"Altruism" is Base Newspeak

[Fife]

Whether the state should leverage power in the name of altruism is a separate argument from whether altruism exists, in my view.

Laws aren’t people, so laws certainly don’t act altruistically.

I think we are off on the wrong foot here. I was specifically talking about how Nock defined "altruism" in the OP, i.e., the antonym (the opposite) of egoism.

Altruism suggests, or outright demands, the elimination of the individual, the ego.

That's not my bag, baby.

[DBTrek]

Retroactively defining every decision already made as “what someone wanted to do, therefore egoism and not altruism” smells heavily of post hoc fallacy. It lays ground rules that are both fallacious and intended to end an argument through redefinition of terms before one can take place.

Altruism - or acting for the good of others even when one makes no gains or perhaps takes a loss themselves, may be one of the biggest differentiators between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom. Chimps won’t save each other, so chimps might go extinct one day. White rhinos won’t act to help each other, so they’re on the way out right now. But humans - we just keep on going, adding billions more each generation.

[Speaker to Animals]

So the teacher who used his body to shield his students in a school shooting was really just looking out for numero uno, but fucked up the calculus, and the cop who hid in the stairwell was a libertarian genius. Got it.

[C-Mag]

Whether the state should leverage power in the name of altruism is a separate argument from whether altruism exists, in my view.

Laws aren’t people, so laws certainly don’t act altruistically.

I think we are off on the wrong foot here. I was specifically talking about how Nock defined "altruism" in the OP, i.e., the antonym (the opposite) of egoism.

Altruism suggests, or outright demands, the elimination of the individual, the ego.

That's not my bag, baby.

Your point is played out in 'Gangs of New York' when the socialites come down to tour the slums, then go back to their mansions feeling like they had done something.

[Fife]

I guess it was too much to expect some of you to consider the actual OP and what Nock was talking about.

OK, here it is. His critique is of the term "altruism," created (made up) by Comte. Here's altruism, as created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

Spoiler alert: "Altruism" was an unknown term of art to St. Augustine.

[C-Mag]

I guess it was too much to expect some of you to consider the actual OP and what Nock was talking about.

OK, here it is. His critique is of the term "altruism," created (made up) by Comte. Here's altruism, as created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

Spoiler alert: "Altruism" was an unknown term of art to St. Augustine.

No, I get you. Look at most Non-Profits, Environmental groups are the best examples.

[DBTrek]

I guess it was too much to expect some of you to consider the actual OP and what Nock was talking about.

I guess it was too much to expect that the direct refutation of Nock’s fallacious defenition of altruism multiple times would count as “considering the actual OP”.

[Fife]

I guess it was too much to expect some of you to consider the actual OP and what Nock was talking about.

I guess it was too much to expect that the direct refutation of Nock’s fallacious defenition of altruism multiple times would count as “considering the actual OP”.

It's not Nock's definition, boy wonder. It's Comte's.

Keep on refutin', if that's what you call it now.

[DBTrek]

I’ve made my case. With no counter case forthcoming I guess we’re done here.
/shrug

[GloryofGreece]

Again (because I was adding it when you replied):

“The soldier who sacrificed his life saving his squad by throwing himself on a grenade isn’t an altruist. His selfish ass wanted to throw himself on a grenade“

... except he probably didn’t get up that morning looking for a grenade to dive on, right? He sacrifices himself for the collective because he knew he would die, or everyone would die. Given the option, I’m sure the soldier would prefer not to die at all. Yet to call his sacrifice egoism? To deny it’s altruistic nature due to pedantry that redefines the term to be an impossible motivation?

Nah.

You can keep that cold, cynical, world-view. I don’t know what you’ll do with it, but clearly not anything that benefits anyone but yourself. Sounds like the ideal philosophy for sociopaths (which I know you’re not, but it would certainly be appealing to them, no?).

What's cold, cynical?

Who is advocating avoidance of sacrifice (to your platoon mates, your children, your wife, your neighbors, mother Gaia, anyone or anything)? Not me.

In fact, I expect more of it, in every walk of life.

I just happen to have doubts (to put it lightly) as to whether some abstract collective notion of societal "altruism" does anything to increase human prosperity and to ease suffering. Quite the opposite, actually.

Do you need a law from the state to tell you to get up and go to work to feed your kids?

Do you need a law from the state to tell you to risk yourself to protect your brothers in arms?

When the state gets into the business of insuring "altruistic" outcomes, there is no end to the pit.

A bit confused by your beliefs. Are you saying altruism doesn't exits, or that the state cannot/should not try to enact legislation that is allegedly for altruistic "reasons"?

BTW compassion, generosity, empathy, kindness etc. yeah those things exist.