Thread: Morality and its source

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Just because it is not very common does not mean that it does not exist.

no, but I'm not even sure it's possible to not gain in some way by helping someone else. Even if you don't intend to.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Just because it is not very common does not mean that it does not exist.

But if you are being altruistic because it makes you feel good or because it satisfies an inner need or hunger for justice or rightness... is it still selfless? Or is it merely a different aspect of selfishness?

Originally Posted by Bruno

But if you are being altruistic because it makes you feel good or because it satisfies an inner need or hunger for justice or rightness... is it still selfless? Or is it merely a different aspect of selfishness?

If you define altruism in a way that is self-contradictory then you need a better definition.

This is one of those "you know it when you see it" things. Mother Teresa was not just being selfish in a clever way. If we have trouble categorizing her behavior that's our shortcoming not a proof of her character flaw. If we can't come up with something better we could define altruism to mean "whatever Mother Teresa would do".

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi .... there are many examples of others we admire because they devoted their lives to helping others. I haven't a clue what there innermost motives were and maybe it is the way they were wired from birth ? I can't discount their example though because I cannot identify with that sort of selflessness.

Years ago I read a book that came highly recommended to distance runners. It is called "The Stress of Life" by Dr. Hans Selye. He was the foremost expert on stress at that time. The last chapter of the book was for the layman. He postulated that the best way to have a life with as little stress as possible with those around you was to generate gratitude in them by altrusitic behaviour on your part.

We are multi faceted creatures. I was grieving after a death in the family and it had to ask myself was I grieving for myself... i.e. for my loss of a loved one or for the loved one ? She was "off the hook" so to speak and let's hope in a better place. The ambiguity of life. Sometimes I don't know what my own motives really are.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

If you define altruism in a way that is self-contradictory then you need a better definition.

This is one of those "you know it when you see it" things. Mother Teresa was not just being selfish in a clever way. If we have trouble categorizing her behavior that's our shortcoming not a proof of her character flaw. If we can't come up with something better we could define altruism to mean "whatever Mother Teresa would do".

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.


Not that I'm the one making that argument! I've met people like her, and they are truly remarkable.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.


Not that I'm the one making that argument! I've met people like her, and they are truly remarkable.

IIRC she admitted that she came to doubt the existence of God ? I suppose the misery she saw around her in her daily life.stimulated the doubt to a larger extent than with a person not exposed to that.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

Your leading me in circles. First you say it's impossible or nonexistant ("I'm not even sure it's possible to not gain in some way by helping someone else. Even if you don't intend to." and "no, I studied it and there just isn't much to prove it happens." and "There's not a great deal of evidence to suggests true altruism exists.").

Now you say Mother Teresa makes the grade so you must believe it's possible and does exist, which is where I came in.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.

That's entirely possible, I don't know the first thing about her history.

And I'm not leading you in circles, I do not believe for one second that Mother Teresa was altruistic. I think what ever she did must have made her feel good. That was her gain.

Like I said, it's impossible not to gain in some way. The respect many still have for her, is something else she gained, for example.

Originally Posted by gregs656

it's impossible not to gain in some way

Would you say that taking the path of least possible gain could qualify as what we generally think of as an altruistic act?

Since it's impossible to not gain in some way, it goes without saying that the act would be for the benefit of all in some even if unknown way