I couldn’t disagree more.
Lets say you own and run a farm. You know some unemployed dude with no life, and decide to offer him a job. The amount of money you make from his labor is, let’s say, $50/hr, but you pay him $30/hr. Do you really think that you didn’t help him? Even though you’re paying him less than what’s derived from his efforts?
Would not the poor become angry and revolt? And the worlds limited resources would still eventually disapear. What about environmental impacts. Selfishness carries the seeds of destruction. I think intelligence has been dimmed by greed.
Explain selfishness of non-material things. Love is calculated and selfish? Happiness is something you hoard and cannot share?
i don’t know what you’re talking about. sounds like a blatant strawman to me, i didn’t say anything like that.
Context, Humpty, Context.
The primary definition of help is, “To give assistance to.” There is a phrase commonly used that, “You give someone a job,” but you’re not actually giving it to them because you’re getting something from them in return, to wit, labor.
If you own and run the farm (and you’re hiring someone to begin with) apparently you cannot do all the work yourself to generate maximum revenue, or you don’t feel like it. In terms of, “Giving assistance to someone,” with the variation between what’s paid and what’s made by the owner that you are indicating, it could more rightfully be said that the laborer is helping the farm owner. That’s exactly why farm workers are typically referred to as, “The help.”
You’ve certainly made the guy financially better off than he previously was, but you were the party that could more closely be described as, “Receiving help.” Besides, if you didn’t hire him, you would have hired someone else anyway.
if i was that kid getting paid $30 an hour, i’d sure as hell be grateful. i consider employment to be help.
Historically, the poor have become angry and revolted. Generally the result is simply (after a generation or two) new people being rich and new people being poor.
The world’s limited fuel resources may eventually disappear, but the disparity in the fuel used by the rich and that used by the poor has nothing to do with that fact. It’s simply a matter of to whom the limited resources are being allocated, which is to whoever has the money to pay for them.
Are you saying your help gets $30 while you only get $20 and you did it just because you wanted to help him out not because it was sound business?
If so, it is a very strange business practice to pay the help more than the owner, which would more than likely result in you going out of business and then you both would be out of work.
that’s only one worker. perhaps there’s 4, each of which earns the farm 50/hr but only gets paid 30/hr, which means the farm owner si actually making 80/hr, assuming he doesn’t do any sort of labor himself (which he probably does). sounds okay to me.
What about environmental impacts? Does nature matter? Do people matter?
I’d consider myself fortunate to have the job and recognize that I was better off than I was before, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I am helping the owner in purely economical terms.
Does he insure them, what about workmans comp, unemployment, liability, equipment costs, equipment insurance, taxes on farm, advertisement, shipping materials. You would need more than 4.
i don’t care about the specifics, i don’t understand why that’s relevant.
I consider self employment to be helpful rather than someone giving me a job. By that I mean going out and persuing an interview and convincing someone that Im the guy you should hire. No one gives you a job you go out and find it. Successful business is not about doing people favors.
We are talking about materialism Humpty. Unless you can explain selfishness of nonmaterial things.
No, it is not the world I live in. I don’t even have any friends called Bob.
It was a conceptual test of the definition of ‘altruism’ that pav gave. Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevent - its more about the question: if it happened, would it be an altruistic act?
Granted - in many ways what you are arguing for is unquestionable. It is an a-priori truth that any deliberate act committed by a person must have been done out of some interest of that person.
However (moving on from that example to ones of more conventional acts of ‘alturism’) I think it might be said that, as social creatures, we have a desire to promote the welfare of other people, and that many acts are spawned simply to satisfy that desire. ‘Altruism’ would be to act from that desire alone, or to have that desire as your primary motivator.
One problem with this discussion is how readily it devolves in to conjecture. Anyone can cite a score of potential maxims for any one action - but it is nigh on impossible to discover exactly which ones are at work, especially when we start claiming that some underlying desires are unconscious. I would argue the case for there being an altruistic desire from an appeal to common experience. When you see someone starving, you have an inbuilt reaction that wants to help them. Most people, I think, experience this: it comes with our inbuilt faculty to feel sympathy and empathy.
Someone could counter-argue that this could be underlined by an unconscious selfish desire to (say) make yourself look good by giving to charity. If that is the argument, though, I say its a bad one because it lacks any evidence whatsoever. When it comes to motivation, I think it makes sense to stick with agreeing to stick to discussion of what things seem to be motivating us. Else, I could just re-counter by saying that the underlying desire is actually one that is an unconscious desire to help other people, and neither of our arguments would be better or worse off.
Essentially, if you stick with your definition of an altruistic act, I don’t think you even need an argument. It becomes a conceptual truth that no action is altruistic However, I would also argue that the concept of ‘altruism’ remains unscathed - as it can be described as satifsfying the personal desire to promote the welfare of other people (which wouldn’t be altruistic by your definition, but would be by mine).
I suppose you can make the case that said desire could be your primary motivator, I don’t think that it could be your only motivator because the person that you are helping is outside of your self and all motivators come from within the self. Also, positing that every action is in some way self-serving, the closest we can come to altruism is to commit an action where the self-serving aspect of the action is secondary rather than primary.
That’s true. To take it a step further, due to our empathy (especially with respect to things that affect another individual physically) I think that we would feel guilt for not helping a person that we directly see (literally) starving if we can, and quite possibly we would feel as much guilt being unable to help that person. The Self-Serving aspect here is clearly the alleviation of a potential source of guilt and the shame that goes along with it.
I agree that it would be quite a stretch to say that the goal is to make oneself look good, especially if there is nobody else there to witness it. As stated above, when you help someone in that sort of situation, though, by helping them physically you are helping yourself emotionally by preventing there from being a source of guilt. Personally, I don’t think that’s necessarily too much of a stretch of the imagination.
I would suggest that it fits one of the other definitions used for Altruism. I would also agree with the implied assertion that Altruism is a word that simply needs to be more broadly (not to mention accurately) defined. It’s just so easy for people to look at something and say, “Oh, how altruistic,” that I don’t think the definition will be changed.
In rare cases, extreme philanthropists have donated, I think, simply for public appearances, but that’s too rare to really be routinely considered as a counter.
One non-sequitor after another. You’re on a roll.
No, you’re absolutely right. I need to take a reading comprehension test, I think. I have no argument against what you said and agree entirely, I read what you said incorrectly. I’m sorry about that.
EDIT: I mean, I agree entirely with that section of your post that I quoted.