[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I typed out a long response to that and then I changed my mind This is obviously unprovable and I shall get my fame by saving that kitten next week under the "people who saved a kittens life" instead

[InOne]

No charity would exist without it

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by InOne

No charity would exist without it

I agree, that's a good example the faceless benefactor.
(assuming they keep it to themselves and don't do it for the tax relief)

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I agree, that's a good example the faceless benefactor.
(assuming they keep it to themselves and don't do it for the tax relief)

People are getting helped and that's that.

[Samuel.]

You're getting satisfaction out of donating. If you didn't, you wouldn't donate.

Am I misunderstanding altruism?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Mokkajava

And yet she went above and beyond what any other nun would do... And at first without the support of here church.

Exactly Mokka. As a 'nun' she can 'devote her life to god' from within the strict confines of a cell in a convent without ever helping any other human. She devoted her entire life to being selfless and helping others which to me is 'altruism'.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by InOne

People are getting helped and that's that.

Exactly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Samuel.

You're getting satisfaction out of donating. If you didn't, you wouldn't donate.

Am I misunderstanding altruism?

No, you're not misunderstanding it - not in the strictest sense Samuel. There is no such thing if we abide strictly with its accepted definition.

(What you doing still up? )

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No, you're not misunderstanding it - not in the strictest sense Samuel. There is no such thing if we abide strictly with its accepted definition.

(What you doing still up? )

Gotcha

(with every day it gets closer to a uni hand in the later I'm up, yet no work actually gets done )

[armand.kay]

Lol there is a Freinds eppy about this

[armand.kay]

The one where pheoby hates pbs

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Samuel.

Gotcha

(with every day it gets closer to a uni hand in the later I'm up, yet no work actually gets done )

I've got by all my life on just a few hours kip, and it's a hard habit to break. You better get that nose to the grindstone though and get that work done.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

Lol there is a Freinds eppy about this

The one where pheoby hates pbs

[Dollface]

I think it's rare but i think it does exist

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Samuel.

You're getting satisfaction out of donating. If you didn't, you wouldn't donate.

Am I misunderstanding altruism?

I don't believe you are.

The person who crosses a frozen lake to save a dog who has fallen through the fallen ice could be seen as brave and heroic but the reason he's doing it is because emotionally he can't bare to see the dog drown. If he rescues the dog he's relieved of those emotions he would otherwise have. What he's doing is brave, kind, heroic and perhaps stupid but its not altruistic because he is getting emotional gain from saving the dog.

Possibly the nearest I could get is donating money to a charity anonymously and never telling a living soul I was doing that but even then, if self satisfaction is involved, its doubtful that its altruistic.

[Kizzy]

Altruism as I see it is doing something for no recognition or reward from others and simply for the joy of giving as I see it.
Nuns are exempt as they are doing it for god, or for a place in heaven.

This is the view of the person conducting a study into altruism, I share their view it seems to be called 'impure' altruism as that suggests there is some enjoyment from the act.
I suppose true altruism would be if you just did good things without feeling good about it either.

'Attempts to identify true altruism often boil down to redacting motivation from behavior altogether. The story goes that in order to be pure, helping others must dissociate from personal desire (to kiss up, look good, feel rewarded, and so forth). But it is logically fallacious to think of any human behavior as amotivated. De facto, when people engage in actions, it is because they want to. Second... critics of “impure” altruism chide helpers for acting in human ways, for instance by doing things that feel good. The ideal, then, seems to entail acting altruistically while not enjoying those actions one bit. To me, this is no ideal at all. I think it’s profound and downright beautiful to think that our core emotional makeup can be tuned towards others, causing us to feel good when we do. Color me selfish, but I’d take that impure altruism over a de-enervated, floating ideal any day.'

http://www.theguardian.com/science/h...human-altruism

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What about anyone who goes to help Ebola cases, that's surely selfless?

i doubt it

I would imagine they cant wait to tell people what they do to get all the plaudits

Like people who run marathons and drone on and on about it

[Kyle]

I think honestly though we are just dismantling the semantics of the word too much into something so literal it's impossible to define if you include personal satisfaction of doing the right thing.

I know this quote is off Wikipedia but it sums up altruism as far as I have used it in the past and now I think most people see it.

"Altruism in biological organisms can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action."

So as far as I'm concerned just giving your well earned money, that you saved for ages because you wanted to take a nice holiday with, to someone who has fallen on hard times recently to have a holiday themselves qualifies as altruism.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kyle

I think honestly though we are just dismantling the semantics of the word too much into something so literal it's impossible to define if you include personal satisfaction of doing the right thing.

I know this quote is off Wikipedia but it sums up altruism as far as I have used it in the past and now I think most people see it.

"Altruism in biological organisms can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action."

So as far as I'm concerned just giving your well earned money, that you saved for ages because you wanted to take a nice holiday with, to someone who has fallen on hard times recently to have a holiday themselves qualifies as altruism.

This exactly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I don't believe you are.

The person who crosses a frozen lake to save a dog who has fallen through the fallen ice could be seen as brave and heroic but the reason he's doing it is because emotionally he can't bare to see the dog drown. If he rescues the dog he's relieved of those emotions he would otherwise have. What he's doing is brave, kind, heroic and perhaps stupid but its not altruistic because he is getting emotional gain from saving the dog.

Possibly the nearest I could get is donating money to a charity anonymously and never telling a living soul I was doing that but even then, if self satisfaction is involved, its doubtful that its altruistic.

And your post perfectly sums up why it cannot technically exist if we adhere strictly to the accepted true meaning of the word. It is as though we have to commit a totally selfless act, but for it to be truly categorised as an altruistic act, the act commited cannot cause any type of reaction in us - physical, spiritual, mental or emotional. Just not really possible in my opinion.

[LeatherTrumpet]

I think people are forgetting when I resuscitated the whisky sodden fruit fly?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Exactly Mokka. As a 'nun' she can 'devote her life to god' from within the strict confines of a cell in a convent without ever helping any other human. She devoted her entire life to being selfless and helping others which to me is 'altruism'.

Mmmm...I'm not too sure about mother Teresa. There are a lot of articles about dubious financing....a lot of monies donated to her charities never made itto the poor. There is a train of thought that she felt that the poor truly believed in the passion of Christ. In her words..."I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people". That doesn't sound to me the words of someone who is truly altruistic.

[DemolitionRed]

What about the insect world? Both bees and ants often sacrifice their life for the colony and surely life is the ultimate sacrifice. We could of cause argue that its just a genetic reflex but its probably as close as I can get to “true altruism”.

[susie q]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well I for one think anyone from this part of the world who goes to Liberia to help fight Ebola is selfless

I agree

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think people are forgetting when I resuscitated the whisky sodden fruit fly?

Who can forget that momentous moment LT.