/b/ - Random

>>82750
You can definitely argue that there isn't a metaphysical element to morality that makes it objective but the idea that people only act morally to achieve some form of reward or that morality is entirely determined by society is wrong and mostly gets parroted because people like that it sounds edgy

>>82761
> the idea that people only act morally to achieve some form of reward is wrong

Can you please share why you feel it is wrong?
Altruism semantically does not exist it is as described in the OP I am interested why you disagree because it seems people do everything within their own self interest the mistake people make when they see so called selfless actions is that they are unaware of the gain or loss that is experienced by the individual concerning the metaphysical IE: emotions etc.
I made a very very crude flowchart to demonstrate the idea.

One of the reason psychopaths are so dangerous or have the propensity for danger is that they are not burdened by empathy hence if a reward is gained through an action empathy does not factor into the choice to complete said action and this is why mid functioning psychopaths are quick to assault others but high functioning are not.
The better adjusted psychopaths weigh up the fact that they may get in trouble with the law or some other potential for incurring a loss so weigh up harm versus benefit and choose what is best for them.

The only reason a scrote does not rape every woman they see on the street for example is as follows: They will feel guilt and if no guilt they deem the repercussions not worth what they gain from the experience otherwise they would without even thinking because it is entirely within their interests.
People only help others because they themselves gain from helping and they would incur a penalty if they were not to the same way as love being selfless is entirely untrue the one loving is gaining so much from being a good lover.
You need to simply accept that deep down every human is garbage and self serving but that does not mean you should be overly cynical and poison the way that you view kind acts and kind people in general.

If all this is untrue what is the explanation? I would go as far as to say there has not been a single choice made by a human that was not self serving as it is not possible and it helps to remember perceived gain has equal value to actual gain.

Please help me change my mind I would love to think differently but this is how it appears to me and please do not bother if you will just respond "you are edgy".

>>82776
What do you mean by metaphysical cost? If you define it too broadly you're including things I wouldn't consider a part of self interest that I'd give as examples of motivations for altruism

>>82779
By metaphysical I would mean most obviously emotional gain or loss in all its forms.
What are your thoughts on this and why do you disagree sorry to hound you I would love to have my views challenged and see a new perspective.

>>82750
Don't use the terms "metaphysics" and "materialistic" interchangeably. The post-modern school argues that all individuals are acting towards materialistic gains, and that any altruistic behavior is geared towards societal rewards for such. The "what" of metaphysics or "metaphysical costs" have little to do with the selfish-selfless spectrum of ethics.

>f you take an extreme reductionist view everyone is selfish doing everything for their own benefit either to gain something materially or metaphysically and the same goes for prevention of loss.
What we see as kind and altruistic is individuals that hold a higher value to the metaphysical loss/burden caused by not helping someone even at the expense of their own livelihood perceived or not.
*materialistic loss/burden

>Obviously people differ in this regard as to what they value so can we really claim that our motivations in how we behave concerning others is purely taught by the conventional views concerning our actions in society when there is a variance amongst people that may well be innate in form for a propensity to value either the internal or external gains?
The fact that morality varies by location and by degree individual is used to justify the notion that no such thing intrinsically exist, you just listed an argument for post-modernist understanding of morality and ethics.
>Is it purely the conditions placed on the system that decides how the system behaves or the chosen available choice chosen by the influenced system being a manifestation of an innate primordial seed of "morality" which gave rise to the many abstractions that became choices available as we have evolved socially/culturally?
Now you're getting into a completely seperate argument which would be why altruism would be beneficial to humanity as a species, but not to individual humans and their reproductive chances per say. If you're going to argue as such, you're arguing from the purely materialistic perspective as for human behavior, with everything being derived from genetic outset.


Are you attempting to construct the argument that certain humans can be per-disposed to altruistic actions genetically? If so, yes, but the post-modern school replies that society then gives the individual that notion of what it means to be altrustic, and more importantly, whether or not this "urge to altruism" is good or not. Similar to how moids have the "urge to rape", but society either enables or reduces said behavior through reinforcement and ethics. In both instance the "urge" or "seed" as you call it exists, but gets expressed purely in terms of socially instructed methods. In this instance, genetic code that instructs such urges would be the script by which the materialistic animal mind is running, and thus, anything that satisfies this programming is being viewed by the individual as "innately beneficial" from their perspective.

