altruism dichotomy is false.

Pure [any motive] is impossible because people don't function in such a clear cut way. Assuming that they would is oversimplification for the sake of artificial clarity.

>>6627530
>She's a big girl

for you

>>6627634
>boasting about being overweight

>>6627637
He's a big guy

>>6627666
No shit.

>>6627530
>insecure
anybody lifting is insecure

>>6627525
Are they sacrificing themselves for their siblings? Since animals share 1/2 of their genes with their siblings (well, more like 1/2 of the genes above the genes that all individuals of a species have), if an animal increases the likelihood its siblings will reproduce by sacrificing itself, it's worth it for the animal if it helps 2+ siblings. They'll do it because they want to pass on their genes, but it doesn't matter if they themselves do it, their siblings can also pass on their genes since they share them. Of course they aren't consciously calculating or rationalizing this, all sorts of strategies from pure selfishness to pure altruism probably arose at some point and the individuals that stuck to the model I just described were the most successful. So yes, it might be fair to say the animals have been brainwashed by their genes to sacrifice themselves for the "glory" of their genes.

t. read the Selfish Gene

>>6627704
>not lifting for the endorphins
>not enjoying the benefits of having a strong body
Seems like you are the one who is insecure, Anon.

>>6627712
I strongly doubt an animal has any grasp of genetics, and neither do you. If we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our genes, it's the genes who are being selfish, not us.

>>6627721
We are our genes you cretin.

>>6627723
We are our genes, and a whole lot more. I want the naturalists to leave. And I say this as someone who supports the viewpoint that pure altruism is impossible.

>>6627723
We most cetainly are not genes. Genes are stretches of DNA and RNA, I am no such stretch.

>>6627721
That's exactly what I said. And what animals consciously do has almost nothing to do with their evolutionary strategy being successful or not, natural selection only cares if it works. An animal could think it's sacrificing itself for the glory of your cereal box, it doesn't matter if it increases the likelihood of its siblings reproducing enough.

>>6627755
I should have said "it doesn't matter as long as..." to be more clear.

>>6627723
people think genes are some sort of underlying source code like a computer program which slavishly follows the demands of the code, but they're really just little objects inside a human which perform different functions on the micro-level

the genes inside me coding for DNA polymerase enzyme is just as much a part of me as that time I stepped on a shard of glass when I was seven

A man laying on his deathbed anonymously gives away all of his possessions.

He does not profit from his generosity in the way of recognition, this is altruism

>>6627759
>>6627755
None of what you said renders the behaviour of the individual specimen egoistic in any way.

>>6627497
>do you agree,?
>if you don't, why are you so naive?
Killer argument, man.

>>6627765
>right before his death he feels the joy of generosity

He profits alright, just not all that notably.

>>6627771
He wasn't saying it does.

What's wrong with you, lad?

>>6627771
How? Is it not selfish to increase the frequency of your genes in the gene pool?

>>6627775
So, the argument against altruism is going to be:
>it feels too good to do good things for them to be genuinely good
?
Fucking brilliant. Master motherfucking intellect. Pure absolute cuntdestroying transcendence.

>>6627787
Yeah, pretty much. Not what you were expecting? Too real for you?

Pure altruism is an asymptote, but what you conclude from that is what really determines what a shitheel you are

>>6627785
Not necessarily. Concious self-interest (egoism) and instinct can be at odds.

>>6627785
I'd say it isn't. I mean, sure, ppeople might take some rather ideological pleasure in believing that doing such makes them immortal, or at least less mortal than those who do not continue their lineage, but that's just people, and I doubt that such thoughts occurr to animals. After all, the genome does not need to produce such thoughts and emotions, all it needs to produce is a genuine empathy for those you consider your own, and they'll survive better than genomes that produce no such thing.

>>6627782
It's what he meant though: >>6627785

>>6627796
Nah. Too nonsensical.

>>6627810
That's a different lad I think. The former lad said the genes are the selfish ones, not us, the gene vessels.

>>6627810
I think I see where our disagreement lies. I was describing animals as selfish since they are being "guided" by an outside force (natural selection) to act selfishly even though they might consciously be acting out of altruism. So their actions are selfish, but their rationalization (if they even have any) might not be.

>>6627787
That's pretty much Kant's issue with good feel good deeds.

>>6627816
He was replying to me, and tht is what I had said earlier, so I still am under the impression that he wanted to argue that acting on behalf of selfish genes is in itself selfish behaviour. If he didn't, I have no idea what he intended to tell me, which I hadn't pointed out myself.

