|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dduck
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 422
Location: In the middle
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:51 am Post subject: Altruism, was It's Saddam Disgrace |
 |
|
| Dr.J wrote: |
| "Selfish" basically means "one person gains so that others lose" |
I'd define it more simply than that. Selfishness is when others aren't a consideration. If a hide my bag of sweeties in my pocket (called a pocket muncher where I fail from) then I'm being selfish. In fact I am considering others but I'm excluding them.
| Quote: |
| So, if you gain, and others gain, then it's not selfish. Of course, it may mean that your character is selfish (ie. if there was the possibility that others might lose and you gain you would take it). |
The example I used before: I find oil under my house, but only give a tiny fraction of the money away to assuage my pangs of guilt. Still selfish behaviour. I think there is a spectrum of behaviour between selfishness and selflessness.
| Quote: |
| But then, people are selfish in this sense, it just happens that what makes us selfishly feel good is being unselfish, which is very fortunate for the human race! |
It's part of human nature to be selfish - we need to think of ourselves to survive. However, mankind has evolved some noble ideals which override our primitive instincts.
| Quote: |
| I think about Buddhism from time to time, but I wonder, what's wrong with feeling good about doing good things? If we are to accept the nature of our enemies, why not accept our own nature too? |
Know that there's nothing wrong with good deeds done for the right reasons.
Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
leeroy
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 777
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| www.m-w.com wrote: |
Main Entry: al�tru�ism
Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
Date: 1853
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species |
| www.m-w.com wrote: |
Main Entry: self�ish
Pronunciation: 'sel-fish
Function: adjective
Date: 1640
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> |
Selfishness is, I suppose, subjective. My students were horrified to find out that my (selfish) parents haven't bought me a house yet - not even a car. My family have no intention of getting me either of those things, are they selfish?
If altruism is acting without selfishness, then it must too be subjective. Let's say 2 guys find oil under their houses and both of them give the money to charity. One of them gloats about it every day, and the other never says a word about it. Is one act less 'altruistic' than the other? And even if it is, will it have any negative effect on the charity in question? Do good deeds have to have good moral intentions? Does the motivation behind a deed somehow affect how we should view it?
The Dalai Lama, in all his wisdom, happily admits that his role in this world has been a small one. He's given publicity to Tibet and provided spiritual leadership. In terms of firm action though, he has done little. Few can deny that he's a fair bit closer to spiritual altruism than we will ever be...
Bill Gates, on the other hand, has had a massive impact on the world. Few can deny his capitalist motivations, of course. Microsoft software powers a majority of the world's computers, without which a modern economy wouldn't be possible. The technological, medical and scientific advances made possible by companies such as Microsoft far exceed those ever offered by His Holiness The Dalai Lama. (I am sympathetic towards large companies, the 'exploitation of the 3rd world' this is another issue I won't get into here  ). I personally have benefitted from Microsoft software more than the DL's teachings. The DL has brought a refugee problem to India, Bill Gates has brought jobs.
However Bill Gates (and his ilk) remain the bad guys, despite them probably helping the world "in real terms" more than the Dalai Lama ever has. Why is this? Evidently, the motivation behind action is more important - Bill knocked together Windows 3.0 to make money, not to help humanity. Thus any good he may inadvertently caused is not worthy of recognition.
Can selfish motives, then, sometimes yield 'altruistic' results?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dduck
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 422
Location: In the middle
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| leeroy wrote: |
| If altruism is acting without selfishness, then it must too be subjective. Let's say 2 guys find oil under their houses and both of them give the money to charity. One of them gloats about it every day, and the other never says a word about it. Is one act less 'altruistic' than the other? |
The act of giving is equal, the act of gloating is not. If you separate you one act into two you can see who is the more altruistic.
| Quote: |
| Do good deeds have to have good moral intentions? Does the motivation behind a deed somehow affect how we should view it? |
I'm sure Hilter thought he was doing the German people a big favour. I suggest that the underlying reason is important.
| Quote: |
| The technological, medical and scientific advances made possible by companies such as Microsoft far exceed those ever offered by His Holiness The Dalai Lama. |
I thought you were going elsewhere with this one. Gates built a tool, in exactly the same way that Smith & Weston designed a rifle. You're argument focuses on the benefical products derived from the invention, e.g. rifle are used to protect and hunt for food. However you gloss over the negative affects the invention produces, e.g. murder, robbery, wars.
| Quote: |
| (I am sympathetic towards large companies, the 'exploitation of the 3rd world' this is another issue I won't get into here ). I personally have benefitted from Microsoft software more than the DL's teachings. |
Paedophiles can say the same thing. Should we still thank Mr Gates for that too?
| Quote: |
| The DL has brought a refugee problem to India, Bill Gates has brought jobs. |
You obviously value more the money in your pocket than the thoughts in your head, or the feelings in your heart.
| Quote: |
| However Bill Gates (and his ilk) remain the bad guys, despite them probably helping the world "in real terms" more than the Dalai Lama ever has. |
If Gates never existed would the internet still be here? I think so. He is only a small man with an excellent business strategy. I'm not implying here that I think excellent means good or moral.
| Quote: |
| Can selfish motives, then, sometimes yield 'altruistic' results? |
The world is a complicated place, there are a infinite number of possibilities.
Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:41 pm Post subject: Thereby hangs a tail |
|
|
Dear leeroy and dduck,
Good luck with this one, guys. I was tempted, but I think I'm going to resist (after this post, anyway). Too much depends on individual interpretations of altruism - I mean, is it like virginity? You can't be almost a virgin. Can you be "partially altruistic"? And on inner, subjective feelings, as well - and except for each individual introspecting him/herself (and even there it might be darn hard to be sure) how can we ever know what anyone else truly feels? I do think there's a "sliding scale" but I doubt anyone - or at least any human - has ever been either "purely and totally selfish or purely and totally altruistic". It's IS a fascinating topic, but, like a dog chasing its tail, the end, while perhaps in sight, can never, I'd say, be achieved.
My unsolicited advice to the human race:
Do good for WHATEVER reason and let God (or whatever your conception of a Higher Power may be) sort it out.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khmerhit
Joined: 31 May 2003
Posts: 1874
Location: Reverse Culture Shock Unit
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is this thread sponsored by the Rand Corporation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:16 pm Post subject: Next: how many angels can fit on that darn pinhead, anyway? |
|
|
Dear khmerhit,
You're close - but actually it's being funded by a grant from the St. Thomas Acquinas College of Scholasticism.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Just a guy
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 267
Location: Guangxi
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
on guns;
| Quote: |
| the negative affects the invention produces, e.g. murder, robbery, wars. |
ya do of course know the ol saying,
Guns don't kill people...... 
I thought wars, murder & thievery has been around longer than firearms..? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leeroy
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 777
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK Iain, I get your points..
To expand on a couple
| Quote: |
| Gates built a tool, in exactly the same way that Smith & Weston designed a rifle. You're argument focuses on the benefical products derived from the invention, e.g. rifle are used to protect and hunt for food. However you gloss over the negative affects the invention produces, e.g. murder, robbery, wars. |
Granted, scientific discovery and invention has made evil deeds easier (guns, nuclear weapons, internet paedophilia) - but on the whole (IMHO) I consider "quality of life" to have improved thanks (in part) to scientific and capitalist endevour. Whether this continues to be the case as the earth's resources deplete remains to be seen...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
The DL has brought a refugee problem to India, Bill Gates has brought jobs. |
You obviously value more the money in your pocket than the thoughts in your head, or the feelings in your heart. |
I'm not sure quite how you can infer that!
| Quote: |
| If Gates never existed would the internet still be here? I think so. He is only a small man with an excellent business strategy. I'm not implying here that I think excellent means good or moral. |
I was using Bill Gates, perhaps, more as a personification of self-serving capitalism, entrepeneurship (sp?) and selfishness than just him specifically. And a similar thing with the Dalai Lama, let's use him to represent "altruism, or self-lessnes". I've no doubt that the Dalai Lama is far more moral in his conduct and intentions than Bill Gates, but does this simply make him "better"?
I suppose what I'm trying to get to is "Would the world be a better place if everyone was altruistic?", or at the very least "tried to be as selfless as possible". A few more selfless acts here and there would be great, I agree, but let's not knock selfishness too much here - it can have its benefits too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dduck
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 422
Location: In the middle
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just a guy wrote: |
ya do of course know the ol saying,
Guns don't kill people...... |
This is something I detest. Guns don't kill people, people rarely kill people. It's the little lump of metal that tears through the body at high velocity that kills people.
The reason for the bullet through the brain, heart, etc. is undoubtedly people. Let's be clear, people are the cause, but guns facilitate murder, robbery, wars etc.
If the same argument were applied to heroin, you'd say drugs don't kill - people do that. This is a weak debating tactic. 
Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dduck
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 422
Location: In the middle
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leeroy wrote: |
| Granted, scientific discovery and invention has made evil deeds easier (guns, nuclear weapons, internet paedophilia) - but on the whole (IMHO) I consider "quality of life" to have improved thanks (in part) to scientific and capitalist endevour. Whether this continues to be the case as the earth's resources deplete remains to be seen... |
The key point is how do you define "quality of life". If you had crippled or disabled, and couldn't work would your life have any quality left?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You obviously value more the money in your pocket than the thoughts in your head, or the feelings in your heart. |
I'm not sure quite how you can infer that! |
What do you think the Dalai Lama has to offer you? Isn't it wisdom and compassion? Is this quality of life?
| Quote: |
| I was using Bill Gates, perhaps, more as a personification of self-serving capitalism, entrepeneurship (sp?) and selfishness than just him specifically. And a similar thing with the Dalai Lama, let's use him to represent "altruism, or self-lessnes". I've no doubt that the Dalai Lama is far more moral in his conduct and intentions than Bill Gates, but does this simply make him "better"? |
What values do you have? If your God is the greenback then Gates (or Capitalism) is your man. If you value life then people like the Dalai Lama have a lot to offer you.
| Quote: |
| I suppose what I'm trying to get to is "Would the world be a better place if everyone was altruistic?", or at the very least "tried to be as selfless as possible". A few more selfless acts here and there would be great, I agree, but let's not knock selfishness too much here - it can have its benefits too! |
If you had said let's not knock captialism, I might have agreed with you. But promoting selfishness just seems plain weird to me.
Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Just a guy
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 267
Location: Guangxi
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| people rarely kill people |
would that be true before S&W made the use of a long fiery arm popular ?
| Quote: |
| If you had (been or were or are) crippled or disabled, and couldn't work would your life have any quality left? |
With modern computers & the ease of using them, with or without fingers,
a lot higher quality of life & work opportunities than without pc.
Last edited by Just a guy on Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leeroy
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 777
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iain, (Are you Buddhist, by any chance?)
I have read Freedom in Exile and another book (the name of which I've forgotten) in which the Dalai Lama discusses compassion, etc.. (I have, in fact, been to Dharamasala). It gave me a lot of food for thought, but was not "life-changing" - I don't doubt that I gained something spiritually from becoming more aware of his philosophies, but it is not something I consider every day. There are different kinds of wealth, not just financial ones - on this I'm sure we all agree. It is difficult to quantify spiritual wealth and compare it to financial wealth, but it is suffice to say (I think) that we need both. Bill Gates has (and continues to have) more of an influence on my life than the DL - this is imbalanced, and I concede that I should spend more time on things spiritual and less on those financial. The same is true, I think, for quite a few of us...
I equate capitalism to selfishness - a system of free(ish) markets whereby networks of economic agents deal with each other within an enlightened system of self-interest. When I buy something from Microsoft I don't care how the company's people are doing, and they are not interested in me (though they may pretend!). I (selfishly) just want my software, and they are after my money. There is nothing selfless or compassionate about it, yet we both end up happy. I think when I was saying "There's nothing wrong with being selfish", what I meant really was "capitalism does OK and there are elements of selfishness in it".
Compassion is not something readily promoted in western culture and media. This whole "Do it yourself!" "Be your own person, don't worry about what other people think" cult of personal freedom promotes action determined by self-interest. It is possible for us to be more compassionate - but maintain a capitalist-driven system of scientific and technological progress. At least, I think it is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arioch36
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 3589
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dduck, leeroy..please don't stop.
I know "guns don't kill, people do" sounds overused and quaint...but
Here in China there have been so many serial killings...like in America, guns are rarely used. Rat poisoining in fod seems to be the vehicle of choice. Strangulation and suffication by two people resulted in another 70 murders. Jack the Ripper did fine with no gun.
Considering the increasing size of the world's population, proportionally, are more people dying as a result of wars now as opposed to before guns were invented?
altruism and selfishness are self-defined, but judged by history...or at least by those that write the history books
When I am thinking the most about myself...I am more altruistic. really
Please..by all means, continue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:31 pm Post subject: Saving the world |
|
|
Well, keeping to my resolution, I won't add my personal thoughts to this thread. But, just to stir up the mix, here's a NY Times article that, coincidentally enough, seems rather appropriate to the discussion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/arts/20SOCI.html?th
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shenyanggerry
Joined: 02 Nov 2003
Posts: 619
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Virtually every part of modern life has been created by someone looking for a profit. What capitalism has done is created wealth. A thousand years ago in order for one person to have something, someone else had to do without. Today, everyone can enjoy a good standard of living by the standards of 1000.
A flick of a switch or the twist of a dial bring light and heat to most of the world. A weeks labour (or less) buys a basic wardrobe. Food is readily available, afordable and safe to eat in all seasons. Yes, this is not totally true in all countries. It is true in all countries that have embraced capitalism! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
