Jump to content

Talk:Altruism (ethics): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
+merge proposal tag
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Merge to|Altruism|discuss=Talk:Altruism#Merger proposal}}
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.
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 ?
How come those are not mentionned as defenders of altruism ?

Revision as of 00:26, 3 August 2011

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? i like chicken, i like liver, meow mix meow mix please deliver.

Sure thing. Someone deleted them. Area of trust 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the history and I restored it. Area of trust 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]