Talk:Altruism (ethics)

Untitled

I'm surprised the page only shows Comte as a defender of altruism. I suppose multiple religions have put it forth, Jesus being a good example. How come those are not mentionned as defenders of altruism ?

-

It looks like someone deleted the criticisms; I'm almost positive there were criticisms here. Can anyone restore them?

Sure thing. Someone deleted them. Area of trust 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in the history and I restored it. Area of trust 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting it. Here it is below in case someone delets it again:

Criticism of the doctrine

Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that it is virtuous to treat others more important than oneself is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed in the idea that others have a higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and creativity. ^[1] For Nietzsche altruistic love was fabricated by the weak for the weak. It masks self-poisoning resentment about individual and collective powerlessness. Critics like Roderick Hindery respond that Nietzsche's own assumptions about domination by self-interest and the "will to power" are gratuitous and ideological.

Where does Robert C. Solomon's (1995) "A Passion for Justice" talk about Nietzsche's "'duty' to help those who are weaker than oneself?" (I did not read all of the book) Adamaero (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

David Kelley, discussing the views of Ayn Rand (who was inspired by Nietzsche on this topic), holds that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..." Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-sacrifice is an ideal - if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action - why not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing everyone into a collectivist political system. ^[2] Rand does not believe that altruistic acts are themselves evil; rather, she believes that a doctrine that regards self-sacrifice to be virtuous is wrong. She sees the promotion and acceptance of the ethical doctrine as being counter to the best interests of the individual and degrading to the pursuit of self-interest.

Main article

Does anyone know why this article is completely separate to the mainaltruism articl?e 1Z (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel like merging it with altruism, then that's in accord with my sentiment too. The reason why they're separate seems unclear to me. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Just so everyone is aware. There is a relevant merger discussion over on the Alturism talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

It should be clear that Ayn Rand provided an extremely deviant definition of "altruism", obviously in order to obstruct the ordinary definition. Very typical for political "philosophers" (imagine a tone of deep disgust here). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Already dealt with. Forget it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Street preacher's sermon removed

IP 70.251.86.121, believing Wikipedia is his private scribble board, here added:

Finally, one argument is strictly logical. If person A acts in B's interests, and B acts in A's interests, who will be the final recipient of their generosity? While altruism can be seen as a virtue, it by itself cannot settle matters of fairness. An alternative to pure alturisn is impartiality, exemplified by the Golden Rule.

No, the argument is not logical. It's stupid, ridiculous, off-topic, WP:OR, nonsense and pure shit. Need I say, I just removed it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

This is a poor article because there is a list of quotes from particular individuals without any attempt to show how one opinion influenced another or why any particular author is especially worth listening to on the matter. It needs a lot of work. I agree that it would make sense to merge it with the main article. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

+1. The article is nothing but poorly hidden propaganda for Ayn Rand's philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.79.72 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

David Kelley?

It seems odd that Rand's views are presented here by David Kelley, given her importance as critic of altruism. Could someone find a good Rand source where she states her views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.9.228 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As consequentialist ethics

The passage following the seventh reference blatantly promotes the logically controversial idea that if everyone were altruists, the amount of unhappiness would rise. Set aside the logical controversy of this notion, the self-righteous manner in which it is put forth is more than annoying. This in addition to the fact that the segment neither presents any citation nor provides any example of the "many utilitarians" who supposedly agree with the idea seems to be more than enough to have it removed from the article altogether. If any native English speaker could write a more balanced opposition to the foregoing notion that any true utilitarian need be a self-sacrificing altruist, I think that would be a great improvement. Surely, a somewhat inconsistent altruistic moral agent would achieve higher utilitarian virtue than a self-proclaimed utilitarian individualist. Much of this article does indeed smell of objectivist propaganda. Forsmqn (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forsmqn. I largely agree and the section has had a "citation needed" tag for over a year now. I am going ahead with a removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense

"However, he did assert a "duty" to help those who are weaker than oneself."

Nietzsche never said anything like that. Complete fiction! 77.47.74.232 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem very confident for someone whose edits are generally getting things so wrong. I've reinstated your deletion and added a further source. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is Nietzsche's "Duty" Quote in context:

"For the mediocre, mediocrity is happyiness; mastery of one thing, specialization as a natural instinct. It would be complietly unworthy of a more profound spirtot to have any objection to mediocrity as such. Mediocrity is needed before there can e expections; it is the condition for a high culture. When an exceptional person treats a mediocre one more delicately than he treats himself and his equals, this :is not just courtesy of the heart, - it is his duty . . . Who do I hate most among the rabble today? The socialist rabble...."

