Pure altruism does it exist?

[steeljack]

I think something could be described as altruistic , if maybe a national health system somewhere in the world, would put a four year old bi-racial, illigitimate child of illegal immigrant parents in front of the line of someone of the likes of Tony Blair/George W Bush , if both were in need of a liver/heart transplant ........it will never happen , but we can live in hope

[garinda]

Another example of altruism is giving unsigned karma, as the person giving it expects nothing in return, because it was given anonymously.

I guess I'm just a half full, rather than half empty glass sort of person, who sees more good in the world than bad.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah992000

altruism isnt about expecting anything in return its more about doing something for no reason at all. Its not about karma and all that bumf.
feeding anew born baby isnt an altruistic act - why is it ? Getting down to basics its about keeping the gene pool going- it is an instinctive act the reason a mother keeps feeding her baby is to keep the baby alive, and hopefully it will thrive into a strong human being who will pass on equally strong genes.

I don't think you understand what altruism is. Did you read the definition?

altruism
1.the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).

2.Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

You say it's to do with 'doing something for no reason at all'. That's not what altruism is at all. What you describe is more like random anarchy, or just being a bit mental.

[keetah992000]

i think alturism has been generalised somewhat - the thread was regarding pure altruism, and yes I do understand what it means. Honestly.

And I dont believe it exists - the watered down version of altruism - ie donating to a charity if your skint isnt really pure altruism.

or giving a warning call that would locate the caller to the presence of a predator - why have they done it ?
they have done it to warn others therefor it is an instinctual attempt to prevent harm to the greater gene pool - if an animal never gave out a warning signal - then the whole pack would be in danger. Most things comes back to the bares bones of the instinct to preserve the gene pool .

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah992000

i think alturism has been generalised somewhat - the thread was regarding pure altruism, and yes I do understand what it means. Honestly.

And I dont believe it exists - the watered down version of altruism - ie donating to a charity if your skint isnt really pure altruism.

or giving a warning call that would locate the caller to the presence of a predator - why have they done it ?
they have done it to warn others therefor it is an instinctual attempt to prevent harm to the greater gene pool - if an animal never gave out a warning signal - then the whole pack would be in danger. Most things comes back to the bares bones of the instinct to preserve the gene pool .

What you're describing isn't altruism, but more akin to gene-centered evolution.

I'll stick with the accepted view of altruism, that of performing acts that benefit other, and that don't seek reward, or massage one's ego.

I guess I just see more good in people, and don't view the world as a place of doom and gloom, and accept that some people perform non-selfish acts.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'll stick with the accepted view of altruism, that of performing acts that benefit other, and that don't seek reward, or massage one's ego.

I guess I just see more good in people, and don't view the world as a place of doom and gloom, and accept that some people perform non-selfish acts.

If a person with religous beliefs performs an act which benefits another, he often thinks he will be 'rewarded in heaven'.

Therefore this cannot be considered altruisic behaviour, so only non believers, who expect no reward, can be truly altruistic.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

If a person with religous beliefs performs an act which benefits another, he often thinks he will be 'rewarded in heaven'.

Therefore this cannot be considered altruisic behaviour, so only non believers, who expect no reward, can be truly altruistic.

Perhaps we should change the name of the Accy Web Social Group to 'Atheists, agnostics, anti-religious zealots...and those capable of true altruism'.