But if I prefer helping the poor to raping the poor doesn't that mean I'm ultimately beholden to what I think is the greater good?

Doesn't it logically follow then that the only thing keeping me from being a pure altruist is the fact i lack the means to make everyone happy forever?

>>6627819
Animals don't always act selfishly though. They tend to act in ways that serves the conservation of their genes, not their selves.

What's good for the genes and what's good for the self can be diametrically opposed.

>>6627825
Yes, I was arguing that selfish genes is pretty much equivalent to selfish behavior. I just don't think the animal's rationalization of their actions makes the actions themselves less selfish.

>>6627821
Kant doesn't consider this as problematic as people often think, though: as long a your behaviour is in line with the categorical imperative, you're fine, even if it does make you happy. His point is that the categorical imperative still holds up when this isn't the case.

>>6627497
>take mother teresa for example. Her supposed motivations for helping all those people were lies masking her need to feel spiritually elevated relative to the rest of us.

I love when people make really big claims that their argument rests on but they don't back them up.

How are you going to posit that you KNOW someone's motivation for something but have no proof of it? You've most likely never met mother teresa. You probably also don't know anything about her, outside of a little of the press she received and general "common sense" appropriations about her. But so you still claim to somehow, magically know her innermost motivations for doing what she did.

God, please fuck off you moron.

>>6627832
This could go back and forth forever. It just depends on if you think propagating your genes is selfish for the individual or selfish for the genes at the expense of the individual.

>>6627517
>girl

Not with those gorilla shoulders.

>>6627844
she's quite clearly ripped
if she was a man she'd look much broader

>>6627833
And there we have it, you simply fail to understand what the words "selfish" or "egoism" mean, even if that is fucking simple as fuck. I mean, just look at the words: they indicate behaviour for the sake of an ego, a self. Not for something bigger than yourself, which you are part of, like, for example, your genes. The animal disregards its self, or ego, or whatever such creatures have in place of those, for the sake of something it shares with other animals, some of which do not even exist yet. If this isn't genuine altruism, you need to give us your own definition of that term.

>>6627858
You define genes as something different from the animal, I don't. Therefore we see their actions differently. That's as far as we're going to get.

>>6627837

Well, this argument often stands on the fact that nobody can really know why somebody actually does something, not even the persons themselves. As such the egotism vs altruism debate becomes moot in some regards. Personal opinion is still relevant though.

>reduced

That's where you're fucking up OP, you're simplifying an idea until it fits into your narrow view.

>I can take any persons action and find some roundabout way that person benefits and it's easy to do because all actions have consequences and all consequences have pros and cons

OPs theory says more about the way we structure reality than the human condition

>>6627865
>You define genes as something different from the animal, I don't
That amounts to admitting you're wrong. You don't get to choose to ignore the difference between species and individual, or of genotype and phenotype, no way.

>>6627865
Genes are different from the animal, I could do a gel electrophoresis and prove it to you.

>>6627869
nothing beats solipsism, but too many people see this as a problem

>>6627865
>You define genes as something different from the animal, I don't.
Then how can identical twins be at different places at the same time?

>>6627873
But if you define the genes as something separate from the animal, are you the one ignoring genotype/phenotype/etc?

>>6627904
We're talking about the actual, physical gene, not the information on them. Like, if you print two copies of picture and give them to two different people, they each treat it as their picture even though the information on the picture is the same between them.

>>6627889
So if you can remove something from an animal, you can't define it as part of the animal? My brain or any other body part can be removed from my body, that doesn't make it any less me.

>>6627925
Whoops, thought he meant that the genes were the anima(as opposed to part of the animall, teaches me to not pay attention.

>>6627909
>But if you define the genes as something separate from the animal, are you the one ignoring genotype/phenotype/etc?
I never said they existed seperately, just that they are not identical.
>We're talking about the actual, physical gene, not the information on them
you just established the difference you are disputing. congratulations.

>>6627925
>So if you can remove something from an animal, you can't define it as part of the animal?
to focus on this, it depends on want you want. A limb cannot survive for long without the attachment to its body (or another today).

>>6627957
I never said that they were identical, just that the physical organism and its genes are a part of them same whole and that genes + body = animal, and if you are judging the actions of the body without taking the genes into consideration you aren't accurately judging the actions of the animal.

