God Says

[Silver Incubus]

one could argue that, but there is benefit to aiding others, and this benefit prevents any act from being completely selfless. still, to attempt selfless acts is admirable

you say that, but you dont' prove it. What basis is this on? I believe that it is intent that makes the act selfless, and only Conscious intent. It is also a choice, to do something selfish or selfless, and to say that nothing can be selfless is a very bleak and boxed in set of beliefs, meaning that there is no such thing as something good, because its is only evil, with lesser degrees of evil.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'm merely saying that even with good intent nothing can be truly selfless. however, if you define the nature of action based on intent, then you would be correct.

 

[Silver Incubus]

ahh i see, so we just had a misunderstanding of definitions

 

[milkman]

He said that you gain emotionally - meaning that you gain but due to the emotions you feel, not because you're literally gaining emotions

 

[DE]

How can you have selfish altruism when altruism is, by definition, selfless? You can discuss whether altruism is possible, but not whether it's selfish or not.

 

[Kenneth R.]

How can you have selfish altruism when altruism is, by definition, selfless? You can discuss whether altruism is possible, but not whether it's selfish or not.

i was going by the definition that it is acting with intent of selflessness.

to say it does not exist would be to say that people do not ever act with selfless intent, which is incorrect...

the debate is whether or not such action is truly altruistic.

 

[SoundMaster]

How can you have selfish altruism when altruism is, by definition, selfless? You can discuss whether altruism is possible, but not whether it's selfish or not.

To clear this up, I think one can easily state the following:
- there are acts that appear to altruistic, and that benefit the recipient of said act, but may be done of out of selfish needs/wants/desires, even at the subsconscious level.

For example: a mother breast feeding her baby. Sure, it's a commonplace act, but it is an act by which one freely gives of herself to another for the SAKE of this other. However, the mother is satisfying her own selfish, evolutionary goal of spreading her genes through her progeny. And one has to keep the baby alive for this to occur. Alas, this is almost exclusively not a selfish act at the conscious level, but entirely "2nd nature" or sunconscious.

 

[Kenneth R.]

that is not what i had meant, soundmaster.

i was discussing the example of one aiding a poor man with money.
this could be done in complete concern for the man's health and well-being, but one will feel better for having aided a fellow human and thus gained gratification for acting "selflessly". the same can be said for taking a bullet for a companion. you may feel intense pain which is undesirable, you may have acted in complete concern for the other person, but you feel better having known you saved their life.

that is what i meant by no true altruism.

what your definition, that is, acting as if altruistic but with selfish intent, are not altruistic in nature. they may benefit, but they are deception.

 

[Silver Incubus]

He said that you gain emotionally - meaning that you gain but due to the emotions you feel, not because you're literally gaining emotions

Again, you do not gain from emotions, you experience them.

 

[Silver Incubus]

To clear this up, I think one can easily state the following:
- there are acts that appear to altruistic, and that benefit the recipient of said act, but may be done of out of selfish needs/wants/desires, even at the subsconscious level.

For example: a mother breast feeding her baby. Sure, it's a commonplace act, but it is an act by which one freely gives of herself to another for the SAKE of this other. However, the mother is satisfying her own selfish, evolutionary goal of spreading her genes through her progeny. And one has to keep the baby alive for this to occur. Alas, this is almost exclusively not a selfish act at the conscious level, but entirely "2nd nature" or sunconscious.

Sub conscious? There is no such thing as sub conscious intent.

And besides, acts can only be based on conscious intent, considering the 'concept' of subconscious means we are not aware, and therefore it isn't controllable, and if not controllable you cannot choose, if you cannot have choice in the matter then it really can't be selfish or selfless, because the consept of self is a conscious and logical process of thinking and separation of the individual from the rest.

 

[infoterror]

So altruism is selfish.

I said that altruism is often selfish. How did you get from that, to what you posted above? No philosopher worth his salt would permit that

 

[Cythraul]

I said that altruism is often selfish. How did you get from that, to what you posted above? No philosopher worth his salt would permit that

I was being facetious. Your point was understood but I have yet to see how it has any relevance to your original position that Christianity somehow engenders some kind of selfishness.

 

[infoterror]

Your point was understood but I have yet to see how it has any relevance to your original position that Christianity somehow engenders some kind of selfishness.

You cannot understand how some altruism being selfish relates to Christianity being selfish?

Oy vey.

 

[Silver Incubus]

here i'll help ya,

do good = get into heaven.

 

[Kenneth R.]

here i'll help ya,

do good = get into heaven.

wrong.

do good for love of God and for the sake of mankind, do good in accordance with Him, and in his glory, and not your own. then you might get into heaven, but heaven isn't the point.

don't debate this concept unless you are also a Christian.

PS: there is nothing selfish in the above, as i have stated that salvation isn't the point. the point is to glorify God and his will. there may be feelings of joy and satisfaction in knowingly doing such good, and that is where i argue no act can be completely selfless though of selfless intent.

 

[Cythraul]

You cannot understand how some altruism being selfish relates to Christianity being selfish?

Oy vey.

No I see that quite clearly. I just don't see how selfishness, in whatever form, is exclusive to the practice of Christianity nor do I see how it's an inherent part of the belief system; Christianity teaches selflessness. If one chooses to mask their inherent selfish nature with faux selflessness then that's not necessarily the fault of Christian doctrine, it's the fault of that person.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I think the main question here is what is the self?

 

[Kenneth R.]

No I see that quite clearly. I just don't see how selfishness, in whatever form, is exclusive to the practice of Christianity nor do I see how it's an inherent part of the belief system; Christianity teaches selflessness. If one chooses to mask their inherent selfish nature with faux selflessness then that's not necessarily the fault of Christian doctrine, it's the fault of that person.

exactly.

 

[sonofhendrix13]

i would say that is a kind act of altruism, however, were you not glad that you aided this homeless person? did you not find some solace that one less being will go hungry? though it may appear selfless, you do gain emotionally from it. that is why i said there is no such thing as a truly selfless act, because those who seek to be selfless find comfort in such actions. this however, does not diminish the magnitude of the act nor the need for such individuals.

I definately agree with this.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I really couldn't give a shit about how selfish/selfless acts are. I don't consider altruism possible, thus the whole debate is irrelevant. I don't see how intending to be selfless shows anything except an inability to understand that selflessness is impossible, either. There's no point in fighting for something that doesn't exist. Attacking Christianity for selfishness and praising it for failed attempts at selflessness both seem to lack weight. The former can be used to troll those who consider selfishness evil, but it still has no real basis or function.

Attacking Christianity for instilling a belief that selflessness is reality might be valid, in that said belief may well have a negative impact on people's mindsets in relation to how they alter your world. Not to mention that it's living a lie, which some people may well oppose in all circumstances.