>>82781
>most obviously emotional gain or loss in all its forms
But besides that do you include anything else?
I'm going to explain my view but first I need a clearer picture of yours

>>82781
Forgot to add, "emotions" and your experience of them do not fall under metaphysics, but instead ethics, morality and qualia.

>>82776
Well yes, semantically if you state "all humans act for self-benefit" you destroy the concept of altruism.
>You need to simply accept that deep down every human is garbage and self serving but that does not mean you should be overly cynical and poison the way that you view kind acts and kind people in general.
If you set up the notion like this, that's the only rational conclusion. Giving someone the groundwork to arrive at the conclusion, then instructing them to dismiss it, is faulty reasoning at best and horribly misleading at worst.


Once you take the premise that "all humans act in self-interest for gains either materialistically AND emotionally" then yes, by assumption you have completely wiped out altruism from the system, because you've deconstructed the possibility of altruism in the first place. If you are instead concerned with "whether or not humans can act altruistically", then the definition changes and you can now say it is possible, just that all altruistic actions are secretly or subconsciously selfish at their core. This assumes however that individuals are in isolation. Take for example the hypothetical of a Mother in some situation being given the choice to either save herself and let her child die, or save her child and die herself. Say she chooses to save the child, was this action selflish? Her self literally ended, that simply can't be, unless you extend the argument to say that she has a selfish reason to save her child because of "emotionally gain". However, now you consider the option of her saving herself and sacrificing her child. Was that a selfish action? It should very plainly be viewed as such, as that actually perceived the woman's self and benefited it immensely. With this lens, assuming you are going to semantically associate "material gains" and "emotional gains" as being interchangeable for the conditions of selfishness, you've not explained away altruism, but instead semantically erased the distinction one makes between selfish and selfless action in the first place.

The obvious next layer to this hypothetical situation is to instead of saying "the individual is selfish" is to instead say "the DNA is selfish" and wishes to perceive itself. Under this lens, both actions are indeed selfish as both achieve the same goal (a copy of the genes/DNA lives on, either in the Mother herself or her genetic offspring). If we extend the situations further into social spheres, it's constructed by OP's "seed of morality" that DNA and genetic instruction can have a beneficial effect if humans help other humans reproduce and survive by sacrificing themselves. Thus in this case, the "DNA" can act "selfishly" by endorsing traits to help the individual or the extended group alive. Using this framework though, you completely obliterate both the concept of selfishness and selflessness, as at that point you are extending the idea that DNA will use "any means necessary" to preserve it's self and closely related copies of itself in order to keep progress going. In that case, humans are unable to be selfish or selfless, as they are merely automatons fulfilling instructions.

In summation, I would argue it is plainly evident by everyday occurrences that humans can be, are in some ways predisposed to genetically to be altruistic, as the "self" being served is not the individual, but the genetic carriers and markers within said individuals. With humans only being the agents of said DNA, in that case, humans are perfectly able to be both selfless and selfish as any situation demands, as per their genetic instructions.

>>82787
People don't actually require emotional motivators to act morally. The kind of truly selfless altruism being described exists as a high level form of executive functioning in that it's just an exercise of self control to adhere to some moral principle

>>82782
Correct you are I misused the term thank you for correcting me I was thinking along the lines of emotions/emotional awareness existing outside of ones self not being entirely bound to being just the cause of a chemical reaction as well as potential gains that are outside of reality as we do know it.

I agree it does appear that morality is whatever is the trend of the times certainly but essentially in some form is there an innate system that decides whether the individual chooses from the available options presented regardless of any conditioning they have undergone and learnt from experience itself whether it is genetic or springs from the "soul".
The view that we are just flesh machines coded by genetics and whatever is deemed acceptable is too strong to dismiss given the empirical evidence so in the end the idea that an innate soul is responsible for what is likely/demonstrably even genetic makes more sense.

How can all people be acting towards materialistic gains unless you define emotions themselves as materialistic because the distinction can still be made even if they are categorized different and the result is the same.

Isn't it a bit reductionist to claim that every human choice is made for some evolutionary benefit when people can be selfish beyond genetically selfish?

