I was just walking back to my apartment tonight and suddenly a question popped into my head.
Does altruistic behavior in human beings truly exist?
Biologically speaking, altruism is an act or behavior that decreases the biological fitness of the actor in exchange for the increase of the biological fitness of the recipient.
From an evolutionary perspective, this type of behavior doesn't seem to be genetic, seeing as something that would decrease your likelihood of passing on your genes would go directly against the theory of evolution. Basically, if this was genetic, the gene pool of individuals with this characteristic would decrease over time and eventually be eliminated from the population.
But let's focus on human behavior in social situations where it isn't necessarily fitness that is adversely affected. Rather, the actor simply does something for the benefit of another while taking a net loss.
People do nice stuff for other people all the time. Sometimes I feel like I do things that would appear to be altruistic. For instance, I'm an RA at my university. One of the responsibilities of an RA is to be "on duty" on certain assigned nights of the month. Out of my staff of 11, I was lucky enough to draw the 3rd pick of duty nights. However, my friend who was 10th was stuck with Halloween night. Without her directly asking me, I exchanged one of my easy duty nights for Halloween night. In this interaction, I gave up my early pick and easy duty night in exchange for one of the worst duty nights and a loss in opportunity to go to the many Halloween parties.
On the surface this seems like an altruistic behavior. But is it really? Even though I did this, in the back of my mind I feel like I expect her to reciprocate and do a favor for me in the future, so in this sense it isn't altruism, but rather a type of mutualism.
Do people always have some sort of ulterior motive? Or are there examples of true altruism in action?
Is altruism genetically inherited or not? If it does, how does it still exist after this many generations? If not, how does altruism exist today? Could it be due to a result of the actor's environment? But society in general appears to praise non-altruistic actions (ideology such as capitalism, etc. are all about individual success/familial). Under the assumption that altruistic behavior is rare compared to selfish/mutualistic/commensalistic behavior, why and how are these traits present?
Poll: Does altruistic behavior in human beings truly exist? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No + Show Spoiler +
Of course it exists. Mother's instinct towards her child for the first couple of years is probably the most common example. Once again, as with any topic, you can say that it exists, depending on how you define it. If you want to look further, I'd suggest starting with this page. I know it's wiki, but it has a nice list of altruistic behaviors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
On the surface this seems like an altruistic behavior. But is it really? Even though I did this, in the back of my mind I feel like I expect her to reciprocate and do a favor for me in the future, so in this sense it isn't altruism, but rather a type of mutualism.
Yes, this is the problem of how you define it. Technically, you can boil everything down to mutualism. Why do you make the next step when walking? You're being mutualistic towards yourself, because you don't want to fall down. Why does the mother care about the baby? Because she wants her genes to be passed on (probably without realising it).
I think it's both. The more thought you put into an altruistic action, the less altruistic it becomes.
And you are forgetting other variables, like guys are expected to be there for women and the subtle social pressures that brings. Maybe you wouldn't have acted the same way if the guy was some random dude.
People most of the time have an ulterior motive, however it's often quite automatic and even subconscious as we don't rhink about them all the time. We don't just act a certain way to people in general, we act a certain way to different kinds of people. We act one way against women/men/people who remind us of the class bully/people who remind us of our boss/our boss etc. Altruistic behavior is a result of other factors, which is ultimately called "altruistic" because those other factors are not thought of.
I, as a big brother might be more inclined to help people out as I someway see it as my chore to take on responsibility. You could make so many examples. You guys are putting way too many evolutionary aspects on this btw
I think we understand too little of evolutionary mechanisms yet to be able to affirm or deny:
[...] this type of behavior doesn't seem to be genetic, seeing as something that would decrease your likelihood of passing on your genes would go directly against the theory of evolution. Basically, if this was genetic, the gene pool of individuals with this characteristic would decrease over time and eventually be eliminated from the population.
Who says that cooperation and getting along with each other isn't beneficial?
And why would it be wrong to expect *some* form of reciprocity in a regular case?
There are many people who make their charitable donations anonymous. You could argue that they're doing it for the "reward" of a good afterlife, but I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who has given to charity anonymously.
On October 23 2009 18:26 Sadistx wrote: Of course it exists. Mother's instinct towards her child for the first couple of years is probably the most common example. Once again, as with any topic, you can say that it exists, depending on how you define it. If you want to look further, I'd suggest starting with this page. I know it's wiki, but it has a nice list of altruistic behaviors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
the mother example is a very common example, but it could also be viewed that it is necessary for the survival of her own genes, as it is her progeny. also, when she gets older and is unable to take care of herself, she may expect her child to take care of her. this is speculation, but i would venture a guess to say that adopted children face a higher rate of neglect by their new parents than a child living with their biological parents. actually, that might not be speculation. i vaguely remember seeing a slide about either in my psych course or one of my biology classes.
also, i am aware of those examples listed in the wiki. i specifically asked the question about whether they exist in human behavior or not.