He never said it is the duty to help the weak. Once again: pure fiction. Nietzsche has written a lot about pity and the like, he has always spoken very clearly. I ask you not to put words into Nietzsche's mouth. Even your "sources" should not do that, it proves their poor quality. 77.47.74.232 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have elaborated the passage in the article so it reflects what Nietzsche said just short of quoting the text in it's entirety. You call Walter Kaufmann's definitive biography of Nietzsche a "poor source". To pull that one off, you need first to persuade the international community of Neitchze scholars to revise their judgement. Come back when you've done that. The issue here was not one, as you claim, of "pure fiction". That is ridiculous. You were just quibbling about ONE word of a paraphrase that might need finessing. Please keep a sense of proportion, and do not delete cited passages like this using such extravagant language just because you think they might need fine-tuning. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nietzsche's words are still not reflect here. Nietzsche never spoke about "the weak", he spoke about mediocre people. In the same paragraph, Nietzsche explained why equal rights are unfair and and perverted. Your formulation creates a false impression of Nietzsche's thought. Mediocrity enables outstanding people, so these special people have an interest to preserve the mediocre. This has nothing to do with altruism. Mr. Kaufmann may be the most popular person in the world, but that does not give him the right to propagate false information. 77.47.74.232 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course Nietzsche never spoke about "the weak". Nor did he use the word "mediocre". He was writing in German. Kaufmann's judgement on what would be the best word in English takes precedence over your personal opinion. Bear in mind Kaufmann was writing from a place where he was deeply immersed in the entirety of Nietzsche's publications. If you are going to continue editing on Wikipedia, you need to familiarise yourself with its key policies, such as the need to verify your contributions with reliable sources, and the need to avoid original research, which is what you are engaged in right now. You may feel your personal opinions are all that matters here, but that's not the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(As it turns out, on Google the term "the mediocre" is associated with Nietzsche 184,000 times. But the term "the weak" is associated with Nietzsche 292,000 times. So it is you that is trying to propagate false information and talking complete nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC))

What kind of logic is that? I'm talking about a specific quote. This discussion is starting to get very strange. Nietzsche may have spoken trillions of times of "the weak", but in that specific quote he spoke of the mediocre. The quote can be found in Nietzsche's "The Antichrist".

"Of course Nietzsche never spoke about "the weak". Nor did he use the word "mediocre".

He used the word mediocre, "mittelmäßig" to be exact. This is a fact, even Kaufmann does not have the right to distort the reality. I do not do any original research, I only speak of verifiable facts.

"to treat those weaker than oneself"

This part is wrong, it changes the whole meaning of Nietzsche's work. This is not a question of interpretation, words are placed in Nietzsche's mouth that he never used. 77.47.74.232 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

To show you the ridiculousness of your thinking, here is a another quote from "The Antichrist":

"What is happiness? The feeling that power increases that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu , virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak Christianity."

Here was spoken of "the weak", Nietzsche said they should perish. A great contrast to Kaufmann's "interpretation", is it not? To claim that Nietzsche has ever considered it a duty to help the weak is not factual. 77.47.74.232 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Nietzsche felt when he encountered an abused horse and had his "breakdown". There are nuances to Nietzsche's thinking that ideologues, like his sister, misinterpret. In my personal assessment, Nietzsche was fundamentally a decent being who experienced compassion. Not the psychopath of Alt-right fantasy. A lot of his talk about "power" was refering to power over yourself and your own inner weakness. Anyway, this is now way off-topic, and needs to stop. You are not in alignment with Wikipedias policies, and that is an end to the matter. Find another venue if you want to pursue your nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Antichrist was written in 1888, but Nietzsche did not have his mental breakdown until 1889. I understand you now, you are an ideologue who wants to push a liberal interpretation/distortion. There are also Nietzsche interpretations besides Kaufmann, this is self-evident. He is not the last word in the matter, contrary to your thinking. One should ask why you want to dilute Nietzsche's words with an intermediate man, Nietzche's own words are the primary source:

"Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." 77.47.74.232 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You cannot use the primary source directly here because it is in German. We have to deal instead with interpretations in English of what was meant in the original document. In the general context of Nietzsche's work, Kaufmann's interpretations have high credibility amongst scholars. There are other interpretations, including of course your own interpretation. But to use them on Wikipedia you need to show competent scholars accept them as reliable. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Altruism_(ethics)#Nonsense

In the dispute resolution noticeboard, a new thread was created by me to discuss the matter. NomenNominandum (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Issue resolved --Epipelagic (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)