Every action does seem to be made for self serving reasons regardless of what it made be.
> Take for example the hypothetical of a Mother in some situation being given the choice to either save herself and let her child die, or save her child and die herself. Say she chooses to save the child, was this action selflish?
If she chose to save the child it is due to her valuing the child more only because the burden of not having done said action to save the child would be a heavier toll upon her than to live and save herself.
She does not need to be going about it logically only following the cost gain of whatever is perceivable it does not matter if she dies and ceases to exist the obliteration of self to the mother does not mean render the choice selfless because it is not made truly rationally considering that she will not pay for her choice made.
You are also claiming in an absolute sense that there is no after life should that factor into the choice of the person making a sacrifice yet as the choice is not made with death being seen rationally as (nothing matters as now in void ceased to exist). so if not for some type of gain or prevention of some type of loss what motivates people to do nice things for others at their own expense? simply claiming that the choices are influenced by the genes does not remove the fact there is indeed a gain or loss at that point as you may as well state there is no free will at all and we cannot consciously go beyond our programming.

So in the end it does not matter if our choices are all dictated by genes they are still purely selfish using a system of cost and reward in some sense and humans are thus purely self serving garbage.

>>82790
What if the mother absolutely hates the kid and wants him to die, wouldn't feel guilty if he would die, knows she won't be punished if he dies, but saves him anyways to adhere to some moral code?

>>82791
What about that situation? Whether or not the mother is selfish or not is determined by pre-assumptions outside the situation. You're trying to isolate the wrong factor here. If we assume that "all humans act purely on self-interest for materialistic or emotional gains", then no she's not altruistic, she never can be. She's just decided that she values this moral code more than her hatred of her child. The other two factors don't matter since you're conflating the absence of a punishment with the presence of a reward.

If we take the concept that her "self" extends to her genetic copies as well, and thus saving her child is selfish, then what you're saying is she's a puppet to her genes and can never make selfish or selfless decisions personally, as she is fulfilling a script pre-laid inside her to preserve either her copies or near copies of said DNA.

We can also make the distinction between materialistic and emotional gains, with emphasis placed on only the material being real. In such a situation, very obvious she is being altruistic, as she gains literally nothing materialistically, and is by definition acting altruistically. She may or may not be gaining emotionally, but that's irrelevant since such things are unreal.


It is a fun purity spiral you fall into though, the more and more you try to dig for selflessness, the more you paint the picture of a psychopath that manages to act altruistically without falling into psychopathic tendencies, where you're rendering psychopaths to be inherently the most powerful vehicles for morality. This odd "the less the person gains the more altruistic they are" situation is absurd and seems to run counter-intuitively to what most consider an "altruistic act".

>>82793
While it's not true that the more a person gains from a moral act the better they are it's certainly true that a person is more moral if the thing primarily motivating their behavior is belief in some moral principle rather than their own self interest. It's more impressive morally to show kindness to the people you hate when morally appropriate than it is to be kind in situations where you already want to

>>82794
That the less a person gains*

>>82794
That's just the thing though, you've started to measure "altruism" based on an axis of how much it doesn't benefit the person involved, instead of what it should probably be measured in, which is how much it helps others instead. If viewed from the first lens, then the most powerful moral vehicle in human society is someone who abhorrently hates all other humans, has the power to destroy all other humans, but continually chooses not to. Someone who is physically tortured by the act of existence, social interaction and other humans becomes the most powerfully altruistic person by mere grace if they chose not to act on said urges.

If viewed from the second, then it's whoever can, from personal action alone, benefit mankind the greatest irrelevant towards what rewards they received or can even receive.

Altruism should not be measured in the amount the person performing the act doesn't benefit from the situation.

>>82796
>If viewed from the first lens, then the most powerful moral vehicle in human society is someone who abhorrently hates all other humans, has the power to destroy all other humans, but continually chooses not to. Someone who is physically tortured by the act of existence, social interaction and other humans becomes the most powerfully altruistic person by mere grace if they chose not to act on said urges.

It occurs to me I have just described Jehovah based on his actions and attitudes expressed in the Old Testament. God truly is good it seems.

