There are 6 choices, 10 votes for Kevin's debate

altruism

Can any action which further’s one’s own happiness be truly considered altruistic?


  • I don't think so

    If a man does a “selfless deed” that benefits another because it makes himself happy to do so, that is not a selfless deed. For it to be selfless, the deed has to benefit the doer not at all.

    50%  Voted for by Kevin, invisible-voice, Duana, Scrap, 5th position Gb.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • That's a Paradox

    Then under the view of a psychological hedonist there are no altruists, for no one will do anything that doesn’t benefit him. Perhaps the question is whether an altruist who does not help anyone because he knows that he will enjoy doing it is a better person than the “greedy” philantropist who helps the unfortunate, and gains great joy by it. Or, paradoxically, whether that altruist is an altruist at all. Call me a utilitarian, but if someone helps people I’m not going to split hairs about whether or not they are truly an altruist. I’m going to applaud their efforts, which outshine the words of all these hobby-sophists that are never efficacious in any corporeal humanitarian field.

    Voted for by Mephitic ID Synergy.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • No

    not by the definition of the word.

    Voted for by wbiro.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • True

    This is true. BUT, there really truly are people who do unto others FOR that person without selfish motives.

    Voted for by Duana.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Can Any Action Be Altruistic?

    The classic Hobbesian principle that we still accept today is that people act on behalf of pleasure. Every action that man does is for his own gain. If this is true then how can any act in its strictess sense ever be selfless?

    I think we are thinking about altruism in the strictest sense. No one for example would say that a chair must have four legs and a cover to sit on. Some chairs can have six legs (two to catch you when you call backwards).

    Altruism is a doctrine of intent or duty, not of consequentialism. In one sense a person can intend to help another without gaining something and yet in another sense the person can actually gain something. These are two different senses of the action. The original poster is trying to attribute the first sense (altruism) to the second sense (utility) and see if an altruistic action can be consequentialist. It would be the same as if I was to take utility and ask if people can intend to make good utility, no it just happens.

    I think what we have here….. is a category mistake.

    Voted for by nihilismisdead.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • looking at the wrong thing

    Did they undertake the action because of that aspect which helps others? or because of that which helps them? ie, prehaps you should be looking at whether the motivation is altruistic, not the action

    Voted for by Bob the Elder.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →