Spiritual vs. physical

We interrupt this debate with recap...It seems that John and Forgiven are arguing semantics..John is saying that no act is truly altruistic because the motive is important... Why you do something helps decide if it is altruistic.Forgiven argues the opposite.. that the act in itself, regardless of motive is what determines if it is altruistic or not.I seriously doubt either will sway, but it is very entertaining to watch. Personally I have no opinion on the matter since my motto is..."Remember who I am doing it all for.... ME!"Red

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:altruism is a word... it means:1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. belief in acting for others’ good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and goodwhat this (i agree,useless) discussion is all about, when you get right down to it, is whether or not there even *is* such a thing as altruism...(i) a selfless act is altruistic (by definition)
(ii) giving ones life for another is a selfless act (by definition)
therefore, giving ones life for another is altruisticsee? easy when you just use logic... john wants to say that the giving of ones life for another isn't altruistic because we can't know the true motive of the giver... but that doesn't matter, so long as the terms are defined... now then, if someone cares to form a valid argument taking the opposite view, do so[/B][/QUOTE]Well it can be argued(and what I think John is saying) is that a selfless act can never truly be considered selfless since the motive is important. Even giving your life for another's does not have to be selfless, since the motive may very well be to avoid "survivor's guilt." While rare instances do occur (such as the falling piano) they do not outway the majority of supposed altruistic acts that are infact not purely selfless in nature, and therefore can be discounted against the whole. Exceptions that prove the rule you might say. By the very definition you are stating :1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of othersyou require an unselfish concern, but if that unselfish concern can not be conclusivly shown the act can be argued as not altruistic, and since we can never know the true motives for any person's actions the case can easily be made that while an act might APPEAR altruistic it can never conclusivly be shown as actually BEING altruistic.Red

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:the definition isn't mine, for the record, i didn't make it up... in any case, "selfless" means, in this context, without concern for self... i disagree that the exception proves the rule... if you grant for a moment that the man who saved the little girl performed an altruistic act, then altruism exists.. if, on the other hand, you're saying his act couldn't possibly be considered altruism because nobody knows his *real* motive, where does that leave us? it seems a sad state when acts such as kindness can be questioned because we can't read the mind nor motive of the actor.. how do we know that person was *really* performing a kind act? maybe he had as a motive putting another in debt to the kindness[/B][/QUOTE]In the piano man case it can be argued that the actu wasn't altruistic for another reason. He did not act without concern for his self, or selfessly simply because the action was a reaction, no time to weigh options, no time to decide, just enough time to act. While heroic, not necessarily altruistic by your definition. Now I am not saying that kind acts have to be questioned either, just that based on the definition of altruism that you gave us it is impossible to conclusifly say one way or another. Kind acts are kind acts take them as they are, whether any acts are "purely" altrusistic is irregardless, it is our perceptions that truly matter. Cynics will say we can't tell since motive is important, some will say "who cares, good was done" and others will praise god for giving us the ability to do good in the first place. For me it doesn't make a difference, since the act outweighs the reasons, or who gets credit. Rather than be concerned with the whys of good, kind acts, just be gratefull they happen at all.