>>82796
The kind of person you're describing is in fact a good person though considering that they're willing to burden themselves with an insane amount of suffering for the good of others. Measuring how good someone is based on how beneficial their behavior is to others on the other hand ignores the real possibility that someone is only coincidentally nice to others because they're feelings align with the well being of others. Like if some moid got an orgasm every time they were nice to someone and that's why they behaved the way that they do you wouldn't think they were a good person

>>82793
>but that's irrelevant since such things are unreal.
How can you claim they are unreal when they are very real factors in the choices people make? Plenty of moms would kick out their NEET kids but there are in your terms "unreal" factors involved which contribute to their choosing not to such as guilt etc.
How is it irrelevant to the mother in the scenario for the mother to make a choice that is determined by emotions and just saying "oh no emotions are all just hardcoded in for survival of your genes so are unreal it is just the genes" is not good reasoning because people do make choices that do not benefit their genes and are selfish in a pure sense beyond genetically but of course someone who adheres so religiously to darwinism as the explanation for everything will just try rationalize some way that the selfishness that dismisses the passing on of genes is somehow beneficial to the the genes being passed on through speculation and theories without merit as they are so stuck on justifying and perpetuating this extremely reductionist view of everything and ironically it is similar to religious people explaining everything away with god working in a mysterious way.

If a Psychopath was somehow able to make a choice purely for simulated empathetic reasons where no advantage is possible even perceived then they are indeed the only ones capable of being truly selfless but since the choices people make are hardly aligned with reality itself and just their own distorted experience it would be a jump to even claim that as true.

I do not see how it is somehow so wrong to point out that every choice someone makes they are gaining or preventing a loss in some form as that is exactly as it appears and redefining the reasoning as to why by declaring it is genes and we are a meat puppet or even to say we are remote controlled by reptilians who live in the moon does not actually change the fact that people do only make a choice that benefits them even in unforeseen ways.

I accepted it as a fact of life that everyone is selfish and moved on.
>>82794
It is preferable if the person does value others well being beyond their own gain at least in the sensible way we see kind people I agree.

>>82800
>Like if some moid got an orgasm every time they were nice to someone and that's why they behaved the way that they do you wouldn't think they were a good person
I most certainly would think that moid is a good person, I don't give a single fuck why he's doing the right thing, only that he does the right thing. First problem, you can never inherently understand someone else's qualia, you think that you can, you can hypothetically imagine that some moid is getting an orgasm, you can even listen to the moid explain to you what it feels like when he helps someone, but that proves nothing. It's the same reason you refuse to believe anyone can not be selfish, because no matter how much someone explains to you how much they hate other people, how much it hurts and degrades them to follow their moral code, you'll project an understanding of their consciousness as benefiting in some way. He can lie, you can project, all sorts of things. I don't care whether or not someone is self-hating and having an orgasm each time they do the right thing. It's inherently the wrong metric to measure. You are inherently stuck in a framework where people are selfish by default, and you will never escape it as you will continue to look for people that benefit less and less from the actions they take without even considering what the point of being altruistic is in the first place, which leads to the second problem. Very obviously, how many people a person helps and the quality of that help is intuitively far more important than how much that person hates giving the help in the first place. If you argue against this point, you've completely pathologized the concept of altruism into a disgusting state.

>>82800
> if some moid got an orgasm every time they were nice to someone and that's why they behaved the way that they do you wouldn't think they were a good person
Essentially everyone who does good things gets an orgasm or prevents getting kicked in the stomach so when you look at why people do anything in this perspective we are all moids who do good to feel good or not to feel bad but should this make us view those who are nice to others badly?

You can even argue that a philanthropist who donates money and publicizes it and the ones who keeps it anonymous are really just as morally good because the one who is doing it anonymously obviously sees being seen as someone who is doing good things just to be seen by others as doing them.
When you get down to it we can never escape having the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing and to do so would require transcending beyond what it means to be human itself.

>>82806
But people that act morally despite having incentive not to exist, like there are a lot of people that I hate and could hurt without repercussion or guilt but I choose not to out of moral principle

>>82804
>How can you claim they are unreal when they are very real factors in the choices people make?
The same way I can state that a schizophrenic's delusions aren't real, but they very much influence that schizophrenics actions. If a schizophrenic starts donating everything to charity because the voices in his head told him to, does that make the voices real?
>who adheres so religiously to darwinism as the explanation for everything will just try rationalize some way that the selfishness that dismisses the passing on of gene
The same way that adhering to the doctrine that humans are 100% selfishly motivated can explain away any possible altruistic act ever. Now you're starting to understand that the forest decides the trees, take the darwinistic approach, you can explain away all human will, take the selfish approach, altruism can literally not exist, dismiss emotions as not being real, altruism most certainly exists.
>justifying and perpetuating this extremely reductionist view of everything and ironically it is similar to religious people explaining everything away with god working in a mysterious way.
Same as the "all humans are motivated selfishly" doctrine perpetuates the same "can literally explain anything" doctrine. You are learning what an assumption is, congratulations.
>If a Psychopath was somehow able to make a choice purely for simulated empathetic reasons where no advantage is possible even perceived then they are indeed the only ones capable of being truly selfless but since the choices people make are hardly aligned with reality itself and just their own distorted experience it would be a jump to even claim that as true.
Imagine literally believing that only psychopaths can enact true altruism, and even then only hypothetically.
>I accepted it as a fact of life that everyone is selfish and moved on.
Exactly, but I don't agree. Prove it to me. Use your doctrine of "everyone is selfish" to prove that everyone is selfish. Turns out it's really easy because the logic is circular. I refuse to even indulge your premise as everyday events point to the contrary.
>I do not see how it is somehow so wrong
It's not "wrong" morally, it's intellectually and logically lazy to just slap on a doctrine that matches your worldview, anthologizing all human interaction. Nothing wrong with being intellectually and logically lazy unless you personally take issue with intellectual and logical laziness. Do you? I fucking don't.
>does not actually change the fact that people do only make a choice that benefits them even in unforeseen ways.
As previously stated nothing can disprove this premise, because this premise inherently rules out altruism. I can never provide you personally with evidence that altruism exists because your framework categorically denies it's existence.


I can never ever prove to you that altruism exists. Similarly, you can never ever prove to me human emotions are real and thus altruism is certainly possible from irrational causes.

>>82807
Ah yes, the truth spilling out. The person who thinks that altruistic behavior is based in not indulging their hatred of others happens to be someone who has to constantly not indulge in the hatred of others. You make me fucking sick, grow a fucking spine and just act on your hatred already.

>>82808
If you want positive examples I also actively help people I dislike as well. Why are you so mad that I'm not shitty to people despite often wanting to?

>>82809
>If you want positive examples I also actively help people I dislike as well.
Even worse.
>Why are you so mad that I'm not shitty to people despite often wanting to?
Because it will turn you into a fucking monster, and you'll feel morally justified everyday for every little petty thing you do in response to said emotions. I would give you kudos if you stated "I am choosing to focus on my love of them over my hatred of them", but that's not what you're stating. You're stating that you are doing the right thing to people you despise, and this leads to all kinds of terrible behaviors. It's the exact same mindset behind a mother who promises to forgo all her personal happiness for her child's sake, and one day realizes that she not only doesn't like herself anymore she fucking hates the child too.

>>82808
>The same way I can state that a schizophrenic's delusions aren't real
This is not a fair comparison and I would dare say a false equivalency because by merit of a delusion or an emotion being "not real" you are attempting to discredit them from having any true merit equivalent to a material item when both the material object and the emotion each have a value and are very real in the same sense as they can be of benefit or detriment the individuals well being.

>Same as the "all humans are motivated selfishly" doctrine perpetuates the same "can literally explain anything" doctrine.
Not the same as it is only as it appears given the model of action being value based.
>Exactly, but I don't agree. Prove it to me. Use your doctrine of "everyone is selfish" to prove that everyone is selfish.
What proof is needed whne this is based on observation of the gain loss model I would argue instead show an alternate force behind peoples conscious actions but I will think more about some way to proof it despite it seeming obvious to anyone who introspects behind the cause of their actions.

>I can never ever prove to you that altruism exists. Similarly, you can never ever prove to me human emotions are real
>you can never ever prove to me human emotions are real
in what way are they not real when very obviously they are the driving force behind many choices? maybe I am not understanding what it is you mean by emotions not being real because unless I am mistaken it seems like a silly point to be making.

