Is altruism impossible?

[Evales]

Is it possible?

[nygreenguy]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

I disagree with you definition of altruism (biologically). In biological terms, altruism is the decrease of ones fitness for the benefit of another. With this said, I do not think altruistic behavior is common. We (life) are all inherently selfish and almost all good works can be associated for our benefit. Now, humans are a small exception, but I still think we can find personal benefit in almost any altruistic act.

Remember, any behavior which sacrifices our fitness will not persist in a population.

[Beto]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

I disagree with you definition of altruism (biologically). In biological terms, altruism is the decrease of ones fitness for the benefit of another.

I'm not following. Some monkeys share food to increase their social status. They effectively become fitter, don't they?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

I disagree with you definition of altruism (biologically). In biological terms, altruism is the decrease of ones fitness for the benefit of another.

I'm not following. Some monkeys share food to increase their social status. They effectively become fitter, don't they?

But that isn't altruism because they are doing it for their own benefit. All decisions are inherently made based on what causes less pain (or more pleasure) for the organism. It isn't just physical pain or pleasure either. Someone could, for example, save someone else's life, at the expense of one of their limbs because their death would have caused them more pain and anguish than the loss of that leg. Therefore, the only way to make a truly altruistic choice is to ignore whatever choice you originally made, and do the opposite. If this choice helps another, it is altruism because you are making the more difficult decision for yourself, while helping someone else.

[Beto]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

I disagree with you definition of altruism (biologically). In biological terms, altruism is the decrease of ones fitness for the benefit of another.

I'm not following. Some monkeys share food to increase their social status. They effectively become fitter, don't they?

But that isn't altruism because they are doing it for their own benefit. All decisions are inherently made based on what causes less pain (or more pleasure) for the organism. It isn't just physical pain or pleasure either. Someone could, for example, save someone else's life, at the expense of one of their limbs because their death would have caused them more pain and anguish than the loss of that leg. Therefore, the only way to make a truly altruistic choice is to ignore whatever choice you originally made, and do the opposite. If this choice helps another, it is altruism because you are making the more difficult decision for yourself, while helping someone else.

My point was, if deeds of "altruism" are rooted in some ancestral behavior that TODAY has no explicit advantage (it may or may not), would "altruism" still exist as commonly portrayed? It would still be something beyond our mere "will", wouldn't it?

[Nameless]

Is it possible?

When ego is not a factor.
Ego is the 'self' of 'selfish', the 'self' that is 'less' in 'selfless'.

[Evales]

Is it possible?

When ego is not a factor.
Ego is the 'self' of 'selfish', the 'self' that is 'less' in 'selfless'.

So the only way for it to occur is when ego death occurs?
Interesting way to put it.

[bernee51]

Is it possible?

When ego is not a factor.
Ego is the 'self' of 'selfish', the 'self' that is 'less' in 'selfless'.

So the only way for it to occur is when ego death occurs?
Interesting way to put it.

Not so much ego death but more a non attachment to the idea of one.

[Evales]

Could it be described as not consciously knowing of your ego?

[bernee51]

Could it be described as not consciously knowing of your ego?

No you know of it.

The ego, the sense of self is like a 'time ship'. It is made up of the past, present and anticipations of the future. Being aware of this and to acting in the present bypasses the ego - releases the attachment to it.

[Evales]

No you know of it.

The ego, the sense of self is like a 'time ship'. It is made up of the past, present and anticipations of the future. Being aware of this and to acting in the present bypasses the ego - releases the attachment to it.

Fwah that went right over my head sorry