Does true altruism exist?

Lets look at the definition before we apply meaning.

altruism

(ăl'trū-ĭz'əm) pronunciation

n.

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

2. Zoology. Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

Looks real enough to exist to me....

If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining some personal benefit, then it isn't an altruistically motivated act. There are several different perspectives on how "benefit" (or "interest") should be defined. A material gain (for example, money, a physical reward, etc.) is clearly a form of benefit, while others identify and include both material and immaterial gains (affection, respect, happiness, satisfaction etc.) as being philosophically identical benefits.

According to psychological egoism, while people can exhibit altruistic behavior, they cannot have altruistic motivations. Psychological egoists would say that while they might very well spend their lives benefitting others with no material benefit (or a material net loss) to themselves, their most basic motive for doing so is always to further their own interests. For example, it would be alleged that the foundational motive behind a person acting this way is to advance their own psychological well-being ("good feelings").

The problem (known in philosophy as the "problem of love") arises from an analysis of the human will and is often debated among Thomistic philosophers. The problem centers on Thomas Aquinas's understanding that human expressions of love are always based partly on love of self and similitude of being: “Even when a man loves in another what he loves not in himself, there is a certain likeness of proportion: because as the latter is to that which is loved in him, so is the former to that which he loves in himself.”

wikipedia answer^^^^^

Darwin accepts the greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong. Hence, an action can be judged as good if it improves the greatest happiness of the greatest number, by either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain. And the second question--why we should be good--does not pose itself for Darwin with the same urgency as it did, for instance, for Plato (Thrasymachus famously asked Socrates in the Republic why the strong, who are not in need of aid, should accept the Golden Rule as a directive for action). Darwin would say that humans are biologically inclined to be sympathetic, altruistic, and moral as this proved to be an advantage in the struggle for existence

On altruism I suggest reading Kant's writing because he had a very interesting ideology on that notion. Having said that, I believe in the power of altruism, because if everyone had it, then the world would truly be a better place... But that is my 'perfected' vision of the world, and in reality, sadly, there are always ulterior motives. Ulterior motives are very hard to get rid of in humans, and while I try to be an altruist, the truth is that I always find an ulterior motive to my "selfless actions" and that in itself is often at the root of corruption in every sense of the word. For instance, imagine that you spot someone drowning in the sea. What would you do? Jump to save them, call for help, watch them drown. Often, people would say (if they can swim) that they would jump to save them but is their decision based on selflessness or a thought at the back of their mind that, wow, they saved a life (if they save the person, that is). In fact, would the good feeling you experience when saving that person proof that somehow you had an ulterior motive? If you were a true altruist, wouldn't you feel your action as completely normal, if that makes sense? What about the guy who CAN'T swim and yet he still plunges in the water to try and save that person drowning. Would that be altruism or stupidity? As people, we have so many emotions and conflicting thoughts that come into play that true altruism is impossible, but if it happens, it is a rare thing. And still I see that rarety as the only way to make the world a better place, but then, I'm known for being an idealist :)

A possible support might be the belief/desire pair, which explains actions. Basically all actions are the result of a belief desire pair.

EX: If I were to get a glass of water from the fridge i would first have to believe that in the fridge there is water and also have a desire for water in order to actually preform the action of getting a glass of water.

(P&Q)>R

P&Q

:R

You need both the belief and the desire. So, going by that there is no altruistic act because they believe they can help, but moreover, they DESIRE to help. Desire can by linked to a certain feeling they feel when actually doing the action, although they might not even know it. They might just know: "When I help people, I feel good. I will help people".

I agree. It does give a good feeling to give a positive action towards another. So that would be self rewarding. But I think just striving for altruism would be truer act of altruisim than a deed. Basically trying to get our heart in the right place is the right thing to do!

The problem lies in the intention. The do-gooder does not do good to feel that happiness that comes along with it. They do it because they think its the right thing to do. The happiness may or may not be a consequence of the action. Like you don't drive a car to wear down your tires, but you know that will happen. But its still not the reason.

Joseph: You use the most generalist of definitions, the one that causes confusion in the entire problem. Read this definition and solve the confusion. Peace.

"Altruism: (Alter: other) In general, the cult of benevolence; the opposite of Egoism (q.v.). Term coined by Comte and adopted in Britain by H. Spencer.

1. For Comte Altruism meant the discipline and eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love and devotion to Society. In brief, it involved [ ] self-abnegat[ion]..." [1]

SELF ABNEGATION! Yes, such altruism exists. It is immoral.

"People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests. Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will.

" In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The descriptive (or positive) variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior. Altruism is the opposite of egoism." [2]

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. " [3]

The conclusion is wrong.

Why? Because you discounted a mans need for meaning, the presence of reason.

An idiot will do something for nothing,by chance or coincidence, that in the process of doing, something good or beneficial for humanity came as a result.

This is random, not from thought, and absolutely inconsequential.

Did he make a sacrifice? Heck no.

alturistic acts are those which have no thought or consideration for rewards and therefore the fault is with the conclusion.

Alturistic people do what they do without first considering the feel good factor and therefore the act is selfless

If altruism did not exist - how would we be here ?

nothing is perfect so there is no prefect altruism