>>82810
Nah, I'll be fine, I'm not sacrificing my own desires to feel superior and I'm not such a doormat that I'm completely selfless, I just exercise self control in situations where doing the right thing is less than appealing to me, much better than being shitty just because that would be more enjoyable. I think you're kind of appalled by the idea that it's morality is partially about self sacrifice, just because you wouldn't feel guilty about hurting someone or even enjoy it doesn't suddenly mean you should and just because you hate someone in need doesn't mean you shouldn't help them

>>82810
You literally here acknowledge that feeling bad or other emotions have a value that determines if an action is taken or not so in what way are they to be deemed not real when they are a factor that you have to consider as they possess value.
>do I kill stacy who is being a bitch to me even if I can get away with it and live with the guilt or do I put up with her as the guilt is not worth it

>>82813
You can also not kill Stacy despite the fact you wouldn't feel much guilt over it and that you could get away with it easily if you're committed to not killing people on principle

>>82811
>This is not a fair comparison and I would dare say a false equivalency because by merit of a delusion or an emotion being "not real" you are attempting to discredit them from having any true merit equivalent to a material item when both the material object and the emotion each have a value and are very real in the same sense as they can be of benefit or detriment the individuals well being.
Then give me the metric by which an emotion is real but a schizophrenic's delusions aren't. Both effect a given person's behavior and one demonstrably not real. Explain to me what the difference is between a delusion and an emotion as felt as a qualia.

>What proof is needed whne this is based on observation of the gain loss model I would argue instead show an alternate force behind peoples conscious actions but I will think more about some way to proof it despite it seeming obvious to anyone who introspects behind the cause of their actions.
Yes we established this, the obvious conclusion to yourself is obvious. It's a tautology.

>in what way are they not real when very obviously they are the driving force behind many choices? maybe I am not understanding what it is you mean by emotions not being real because unless I am mistaken it seems like a silly point to be making.
When you are angry and your face gets red, that is real, but the anger isn't real. When you are sad and you cry tears, the crying tears is real, the qualia of feeling sad is not real. The use of "real" in this context refers to physical. The color blue is not real, it's a particular wavelength that you mind interprets as real. If you don't understand the basic concept of what a qualia then you really don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Would explain why you used "metaphysical benefits" to refer to emotions when the two have only tangential relations with each other.

Prove to me that emotions exist. Not that people cry tears or smile, prove to me that the qualia of emotion is real and not imagined or mentally experienced solely. You experience them, you react to them, but they are flames created by your own mind that only exist in your mind.

Humans react to things that aren't real all the time, it's kind of the entire point of cognition. Do you think hypotheticals are real because you can imagine them?

>>82812
> I'm not sacrificing my own desires to feel superior and I'm not such a doormat that I'm completely selfless,
See? You're already halfway there, now that you've 1. assumed all actions are based in selfishness and are thus transactional and 2. decided that you are morally superior, you are going to forgive all sorts of things you do because they aren't that bad. Fucking pathetic.

>I just exercise self control in situations where doing the right thing is less than appealing to me, much better than being shitty just because that would be more enjoyable.
Excuse me? You enjoy your hatred and acting on it? That's kind of gross.
> I think you're kind of appalled by the idea that it's morality is partially about self sacrifice,
I'm not appalled by the idea of morality being about self-sacrifice, I'm appalled by the concept that self-sacrifice is just living with your negative emotions as opposed to changing them, and even worse, the more negative emotions you have the more moral you are. Fucking monstrous. You can self-sacrifice without hating yourself.
>just because you wouldn't feel guilty about hurting someone or even enjoy it doesn't suddenly mean you should and just because you hate someone in need doesn't mean you shouldn't help them
Why not?

>>82813
I never stated that emotions don't have value or influence human behavior. I quite plainly stated that emotions effect human behavior the same way that a schizophrenic's delusions effect the schizophrenic's behavior. Just because it isn't real doesn't mean it can't have an effect. It's like saying that the plans for a building don't have any effect on the construction of said building.
>do I kill stacy who is being a bitch to me even if I can get away with it and live with the guilt or do I put up with her as the guilt is not worth it
If guilt, happiness or sadness were anything other than illusions maybe, but they're illusions that a lot of people just happen to be trapped in.
>u can also not kill Stacy despite the fact you wouldn't feel much guilt over it and that you could get away with it easily if you're committed to not killing people on principle
Ah yes, harmless as opposed to peaceful. Totally not a doormat.

>>82815
You can't simultaneously believe that emotions are illusions that should be ignored and then be pissed that someone ignores those emotions to behave morally

>>82815
Are you disgusted by the suggestion you should contradict your own emotions to act morally because that's morally wrong or because that's just how you feel and therefore not real or important?

