Poll: Would the act truly be altruistic because of this motive?
Poll Options
View poll results: Would the act truly be altruistic because of this motive?
Yes
4 40%
No
6 60%
Voters: 10.
#1
If a person committed an altruistic with the only motive being, from knowledge, that the act committed was truly altruistic, then would the act truly be altruistic because of this motive?
В словах есть что-то неприличное.
#5
no, but it's still a good deed. giving free food on wesak, for example, has the sole purpose of gaining good karma, except the idea of buddhism is being a philanthropist, so it sounds redundant, but motives don't really matter in the perspective of others, because it's still a good deed, and it should still be rewarded with whatever they deserve regardless of their motive.

there's no such thing as a good deed without being selfish, because you're doing something to make yourself feel better, or if it's for a reward.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
#6
Quote by MakinLattes
you use "truly" and "altruistic" so many times I can make neither heads nor tails of what you're saying.

В словах есть что-то неприличное.
#7
I think you need a dictionary. An altruistic act isn't a kind act done for no personal gain, it is instead 'behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favours the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives'. So yes, it would still be an altruistic act, irrelevant of the motives.
Last edited by theknuckster at Jun 8, 2011,
#8
I don't think that's possible. That's a purely hypothetical, and impossible, scenario, given that nobody is actually aware of their preference set.

EDIT: also, knowledge in itself is not a motive, so your question is flawed.
Last edited by trueamerican at Jun 8, 2011,
#9
First you must invent the universe.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#10
Quote by theknuckster
I think you need a dictionary. An altruistic act isn't a kind act done for no personal gain, it is instead 'behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favours the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives'. So yes, it would still be an altruistic act, irrelevant of the motives.

Helping others who are not closely related in genes to yours at the cost of your own personal gain is not altruistic then?
Quote by trueamerican
knowledge in itself is not a motive

What is this I don't even...
В словах есть что-то неприличное.
Last edited by Zaphikh at Jun 8, 2011,
#11
I have an answer to your...question. an altruistic act is by nature altruistic, meaning the motive is altruism. if there is any other motive it is not by definition altruistic.
#12
Quote by Zaphikh
Helping others who are not closely related in genes to yours at the cost of your own personal gain is not altruistic then?

Yes, it is, but you were asking if doing something purely because you know it's altruistic still makes it altruistic. Altruism has nothing to do with personal motives at all, that's the whole point. If you did something altruistic to either look nice, or because you knew it would be altruistic, it would still be altruistic. I'm not arguing, just saying that your original question has a definite and simple answer: yes.
#13
Quote by MakinLattes
I have an answer to your...question. an altruistic act is by nature altruistic, meaning the motive is altruism. if there is any other motive it is not by definition altruistic.


No, the motive is not altruism, the motive is pure concern for others, with no thought of any personal benefit.

I believe that to be impossible, but it's really impossible to prove.
#14
Quote by Zaphikh

What is this I don't even...


Knowledge is not a motive. If I have knowledge that some random person will die unless I do something, that's not a motive to act. If I care that some random person will die unless I do something, if I have the desire to change that, that is a motive. Knowledge alone is no motive.

If I know that an act of mine will be altruistic, that's not motive to act. The only motive to act will be if I desire to accomplish an altruistic act.
#15
Quote by trueamerican
No, the motive is not altruism, the motive is pure concern for others, with no thought of any personal benefit.

that's what altruism is.
#16
But you couldn't care about something without prior knowledge, so even if knowledge itself isn't the direct cause of an act, it is the causation of the cause, hence being just as important.
#17
Quote by theknuckster
Yes, it is

Then the definition you provided earlier is either not true or badly written.
but you were asking if doing something purely because you know it's altruistic still makes it altruistic. Altruism has nothing to do with personal motives at all, that's the whole point. If you did something altruistic to either look nice, or because you knew it would be altruistic, it would still be altruistic. I'm not arguing, just saying that your original question has a definite and simple answer: yes.



I find it a little hard to believe motives mean nothing. Sure, I get what you're saying: whatever the motives of getting from point A to point B are, it doesn't matter so long as point B is accomplished and is beneficial to others at the expense of yourself.

It's just something that makes me raise an eyebrow. Motives mean nothing? Not even a bit?
Quote by trueamerican
Knowledge is not a motive. If I have knowledge that some random person will die unless I do something, that's not a motive to act. If I care that some random person will die unless I do something, if I have the desire to change that, that is a motive. Knowledge alone is no motive.

If I know that an act of mine will be altruistic, that's not motive to act. The only motive to act will be if I desire to accomplish an altruistic act.

What is this I don't even...
В словах есть что-то неприличное.
Last edited by Zaphikh at Jun 8, 2011,
#18
Quote by MakinLattes
that's what altruism is.


No, you're misunderstanding me. The motive isn't altruism in itself, the motive happens to be altruistic in nature. Altruism itself can't be a motive, because then there is some self-serving end.

Quote by Zaphikh

What is this I don't even...


That's because you're an idiot without capacity to reason or understand, and your exposure to philosophy is obviously piss poor if you're asking such questions about a topic that has been so thoroughly discussed, even within the Pit.
Last edited by trueamerican at Jun 8, 2011,
#19
This thread again? Jesus tapdancing Christ, there's been about 30 threads about this exact subject.