>>6627976
>I never said that they were identical
you did, numerous times.
>just that the physical organism and its genes are a part of them same whole and that genes + body = animal
>genes + body = animal
That is complete nonsense. The animal is the expression of genetic information in the form of a physical body, a process that, btw, is in no way straightforward, cf. epigenetics.
>and if you are judging the actions of the body without taking the genes into consideration you aren't accurately judging the actions of the animal.
Indeed, the theory of evolution, including the account of Dawkins, provides a good explanation for how altruistic behaviour emerges as a way of reproducing genetic information. Since genetic information and actual physical specimens are not the same, it tells us fuck all about wther or not a behaviour can properly be characterized as altruistic, as that term is actually meaningless when applied to things that neither live nor act, like for example genetic information. Our conversation leads me to believe that metaphors such as the "selfish gene" for all they're worth may do more harm than good, as it apparently leads you to believe that genes have intentions.

So basically your argument, OP, is that absolutely everything you ever do is "selfish"?

>>6628016
Show me exactly where I said that genes are exactly the same thing as the animal that in no way could be interpreted as genes being an integral part of the animal. Still, you're describing the animal's behavior as altruistic when the whole point of "The Selfish Gene" was that "altruistic" behavior often is not truly altruistic, it's just acting selfishly from a genetic perspective often looks altruistic to an external observer.

>>6628039
>>6628039
>Show me exactly where I said that genes are exactly the same thing as the animal that in no way could be interpreted as genes being an integral part of the animal.
much obliged:
>>6627873
>>6627723
>it's just acting selfishly from a genetic perspective
You're making a categorical error there, though: genes do not have a perspective of their own, nor do they have a self-interest in a meaningful sense. As a physical reality, they fucking die with the animal they're part of. The only thing that survives is the information, i.e. the abstract configuration of molecules. That's what you call selfish right there: acting on behalf of information you don't know.

>>6628063
Those weren't my comments.

>>6628091
Misquoted the first one:
>>6627865
That one was you, right? Otherwise you just got into our conversation without clarifying you're a different person.

since its causing confusion, just disregard the "pure" part. everything still holds

>>6627497
Do I genuinely feel "heroic" when I throw myself on a grenade?
Or is that the justification my brain makes up to give my body the will to do what it knows it must?

>>6628108
Yes, that was me. I said genes were not different from the animal because they are an integral part of the animal, I didn't mean to imply they were exactly the same thing. Sorry for the confusion.

>>6628127
Oh well, in that case, it should be clear: selfishness on part of an integral compononent is not the same as selfishness on part of the whole.

>>6628120
so, even impure altruism is impossible? that is, the kind that comes mixed with non-altruistic motives? well, that is even greater nonsense.

>>6627497
Can't decide if this girl is sexy or not. Her legs look way too big and muscular and her shoulders way too broad but I still want to fuck her, she has a cute petite face.

Is my desire to fuck her altruistic?

>>6628167
give in to the snu snu, faggot

>>6628167
>Her legs look way too big and muscular and her shoulders way too broad
>she has a cute petite face.
>She's not le pornstar skinny but that awful horse face is cute, somehow

Underage virgin confirmed

>>6628179
Projecting much

>still using 'ironic funny le'

Underage redditing virgin confirmed

>>6627839
It's the latter, since it's a behaviour that also takes place in individuals that have no concept of self.

>>6628179
>she's not le pornstar skinny

Nice meme newfriend, welcome to 4chan. We don't really enjoy le funny le and ironic narwhal here. We also aren't annoying little fags, try to lurk for a few months before posting. In your case it should probably be years because 4chan is an 18+ website not for underage kids.

>>6627497
I just like helping people because it feels good. I just like people being happy or feeling satisfied.

I dont have some hero complex(at least not in the sense of helping people like that)

spreading joy really is nice

>>6628179
Why aren't you on your containment board /b/ child?

>>6627497
Jesus Christ I want her to crush my temples between her thighs until my head explodes, what the fuck man.

How can someone be this sexy? Full clothed no less.

claiming "no action is ultimately altruistic" is just as reductive and unfalsifiable as claiming "all actions are ultimately altruistic"

>>6627497
Yes, OP, we know we live in the times where game theory and economics is the dominant way of rationalizing behavior. All you're saying here is what counts as common sense today. And if you were living in the middle ages, you would be saying self-interest is the work of the devil.
Try harder.

>>6627666
Satan's trips do not lie!

Altruism may not be "perfect" in whatever sense you're trying to define it, but looking out for people and not wanting things in return, putting my own needs on a lower priority than others helps me sleep at night and it makes other people happy.

>>6627666
Was getting trips part of your plan?