>>82816
>You can't simultaneously believe that emotions are illusions that should be ignored and then be pissed that someone ignores those emotions to behave morally
Yes I can and am. Now, if you wanted to argue I can't "rationally" do this, maybe you would have a leg to stand on, but then emotions are inherently an irrational experience.

Furthermore, getting pissed at a schizophrenic for attempting to kill me because the voices told him too even though I know the voices aren't real is certainly a valid viewpoint. Are you arguing otherwise?

>>82817
>Are you disgusted by the suggestion you should contradict your own emotions to act morally because that's morally wrong
You should correct your emotions instead of taking pride in your ability to do something while hating it.
>or because that's just how you feel and therefore not real or important?
Not real, yes, but they are important. Humans reacting to things that don't exist is how all cognition occurs. Emotions are incredibly important, and also not real at all.

>>82815
>See? You're already halfway there, now that you've 1. assumed all actions are based in selfishness and are thus transactional and 2. decided that you are morally superior, you are going to forgive all sorts of things you do because they aren't that bad. Fucking pathetic.
I literally am arguing that altruism is real

>>82819
If you're using the metric "how little you benefit doing something is how altruistic you are", you are inside the framework that all human altruism is self-interested.

If you actually cared about other people, you metric would be "how much did this action help other people" you would be operating in a framework where altruism is real.

>>82818
Sure people should for their own sake try to align their emotions with what's morally correct but that doesn't mean that denying your emotions when they don't align with what's moral isn't good and arguably more important

>>82821
>but that doesn't mean that denying your emotions when they don't align with what's moral isn't good and arguably more important
Yes it does, prove to me it doesn't.

>>82820
Altruism is real in the framework of ""how little you benefit from doing something is how altruistic you are" because people can and do act morally even when it both materially and emotionally detrimental to them. You're pissed at the idea that someone despite wanting on an emotional level to cause harm or deny help chooses to still do the correct thing despite that

>>82822
>Sure people should for their own sake
Oh their we again "altruism is real, but people should be altruistic for their own sake".

>>82823
>Altruism is real in the framework of ""how little you benefit from doing something is how altruistic you are" because people can and do act morally even when it both materially and emotionally detrimental to them.
Whether or not they materially or emotionally deteriment themselves is irrelevant to how altruistic the action is.

>>82822
Your emotions are not perfectly aligned with what is moral and in the cases where your emotions demand you do something immoral the moral act is to ignore them

>>82825
How do your emotions even demand you to do something? The fact you believe emotions can do that is inherently the issue.

>>82824
Altruism is acting for the benefit of someone else in a way that is selfless and that is not about progressing one's own interest. It's literally the definition

>>82826
It's a phrase that isn't meant literally, it means that your emotions motivate you towards and act

>>82827
>Altruism is acting for the benefit of someone else in a way that is selfless and that is not about progressing one's own interest.
And? Point to the part of that definition that states " the more you find an action detrimental to yourself the more it is altruistic."
>It's literally the definition
And you literally don't believe it exists per your definitions, so why point to something that doesn't exist? Is it perhaps because other humans believe the concept of altruism is real and they're responding to something that isn't real as if it were?

>>82828
How and why?

>>82822
>And you literally don't believe it exists per your definitions, so why point to something that doesn't exist? Is it perhaps because other humans believe the concept of altruism is real and they're responding to something that isn't real as if it were?
I do beleive in Altruism I literally said so and have explained how it exists within my own set of definitions

If altruism is acting selflessly and without forwarding one's own interest an act can only be altruistic if it's not motivated by the avoidance of guilt or punishment nor is it incentivized by feeling good about acting morally or some material reward. Altruism doesn't have to be about acting in a way that's detrimental to yourself but it certainly can not be about emotional incentives, it has to be about the adherence to a moral principle regardless of whether or not an action would be detrimental to yourself

>How and why?
Your emotions motivate you to an act when they incentivize an act or disincentivize it's alternatives. This can happen for any number of reasons, maybe you find a someone disgusting because they don't bathe so you don't want to help them when they're in trouble or maybe you hate someone and therefore you're less incentivized to help them and more incentivized to hurt them

>>82776
Are you still around, I'd be interested on your opinions on this whole mess

>>82815
Your argument is ridiculous semantics and does not address my point in a meaningful way.
I am stating that people make choices within their own interests either to gain/prevent loss of, something physically comprised of matter like gold for example that has subjective value or something which is not physical in a practical sense such as the feelings people experience for example avoiding guilt or gaining the joy of helping someone.

