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? 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.

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)[reply]

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]

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)[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]

+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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]