news.bbc.co.uk

ok, i've predicted a change in argentina's ruling structure for going on 2 years
always wrong.
this government has some serious staying power.

still, i'll do it again.
if venezuela doesn't collapse into economic and social chaos under Chavez rule,
argentina's next government will be leftists.


chile elections soon to come.
socialist single mom running for president

she might win, mexican news doesn't like her.
Puerto rican news thinks she's a clone of one of their past politicas
a person known for barely being competent, spending money and being a ball buster.

I want her to win!
if only to strengthen the pan south american allieances that chaves is trying to put together chile is relatively rich, and stable.

Castro's an old old man, if he doesn't have parkinsons he's got something.

chile and china signed a free trade dealy thing yestreday...

I checked out your link Plato, but what caught my eye was the US/CIA claiming Castro has Parkinson's (another link @ the page). Maybe that's old news...I've been out of the news loop *hangs head in shame*

we aren't talking about me here.

the question was does true altrusim exist, and we where saying that would someone do something that works against their benefit, that, in fact may harm them, for absolutely no reward.
under that definition (taking into account that satisfaction is a reward) no.

but.
www.google.com lr=& oi=defmore& defl=en& q=define:altruism


here. good behavior fits into a lot of definitions of altruism according to this web page. it also doesn't fit into a bunch.

i guess it depends on the definition.

we do gain something, always. i don't think it's a bad thing.

maybe what some of us gain is an ability to rise up to a moral-plane that many others fail to attain?

denying it doesn't make it go away

so in other words, your CONVICTION to DO something about others' misery, and ACTUALLY doing it, is a greed proned act...

nice...

Instead of perceiving this as one's ability to rise up to a "moral-plane" that many others may fail to attain ... you choose to label that as a 'selfish gain' ...

very nice ...

yallah bubye.

PS: it was not a blow below the belt but an apparently unsuccessful attempt to remind u that there is more to humans' "self" than selflishness.

1,2,3,4, and 5
to varying degrees at different times.

i am a complex beast indeed.

you donate to create a feeling of empowerment? to feel as though, in this big horrorshow we call a world we can still act, and perhaps make a difference?

we donate to ease guilt, survivors guilt perhaps? donate to feel that we have met our obligations? so donation out of a sense of duty? we do have a duty to our fellow man do we not?

donation to encourage others? to return a favor? i think there was a post about Pakistan and Palestine. my mom's best friend in undergrad was a pakistani, many of my friends are as well.
In that same thread my best friend throughout undergrad's mother had Multiple sclerosis. and i feel a sense of guilt, responsibility and duty to do what i can, because, it affected a friend of mine and therefore it affected me.


Even if acts are not self-less, it does not mean they are not good, and it does not mean they are not great, and wonderful and all that.

praying quietly in ones room on a dark cold night may help bring one a sense of peace and tranquility. it does not disparrage the action or the actor.

Praying quietly in ones room on a dark cold night for someone else, say i pray tonight for shazia and i never tell her i did, altruism? it costs me effort. it gains me.... what?

it gains me a feeling of satisfaction perhaps, maybe it lifts my spirits, maybe it eases my worry.

we gain.
our actions are not neutral it seems foolhardy to think so. we allocate satisfaction to things we like (why do i enjoy lighting my pipe and watching the stars on the balcony? why do i enjoy having dinner with friends but really don't enjoy going to bars or parties where there is drinking? why do i enjoy feeding squirrls or fishing or carving statues from stone, or making figures of clay? because i have assiged these things value, and derive pleasure (or displeasure) from them.

it's arbitrary, a lot of my friends really enjoy hanging out in bars, lounges and night clubs, muslims and not, some drink some don't.


but i gain no pleasure from it.



....
actually....

would it be altruistic of me to go to the bar with my friends, knowing i won't enjoy it, but doing it only because i know my friends would enjoy my company?

is that altruims? (ignore the whole "bars and dinking are haram, if you want think nature hike) or would my pleasure in their enjoyment be my reward, thus negating my altruism?

that is 4) and 5)

Asif of course donating was a gain - it was the only way I felt I could contribute and the only way I could feel useful. I felt so powerless with the quake - and giving money and spamming everyone is my contribution.

And the heart hurting thing is completely separate, the two don't preclude each other. (Below the belt move btw).

