Which is better, egoism or altruism?

"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 the self-abnegating love of Catholic Christianity redirected towards Humanity conceived as an ideal unity. As thus understood, altruism involves a conscious opposition...to egoism..." [emphasis mine]

In BRIEF if means self-abnegation. So if you take the word "self" in its literal meaning of "individualistic egoism" [1], not its Christian/altruistic semantic version as a synonym of evil, and then remove that "self" from "you" and from "your desires", it is better because it is not only moral and practical, but absolutely necessary, because without "self" you cannot be anything.

How can "you" decide what kind of ice cream you want when "self" is missing? How can you decide who to love, if self is missing? How can you be a father to your kids if self is missing? How can you be a patriot and love your country if there is no self within you to hold such values? Who will hold them if not "your self"?

"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." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus.html

Interesting question. I believe you need a little bit of both though I would say that we would all probably be better of if we practiced more altruism than egoism.

Now we need egoism in the sense that we need to take care of ourselves, our bodies/health. Other than that I can't really see extensive uses for egoism, since egoism treats self interest as the foundation of morality. In other words it's doing what is best for me more or less on the expense of others, creating friction and competition (maybe deadly).

Altruism can sometimes be annoying, but it can also be the greatest joy. Say that everyone practiced altruism in the fullest sense, everyone would be taking care of everyone, essentially eliminating the need for egotism. Quite utopian, if we measure it from our world's perspective. Thinking about it altruism is maybe somewhat something like a free trade economy without competition, we are open to help and share with everyone, putting others first, but eliminate the need to compete about the amount of good deeds. For it to work fully we would need to eliminate egotism completely from our society and culture and being, which will probably not happen until Kingdom come.

In terms of culture I think the Western culture is more egotistic and the traditional Asian culture is more altruistic in the sense that they are more community orientated (collectivism), while Westerners tend to be more individualistic.

I would recommend the practice of altruism, which I promise will give better rewards (maybe not always financially) than egotism ever will. Like so many have realized, it's lonely at the top when it's just you there.

Interesting video to watch that somewhat links in with this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&playnex...

Of course you can have both. You can easily take care of yourself and others at the same time.

If we can't have both, altruism is recommended. Simply because humanity thrives in communities, and altruism would tighten a community whereas egoism would spread it out and maybe even eliminate it.

From a sociological viewpoint, no it doesn't depend on culture or moral values. Humans (as a whole) always survive longer in groups, this is fact.

You cannot "compare" the two against one another because, on any scale, they will measure as total opposites.

Egoism is 100% better than altruism when the scale is relative to personal gain.

Altruism is 100% better than egoism when the scale is relative to societal gain.

Egoism lasts and motivates; altruism is the lie people tell themselves. When the chips are down and times are rough, egotism almost always wins.

That doesn't mean it's "better." It just means it is surer.

I would say altrusim all the way..But I dont see there being any disadvantage to it at all. Yes, it does depend greatly on culture, moral values and even one's upbringing.

individually, its a ethical device of self-activity (oh, look! A pun.) whilst the bible praises acts of charity and compassion, that's thru a single being (God) that they try this, so as that they are able to bypass to heaven. via fact God dictates you're able to love all, and hate basically sin (however my athiesm is definitely pointing out some flaws in that thinking), one might think of which you're reaping rewards the community by skill of loving all people as commanded by skill of the bible. Whoever wrote the bible, their objective became maximum possibly to reason greater effective good, however the reality that that's utilized in a faith skill that that's a device for self-enlightenment. meaning, you attempt to help your self by skill of helping others (that's the familiar for charity). yet extreme high quality question. :)

if you wanna get down to this on a base level, everyone is an egoist with bits of altruism thrown in here and there. ;o

Egoism enhances my personality too.

Better for whom? Yourself or others? Depends on how you use it...If this is a debate on Negative vs. Positive. Positive is most likely to win. But both can be positive...Depending on how it's used.