Does true altruism exist?

If it does, it carries a short life span.

People have moments of acts of kindness, yet others have a history or past relating to what altruistic action they are currently taking which isn't actually altruistic.If such a person existed, they will be used and abused and left bitter to scorn the world.

Take the Christian God for example, a all benevolent being who floods the world? And that isn't even the tip of that ice burg, but on a more human level. One of the greatest humanitarians of history Nikola Tesla died alone and poor for he invented things for others, however he wanted the recognition. This was clearly displayed at his distaste towards being awarded a Thomas Edison award.

But who could blame him, yet he was the closest to altruism as this world as come. And died the way one would.

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 :)

Altruism is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest. In other words, selflessness. And while this can't be achieved in pure complete form by any human, as selfishness IS the curse of self-aware beings, we can only bring it to life by our daily actions. Random Acts of Kindness to a stranger. Or the concept of "pay it forward". It's all getting joy from acting positively in the lives of someone who doesn't expect it, and not looking for praise or even recognition in return. That is the true key. And it DOES exist, and it starts with you. (need an example? the other day I was at a drug store and there was a man in front of me buying a bottle of tea to drink, and his credit card was declined. it was only $1.10. so he stepped aside while i made my purchases, and i left my change on the counter for the clerk, $1.80 and said, "its for his drink". she didnt understand what i meant, so i repeated, and she still didn't get it. I just turned and walked out, leaving the money on the counter. it wasn't until I reached the door that I finally heard her realize what I did. It's so UNCOMMON, people don't know how to react. and i didnt want a thank you from the guy, because that's not the point.)

If you take it to its logical conclusion, "true altruism" might mean doing something good, for another person, without any thought of something positive happening to you in return.

However, the obvious objection to that would be, even if I'm doing something nice, I'm still doing it at least in part because of the warm fuzzy feeling I'm going to get from helping someone. Even if it's something that might be painful or unpleasant, like donating bone marrow, I'll still feel good about myself afterwards.

To take THAT idea as far as it can go... I might give my life for someone by pushing them out the way of an oncoming train that hits me instead. In those extreme situations perhaps true selflessness does exist...but then perhaps the final thought through my head would be of getting to heaven or bringing honour to my family.

Because of the way we are socialised and brought up by our parents and other authority figures, we are taught to regard altruistic acts as good and admirable but not necessary. With that in mind, since all our actions must be measured against an internalised moral code, and since there must be some conscious decision or intention behind everything we do, true altruism cannot exist.

We are wired to feel good about good acts. Otherwise we would have no distinction between good and bad anyway, and would be unable to act altruistically.

You seem like one of the few intelligent and interesting people who use Yahoo Answers. I am another. Email me shady_lane@ymail.com if you feel like exchanging a few more ideas. I hope you will.

It heavily depends on your definition of true, which you failed to include, because Truth can mean different things to different people.

However if I grasp your question as I think I do, than probably not. Possibly in humans, but definitely not in the animal world. Animals, it has been reasonably shown, operate as their genes dictate. They may jeopardize themselves so that their close families (which share half their genes) can survive. But they do not think about this as we do, consider it, ruminate over it and the like.

Humans are different, to a degree. We definitely display altruism in the normal sense, showing severe deference and prejudice to members of our own family. (A common thought experiment is to imagine that a close family member [sister, son, mother, etc] and a complete stranger are both in dire peril. You can only save one, which will you save? Most people will pick the family member.)

However, humans are still often guilty of going out of their way to help complete strangers: a neighbor, homeless on the street, a co-worker, etc. Why? The answer is still open and subject to intense debate. It probably has a genetic component, but also strongly influenced by intense cultural memes that have been propagated down throughout the centuries.

We can suspect the genetic component since there is an obvious limit to how much "altruism" we will put up with. We will help our neighbors, co-workers, members of our town or book club, but we don't drive to another state, principality, or country to help people. Generally the people we display altruism to are people that we come into contact with on a daily basis and can be attributed to a misfiring of the original genetic component.

In other words, when we belong to a community, town, club, or even city (hence, "We New Yorkers"), there is an element of closeness, a sort of "family", a group-think that most likely creates the misfiring of the genetic sequence and makes us put them on terms of a filial level.

In a more realistic example, I am an American soldier and while I may occasionally work with soldiers of other countries, if push came to shove, I'll be saving members of my own team before anyone else (Canadians, UK, etc.). No offense to anyone reading this, it's just the nature of the beast (and I would expect no less from other armies). However, if it came down to a coalition soldier and the enemy or a local national of another culture, I'll be risking my neck for the British soldier. Point being, I view members of my military in the way of a family and hence display attitudes and actions of an altruistic nature that would normally be reserved for true family. It's no accident that many soldiers call each other "brother" and the like. But you won't see me saving any Iranian soldiers. Why? B/c I don't see them as part of my family.

What I'm trying to illustrate in an obvious, almost ludicrous way is the hierarchy of importance that we all attach to the people we come in contact with. We can't help it, which is why it is probably genetically based. I guarantee you will save your close friend before you save a complete stranger.

We are so interconnected that it probably does not. No matter what we do there is an element of selfishness involved, by doing good, it is to appease our own conscience. Abraham Lincoln has a story that illustrates this: He saw a pig drowning in the mud but ignored it. He had just bought a new suit and didn't want to ruin it just to save the pig. But after a bit he turned back and saved the pig. People thought he was a hero and that he cared more for others than for himself. But he pointed out that he did not save the pig because he cared a hoot for the pig, but because he didn't want to live with himself and the remorse he would have had, hadn't he helped the pig. In other words it was a selfish act which made him 'help'.

However there are degrees and some people come closer than others.

Neither truth nor altruism exist in the sense that you mean.

If you don't believe it exists I truly feel sorry for you. I know that it exists. I've seen it in the selfless sacrificing of others who've given and given and never asked for anything in return. Their names would mean nothing to you, because unlike so many of the phony in this world, they've never blown their own horns or tried to get in the limelight. But believe me when I tell you -- you exist because of the altruism of many. I promise, that's the truth.

altruism is a demonstration of enlightenment, the understanding that by helping others we help ourselves. many never learn this, it's spiritual.

Does it matter? Whether it exists or not, I don't care! I only care that some people do genuinely beneficial things for others, and what matters most in this transaction is that others are benefited, not harmed.