Am I my brother’s keeper? I don’t know. What’s certain is that I am my brother’s brother.
If altruism feels like an obligation to you, you’re doing it wrong.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Only scientific theory need be susceptible to falsification.[/quote]
All claims need to be susceptible to falsification. Such as:
If there is no observation that can falsify this, it is nonsense. What makes you decide that everyone feels a sense of uneasiness and acts on it? Perhaps some men do not. If a person tells you that they experience no such thing, are you going to say “actually, you do, but you just don’t realize it…”
What is it supposed to be? How can any field make claims that cannot be tested and then hide behind “well, it’s ok, since it’s not science…”
Public policy should be rooted in our understanding of human nature, not half baked pseudoscience/philosophical musings. Our understanding of human nature derives from observation. You cannot sit in a chair and decide how everyone, such as the self sacrificing soldier, makes decisions.
As for whether altruism is contradictory, it depends on your definitions. If you define it as putting the interests of others ahead of your own, and then decide that in doing so, the interests of others have become your own, then sure, you have demonstrated a contradiction. But it’s a weak and superficial contradiction that doesn’t really mean much.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If altruism feels like an obligation to you, you’re doing it wrong.
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
you remind me of myself when i had just finished my first year in college, after taking philosophy 100, sociology 100 and religion and world values 101.
Then you must have been a really advanced college student. All I learned my first year was how to open an import beer without a bottle opener and my SSN.
LOL, First year i did learn how to do my first funnel…and believe it or not, it was from my philosophy prof. He seemed cool at the time, but looking back…what a messed up guy.
Where are all these college parties at? I have yet to attend one…[/quote]
every Friday night, 8:30 pm, Neumann Hall…1984
[quote]Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Altruism does not exist.
Ah. All behavior is motivated by selfish interests?
This claim guards itself against refutation. I could bring forth any number of seemingly selfless acts and you would find a way to say that they were actually selfish. As such, this is not a claim based on observation of human nature. It’s just a cute way to redefine things.
Any theory must be susceptible to falsification. If it isn’t, than it is unscientific and meaningless. What human action could you possibly witness, no matter how apparently selfless, that would possibly falsify such a claim?[/quote]
Altruism does exist, yet it is so horrible that we refuse to see it. We rationalise it into something else, some ‘really’ selfish motivation, some sort of hidden reason.
Here’s an example: a man gives up the career he longs for, in order to please his parents. He always wanted to be an artist but becomes a doctor to please his parents. He places the happiness of his parents above his own.
The retort is that he values his parents’ happiness more than his own, so he was really being selfish. But this disconnects selfishness from its meaning. The good is what enhances or maintains him as a rational being and he surrendered a higher happiness for a lower one. He acted altruistically.
To pay for the happiness or well-being of others by surrendering your own happiness is altruism.
I contend that a morality that calls on its practioners to behave in this way is a morality of cannibalism.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
If altruism feels like an obligation to you, you’re doing it wrong.
Yep. [/quote]
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
-attributed to Samuel Johnson
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
-attributed to Samuel Johnson
[/quote]
“Say ‘what’ again. SAY ‘WHAT’ AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say ‘what’ one more goddamn time.”
-Samuel Jackson as ‘Jules’ in Pulp Fiction
[quote]Gael wrote:
All claims need to be susceptible to falsification.
[/quote]
You are wrong!
How does one falsify axiomatic truth? If axiom needs to be falsifiable to be valid is ALL mathematics incorrect?
[quote]belligerent wrote:
No to alturism. Not that it’s wrong to help others but it’s certainly not a responsibility. Your responsibility is to take care of yourself so you don’t become a burden on others.[/quote]
QFT
I help others up when I can because I hope that when I fall, someone will help me. If someone helps me up, I show my appreciation by staying up, whereas most people seem get the idea that if someone is going to be there to pick them up, then its ok to just keep falling down. So I’ll give you a hand once, maybe twice, but you better get your shit straight or you’re on your own.
Also, I do my best to stay up, because knowing people, I don’t want to ever have to rely on the good will of anyone for anything.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
All claims need to be susceptible to falsification.
You are wrong!
How does one falsify axiomatic truth? If axiom needs to be falsifiable to be valid is ALL mathematics incorrect?
[/quote]
Heh, I predicted this response. The answer is no. It doesn’t mean mathematics is not valid. Mathematics only says “these conclusions follow from these axioms.” Mathematics doesn’t pretend to comment on whether the axioms are true or not, although most mathematicians view them as self evident, if unprovable. But it doesn’t matter because mathematics can be valid and internally consistent regardless of the truth of the axioms.
In fact, it is possible to build valid logical systems built upon axioms that are obviously incorrect.
But this is trivial. There is no question that statements regarding human nature should be falsifiable. This is true whether you label these as psychology or morality or ethics or whatever.
[quote]Gael wrote:
But this is trivial. There is no question that statements regarding human nature should be falsifiable. This is true whether you label these as psychology or morality or ethics or whatever.[/quote]
Why is it necessary that “human nature” must be falsifiable? There are no falsifiable observations to human nature that can be made. If man acts that is part of his nature.
The idea of “human nature” is just a philosophical convenience. It does not really mean anything.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
But this is trivial. There is no question that statements regarding human nature should be falsifiable. This is true whether you label these as psychology or morality or ethics or whatever.
Why is it necessary that “human nature” must be falsifiable? There are no falsifiable observations to human nature that can be made. If man acts that is part of his nature.
The idea of “human nature” is just a philosophical convenience. It does not really mean anything.[/quote]
Oh the irony.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Oh the irony.[/quote]
I don’t think you know what irony is. At least that is what you have demonstrated more than a handful of times.
Man acts with purpose to remove some felt uneasiness.
There is no “human nature” other than this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Oh the irony.
I don’t think you know what irony is. At least that is what you have demonstrated more than a handful of times.[/quote]
Even funnier.
two words.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
two words.
[/quote]
Bless you.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Altruism does not exist.
Ah. All behavior is motivated by selfish interests?
This claim guards itself against refutation. I could bring forth any number of seemingly selfless acts and you would find a way to say that they were actually selfish. As such, this is not a claim based on observation of human nature. It’s just a cute way to redefine things.
Any theory must be susceptible to falsification. If it isn’t, than it is unscientific and meaningless. What human action could you possibly witness, no matter how apparently selfless, that would possibly falsify such a claim?
Altruism does exist, yet it is so horrible that we refuse to see it. We rationalise it into something else, some ‘really’ selfish motivation, some sort of hidden reason.
Here’s an example: a man gives up the career he longs for, in order to please his parents. He always wanted to be an artist but becomes a doctor to please his parents. He places the happiness of his parents above his own.
The retort is that he values his parents’ happiness more than his own, so he was really being selfish. But this disconnects selfishness from its meaning. The good is what enhances or maintains him as a rational being and he surrendered a higher happiness for a lower one. He acted altruistically.
To pay for the happiness or well-being of others by surrendering your own happiness is altruism.
I contend that a morality that calls on its practioners to behave in this way is a morality of cannibalism.
[/quote]
Sounds to me like your artist has acted on his own self interest. If becoming a doctor to keep his partents pleased is more valuable to him than displeasing his parents by becoming an artist, then hasn’t he weighed the cost and formed a decision to which path will bring him the most happiness (if not perfect)? So doesn’t he in the end still act in his self interest? Though, maybe your self-interest would be best served by being an artist, even if it strains your family ties.
Charity is a wonderful thing. As long as it’s voluntary.