Consider the following: Physical objects themselves do not possess any value at all and it is only the so called "unreal" emotions which they elicit where they gain any value at all because they elicit feelings deemed valuable so it follows that acting in the interest of your "unreal" feelings and acting in the interest of something physical is one in the same except the former possesses only the potential for the valuable property of the latter in and of itself as it is pure experience with positive value hence your entire argument that emotions are not a valid and possess only illusory value falls apart and you must concede or continue with your absurd line of reasoning taking it to the logical extremes where we can be unsure nothing at all exists and everything is entirely illusory which leaves neither of us with a valid argument at all and nothing productive concerning altruism in a pure sense existing.

Congratulations you played yourself

>>82832
Hello I am >>82834 >>82811and a few more posts.
I am unsure why the person I was arguing with fell to using that line of reasoning unless there is some fundamental misunderstanding between us I am unsure if troll attempt or legitimate sophistry.

>>82835
I think she's just kind of bad at understanding people and confused you and I with each other, I'm the other anon arguing for the existence of altruism, the one who keeps talking about acting morally despite having emotional incentives not to. If you're still looking to get a conversation out of this thread I'm here but I mostly asked if you were still here since I was getting tired arguing with her so don't feel like you have to chat if you don't want to

>>82836
Were you >>82782 ? I am confused who is who now but I have to agree with the anon that said none of this really matters if you do not get so semantic about the term altruism however the discussion became about whether it can exist in a pure form anyway.

What was your argument is there anything left to say do you have an opposing view? Not sure if anything more about the whole "emotions being real" thing can really be said by her since it seems to be countered anyway.

I really hope the board does not get any faster or the board culture degrades this is as fast as you could want it and still have discussions worth putting time into replying to.

>>82837
That wasn't me, I guess I'll put my argument in this post though so you don't have to piece it together from all my other posts.

Basically I would argue that altruism is possible as an exercise of executive functioning, in the same way that people can do something that's immediately against their self interest in order to achieve some form of delayed gratification it's possible use the same mechanism to act selflessly except in this case it isn't to achieve some later reward but rather to comply with some moral principle. Whether or not you think this counts as altruism though depends on whether or not you think it's self serving to comply with the moral principle, even when you don't benefit emotionally from doing so. You can make the argument that even if you don't feel any positive emotions for acting according to a moral principle it's still self serving in that you believe in that moral principle and that the part of you responsible reigning in your impulses wanted to act morally and so chose to ignore both the material and emotional cost of your behavior but I think at that point we're getting into semantics.

As for the state of the site, I think the thread only went so fast because I and other anon had nothing better to do and were butt blasted enough that we responded relatively quickly to one and other so I don't think you have to worry about the site getting to fast

>>82840
An interesting idea however it does actually make me consider perhaps a single way that we could be truly altruistic and this would be from habitual conditioning until there is no conscious thought involved n the action made.
This will sound silly but maybe this could be demonstrated with the following for arguments sake. Someone who is trained to quickly swat flies in the air without any thought involved may repeat this habitual action in the presence of others doing them a beneficial service without any intention but then we would that even count as it is an involuntary action and only the vessel itself acting upon its own so not concerning the sense of self that is responsible for actions and also how far could we take this autonomous thoughtless response that is by nature a simple action and make it have the most benefit to others? The only example i can think of right now is being trained to jump in front of someone when you hear a gunshot without thinking.

I take the view that if you are choosing to do something because of a moral principle alone despite the emotional burden then you have valued not complying as having a higher negative value than the actual emotional reaction that comes with complying and remember it is only perceived value that matters not the value in actuality if that makes sense. Just think of someone who is afraid to say no to anyone for example.

>>82841
It is better to be ignorant i many ways nice share.

>>82843
I mean people always make value judgments about decisions, that's how you make decisions. My point is that if the thing that causing you to choose the moral choice is some abstract commitment to morality I wouldn't call that acting selfishly. You've kind of defined altruism out of existence if any action you choose to do counts as selfish (which if the process of assigning value to choices is defined by you as selfish you've just done).