>>6628037
everything you do is selfish, but some selfishness is more damaging than others

>>6627497
The leap is when you take this and imply that all forms of self-interest are equally good, which is not in evidence.

>>6627497
Who gives a fuck.

What a bad take on a meaningless topic.

>>6627497

This is my fetish and i'm /fit/ and strong

no homo

>>6627712

This doesn't work for humans though, almost everyone hates his family at some point

>>6627497

What if the 'altruist' was egoless in his or her giving. Egolessness is subjective so only a person himself could know weather or not an action was truly egoless but knowing would require verification with the ego and therefore impossible. Therefore the altruist could only be one who is not altruistic.

>>6629723
pics

What you don't realize is that the answer doesn't matter. At all. It does not matter one lick to morality if altruism is possible or not.

What is altruism? Acting for another's good without any thought to your own good. Now one could make your argument, that such a thing is impossible, one is always paying at least partial attention to one's own good, and it is impossible not to. Or one could argue endlessly trying to establish that you're wrong, that it is in fact possible to act completely selflessly.

Either way, it doesn't matter except in our current corrupt moral system which identifies altruism as the highest good, to the point that it produces a bad conscience in anyone who benefits from their good deeds! We've created a kind of Kantian defomity where your action is only so good as you do it altruistically, regardless of the consequences it eventually produces. As long as you don't BENEFIT, it is moral.

What is needed is to turn this decadent morality on its head, and say that altruism has NOTHING to do with morality. Nothing at all. Nothing. Doing good to others, BECAUSE you benefit from it, should be the law of the day. Seek eudaimonia through COOPERATION, pursue self-interest through MUTUAL BENEFIT, do well by doing good. What we need is for vast numbers of people to internalize the idea that instead of viewing morality as a kind of self-sacrifice, which is inherently offensive to our nature even if it is possible, viewing it as an opportunity. That happiness is the bedfellow of RIGHTEOUSNESS. That you can advance your own self-interest by advancing the interest of others, and it is in this that 99% of all proper social conduct consists.

>>6627821
Kant's ethical system is irrelevant. It's one of the worst normative ethical systems

>>6627497

The idea that true altruism can't exist is unfalsifiable.

maybe in the case of men.

but billions of women have raised children, which gives virtually nothing back but sucks the literal life out of these women. how many women have died due to a pregnancy that they didn't want? dying to give life while being subjugated and demeaned for the very act is pretty selfless.

>>6629784
There go my sides

>>6629784
> which gives virtually nothing back
wow my mom must have lied to me she told me she loves me

>>6629794
i can't fathom why a mother would love a miserable sack of shit that wastes his time on 4chan

>>6629794
but do you deserve her love or does she just feel like she probably should love you given that she risked death and sacrificed nearly everything to have you?

>>6629833
wow rude
>>6629849
I am good to her and reasonably successful in life and she's too affectionate to not be genuine

>>6629794

nature is a bitch

Altruism is a myth, otherwise capitalism wouldn't exist.

>>6629871
>implying capitalism always existed

>>6629871
>capitalism is based on rational self-interest
That's the joke, capitalism is shitty for almost everyone involved. Capitalism only works as long as people, even in the high echelons, sacrifice their self-interest for the sake of the enterprise.

>>6629871
Are you serious?

>>6629866
good to her in what ways?

generally speaking, i can see how a daughter could give a mother immense satisfaction and joy, but there's so much negativity that comes from bringing a son into the world, factually speaking. i'm assuming you're male due to the way you present yourself. i mean women don't usually say things like "i'm reasonably successful therefore the love of my mother is deserved". females are expected from a young age to fake affection, btw

>>6629902
burjo bora :-DDDDD

>>6629889
That's a pretty shallow assessment of capitalism.

Self-interest is a bit more complex than you're giving it credit for.

>>6627839
The genes (and in the case of humans memes) are the real self. Almost everything a healthy life form does is to propagate it's genetic and/or mimetic information. An organism is just a puppet the genes create to protect themselves, thoughts have a similar relation to the people they inhabit.

Prove me wrong.

>>6629920
I don't think I am missing any particular complexities in my assertion that capitalism depends on altruism, but why don't you point them out intead of just stating that I'm missing something?

>>6627497
is that from James Rachels' 'Elements of Moral Philosophy' ?

>>6629932
>reducing physical entities to abstract information
Abstract information cannot be scientifically observed. This is reductionism is particularly nonsensical.

>>6629932
males are funny (i.e. not funny) because everything they do is for the ultimate purpose of reproducing. yet the only thing they're giving of their actual selves is their little degraded y-chromosome that doesn't do anything but fuck shit up. the x that they give is really their mother's so it's not like they actually have anything of value to give that's actually their own.

