Altruism v. Egoism

What kind of altruism are you talking about? Reciprocal altruism?

 

Sure it exists, but you have to make the evolutionary biologists shut up in order to make it work right. Once people know about endorphins and evolutionary reciprocity in order to contribute to gene inheritance (if not yours than those close to you), it is all over. Reciprocity is dead, except for general reciprocity and of course specific reciprocity (so maybe it is not dead?).

We may be selfish, but that doesn't mean we are overly selfish a.k.a. greedy. I think that is where many people get confused. They say we are selfish, but they assume that we are also greedy as well. That isn't necessarily true.

 

i agree that it's impossible to be purely altruistic, unless you did it without your conscious awareness, but i'm not sure that being purely egotistic is possible either (also not sure they are polar opposites). egotistic: selfish, self centered. a purely egotistic person would have to think about every way in which his actions could potentially help another person, and negate them. most people don't consider the impacts of their decisions in such depth.

also i think you have to distinguish between BELIEVING you're selfish and actually DOING selfish things, since someone can think they're being selfish but actually be helping a lot of people out! would that be selfish then? i don't think so. likewise if your self-perception is that you're a selfless person but your actions say otherwise, then you're selfish. third party perspective vs. one's own perspective would be very important here.

 

As dragon points out on a biological level it gets really murky. Thus I omit any sort of justifications on such level as you have no control. This attempt to break humanity into two camps is impossible. It is more of a spectrum where the extreme opposites are rare to find. Also bias can paint any such spectrum to favor one end over the other.

 

It is what it is regardless of how I judge it. A non-selfish act would be an act outside the self, so whether or not they are possible is debatable. Its like asking whether or not nirvana exists, and in asking the question, you are aiming for something that causes you to miss what is right in front of you. Of course, some would say that missing what is far away is even worse.

I don't see a problem with being selfish necessarily, except I do. It isn't something that can be explained easily in rational terms. Do you know what I mean?

 

Altruism seem like assesments of personal cost/gain in interactions. Many people function this way, making assesments.

However, I usually do things because they seem like the right thing to do. At times this can be at great personal cost or gain - but that element is consequent to my original intent. I don't really care what it costs me, or benefits me. I do what I do because I think it is right.

 

This is psychology related, and as MBTI is my principal language which which to speak of the brain's workings:

I'd have to say that T (especially Te) is inclined towards rational self-interest, aka egoism. "Do whatever the hell you want but don't screw with MY stuff."
F, on the other hand, (especially Fe), would be inclined towards emotional altruism. "I feel for others as others, and their need outweighs my personal wants."

Neither is right or wrong, and ideally both are in balance, in my opinion. According to this theory, I would be an egoist (which is correct) and most of the members of this board would be altruists (which is yet to be determined by this thread).