Plato and I need the condolences - we'd like to believe there are altruists (true sense of word again) too. It's hurt me and him far more than it has you *:

and shazia, i remember your comment about the earthqueake that "my heart hurts with this" .... feel free to make that the 5th option...

PS my condolences to you for you conceiv EVERY single human action stripped of any selflessness.

That been established, i have a random question for u and shazia...

In recent south Asian earthquakes, assuming you donated something, did you donate because:

1) you woudld've felt guilty for not donating
2) you wanted to enjoy a sense of satisfaction that typically proceeds such actions
3) Some other gain, like setting an example so others would do the same for u
4) your heart/mind went out to them therefore you wanted to do something to help relieve them of their pain, EVEN if someone had guaranteed you that you'd not experience any 'satisfaction' after donating

Please dont' tell me what such and such books says about altruism etc ... tell me what went through YOUR mind.

monetary gain is often posteriori as well, does that mean that acting altruisticly, and then getting money for it would still count as altruisticly? perhaps the first time you do it, but after that, expectation (or hope for) moentary reward would negate the altruist aspect would it not?

it goes the same for satisfaction. posteriori or not. doing something, while expecting some sort fo reward.

we aren't talking grand actions (donating hundredts of dollars) but small things, giving someone half your cookie may make a 5 year old happy, after the fact, or, helping mom pick up toys or something.
expenditor and cost to self is there (half a cookie gone, play time cut into by picking up toys)

but if the kid gains a sense of "i did good!" then next time, their actions, if they are thinking "i do this because i am a good boy when i do" are no longer alturistic, kid gained a sense of "goodness" .


altruism implies doing something for another without you gaining (i'm assuming we mean the "gaining" in the absolute sense, rather than restrict it to quantifiable gain)

so i mentor children - i spend time and energy doing this.
what do i gain?
well, their gratitude? their respect? this inflates my ego and self worth
i gain a hobby somethign to do.
mentoriship works both ways, you both gain from it, you get company, you get to feel the "i'm on top of this little social heigharchy"
which in humans, is a huge factor in so many secondary qualities that it cannot be ignored.

you gain satisfaction of thinking you are making a difference

and, later on the line, if you actually did make a difference, perhaps one less hoodlum to vandalize your car....


all behaviors towards others have gain towards the person.

if altruistic behavior by itself, increases altruistic behavior in observers (studies contradict) then you gain others who later on my help you incidentally.

an obvious gain.
if, in a town prone to fires, running into burning buildings to save other peoples children is a common practice in a city, it is mre likely that somone will do it for you too. so it is in your best interest to do it for others when you get the chance.

Altrusim is Dead, Shazia killed it for me.

the satisfaction of ur altruistic experience is not a one- time thing as long as u truly believe someone did benefit from ur action. the satisfaction may only be secondary and not a motive. altruism can easily qualify as such even after 20 good deeds as long as the other party gained.

seems like engaging in discussions with some can be a form of altruism. alas its not so if the they just cant get it.

Shazia, when you say "altruist for the first and only time a baby realises its mother is upset and smiles to cheer it up. After that, it's all downhill"

Do you realize how beautifully you prove my point?

PS, i REALLY dont think at age 5, one would be able to rejoice such "satisfaction". Heck i was well over 5 but when i got my first pay check, and yet it was pretty darn tough for me to donate away hundreds of bucks thinking "i could totally buy a brand new pocket pc with this money! or do this or do that"

And i'm sure, as everyone else here has experienced, i did NOT do so because i was looking forward to that "satisfaction" but simply because the need to help them overcame the beauty of gadgets.

Plato, MA's using the divide and conquer argument. Don't let him - I'm with you all the way. Similarly, I agree with CF but then I almost always do.

How so is it dead by my hand?

The tragedy is that you and I had even had a discussion of how to define the argument - and we agreed on that definition and moved on from there... tut tut Asif

Asif I'm assuming your opening gambit was rhetorical. If it wasn't, I can well understand your not even being able to articulate (get-it?!) it - such is your horror of a life without my thought-provoking responses.

Let's leave that scary situation aside for now.

You have strangled your altrusitic argument at birth. The first time?! As Plato so wonderfully articulates, that means the moment the novelty of your initial altruistic experience has worn off, you cease to be an altruist.

Which would make you an altruist for the first and only time a baby realises its mother is upset and smiles to cheer it up... After that, it's all downhill.

Altruism is dead - or as Plato and I said, you die trying