>>6629968
Switching tactics, I see. Protip: you're trying way too hard.

>>6629986
well no what was said just reminded me of that and i felt like saying it?? because it's true?? that is, rooted in reality??

plus it's on topic b/c it shows that obviously male reproduction is selfish, but female reproduction isn't.

>>6629932
>. An organism is just a puppet the genes create to protect themselves, thoughts have a similar relation to the people they inhabit.
he was right all along

>>6627525
>have they been brainwashed to aspire for glory, too?
Instinctively, yes. but not to aspire glory but for their genes to be passed on.

>>6627517
Imagine those thighs wrapped around your neck squeezing tightly until it becomes unbearably painful.

>>6627497
You realize your argument boils down to "I'm sure everyone's selfish because I'm sure they are!", right? Fuck your soldier. If a mother burns up trying to save her child in a house fire, do you think that mom was "possessed/brainwashed by yadda yadda" or just was so desperate to save her child she disregarded her own safety? Was she a "junkie devoid of free will"? Horseshit. Many MANY people have died for what they considered a worthy cause, and not because "thoroughly possessed by the idea of sacrifice as an ultimate good," but because they honestly considered something to be more important than their personal survival. I don't believe you or anyone is stupid enough to not recognize that aspect of human nature.

OP cannot possibly be older than 17

It is so juvenile to talk about "altruism," "heroism" and "self-interest" as if they were points on a scoreboard or figures in a ledger.

Go do something for someone. Has anyone ever truly sacrificed for you? Have you actually experienced the emotions that you're so callously quantifying? The consequences of real-life actions and the complexity of relationships are not things that can be bloodlessly categorized or clinically examined.

You talk like someone who has only the vaguest understanding of how people work, most like gleaned from a half-comprehended reading of a book thats too advanced for you.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

>>6631134
most likely***

Point stands, sir!

>>6627497
i believe pure anything is impossibe, and that the way to surpass egoism is through embracing altruism as well

an egoistic altruist, or altruistic egoist if you will, someone capable of pursuing and acting in the interests of others and themself

>>6631147
As the benefit of others serves the self, yes, fully agree.

Good thread, good legs.

>>6629784
Kill yourself.

>>6627517
thinspiration gap

On it's head this is true, but does this make self-sacrifice for an idea, even if it's self-serving, ignoble?

tl;dr
So?

>altruism means I can't feel good about doing selfless things because that's selfish
Yeah, okay. Sure.

>>6627497
>/fit/ girls
You can't expect me to put any sort of attention in what you're saying if you post my fetish.

More, please.

>>6627764
Well, yeah. That's exactly what a goddamn phenotype is anon, the genotype combined with environment give whatever is the function and appearance of something. We are our genes and how their products have been affected while we grew up

>donate money to charity publicly
you're doing it for attention
>donate anonymously
you're doing it so you can pat yourself on the back about being "so selfless" and "not needing gratitude :^)"

>a friend dies
you're sad not because they're dead, but because they'll never make you happy again

everything is done out of selfishness

>>6635635
You can say the exact opposite too. Everything is done to provide successful offspring. Not very selfish from an evolutionary standpoint, especially consider the mutualism found in natural cycles. Anything can be equally argued dude.

>>6627497
Retard

>>6627497
Bullshit

i love her

>>6635635
You mean everything can be explained to be selfish, which is a different thing. Freud could spin everything so it's about fucking your mum, doesn't make it any more true.

>>6638728
Why would you bring up fucking your mum in a thread about altruism, unless you actually want to fuck your mom? Gotcha.

>>6627497
Agreed.
This is not a problem, though. Even if altruism always involve some form gratification, helping others does not lose value.
Relations are based in exchanges and observing losses and benefits is the way by which we make decisions. Altruism is not making decisions in which we gain absolutely nothing, but rather decisions in which we are not the party gaining the most, in a purely economic sense. When these decisions are made our brain compensates us with "feeling good moments" - that is, if you have a normal brain - and these enter the equation balancing the loss for the altruistic act. It's a very important mechanism for establishing harmonic societies, since counting on other people's help is what makes living in groups so advantageous.
Of course, only being altruistic when you know you'll have the emotional reward can be dangerous; empathy can easily be blocked by many factors and ethical decisions must be taken according to systems that considers more than just "feeling good". Still, helping others and feeling good about is no sign of hypocrisy.

>>6627497
wanna see her b-side.