[...] this type of behavior doesn't seem to be genetic, seeing as something that would decrease your likelihood of passing on your genes would go directly against the theory of evolution. Basically, if this was genetic, the gene pool of individuals with this characteristic would decrease over time and eventually be eliminated from the population.
Who says that cooperation and getting along with each other isn't beneficial?
And why would it be wrong to expect *some* form of reciprocity in a regular case?
i'm not saying it's wrong to expect reciprocity in a lot of social situations, but i'm saying if we're expecting it, it can't really be defined as altruism.
On October 23 2009 18:28 Foucault wrote: And you are forgetting other variables, like guys are expected to be there for women and the subtle social pressures that brings. Maybe you wouldn't have acted the same way if the guy was some random dude.
People most of the time have an ulterior motive, however it's often quite automatic and even subconscious as we don't rhink about them all the time. We don't just act a certain way to people in general, we act a certain way to different kinds of people. We act one way against women/men/people who remind us of the class bully/people who remind us of our boss/our boss etc. Altruistic behavior is a result of other factors, which is ultimately called "altruistic" because those other factors are not thought of.
I, as a big brother might be more inclined to help people out as I someway see it as my chore to take on responsibility. You could make so many examples. You guys are putting way too many evolutionary aspects on this btw
Get my drift?
i agree with what your saying. there are definitely a lot of factors that go into decision-making that even the most exhaustive analysis probably can't cover. my viewpoint has a lot of evolutionary stuff in it because i'm a bio major and that's what i talk about haha.
On October 23 2009 18:31 zeppelin wrote: There are many people who make their charitable donations anonymous. You could argue that they're doing it for the "reward" of a good afterlife, but I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who has given to charity anonymously.
perhaps they are giving because they felt like they did something wrong in the past so they feel better by giving money/time to a good cause (obviously not the case in all situations). but overall that's a good point, and definitely a strong example.
Anonymously is the key word here, Let's say you switched the halloween night thing without anyone knowing and you never told anyone. this would be completely altruistic. However with deeds that are never told of and never seen being the proof of altruistic behavior.... well it makes it quite hard to prove
Altruism does exist and is selected for if the recipients are closely enough related and therefore likely to share the same genes (kin selection). There is a special case of altruism classified in animals called reciprocal altruism much like your case. They will do these kind acts expecting the same in the future. The difference between this and mutualism is the delay in the benefits. i.e. vampire bats are known to regurgitate blood to feed others who have not found a meal and in the future can expect the same for themselves.
So there probably isn't any true altruism in the way you're thinking of, but what's wrong with that really?
just to clarify, i don't think that altruism in the way that i'm defining of HAS to exist, or that it's bad if it doesn't. i'm just simply wondering whether it exists or not.
it is very easy to assign some extrinsic or intrinsic reward for any action, and you can always use the argument of kin selection or cooperation within species to explain things like compassion and empathy. the safest answer would be no. but then again as you know we have no clue why any of us do anything, really, so like most behavioral biology questions it's impossible to say.
i find the concept of altruism to be a bit silly. what is so romantic about sacrifice without reward, when mutual benefit is always more efficient? does doing something honest and with good intentions mean less if i get just a tiny bit of satisfaction out of it?
Just because it's anonymous does not make it truly altruistic. The person is doing it for the benefit of feeling good about themselves, even if no one knows it. It is another example of what you'd call "mutualistic" behavior.
On October 23 2009 18:28 Foucault wrote: And you are forgetting other variables, like guys are expected to be there for women and the subtle social pressures that brings. Maybe you wouldn't have acted the same way if the guy was some random dude.
People most of the time have an ulterior motive, however it's often quite automatic and even subconscious as we don't rhink about them all the time. We don't just act a certain way to people in general, we act a certain way to different kinds of people. We act one way against women/men/people who remind us of the class bully/people who remind us of our boss/our boss etc. Altruistic behavior is a result of other factors, which is ultimately called "altruistic" because those other factors are not thought of.
I, as a big brother might be more inclined to help people out as I someway see it as my chore to take on responsibility. You could make so many examples. You guys are putting way too many evolutionary aspects on this btw
Get my drift?
i agree with what your saying. there are definitely a lot of factors that go into decision-making that even the most exhaustive analysis probably can't cover. my viewpoint has a lot of evolutionary stuff in it because i'm a bio major and that's what i talk about haha.
lol and I'm a sociology major so we are totally approaching this from two different angles :D
There might be some biological altruism, but either way it's expressed through our actions, and our actions are influenced by society and socialization.
On October 23 2009 18:26 Sadistx wrote: Of course it exists. Mother's instinct towards her child for the first couple of years is probably the most common example. Once again, as with any topic, you can say that it exists, depending on how you define it. If you want to look further, I'd suggest starting with this page. I know it's wiki, but it has a nice list of altruistic behaviors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
the mother example is a very common example, but it could also be viewed that it is necessary for the survival of her own genes, as it is her progeny. also, when she gets older and is unable to take care of herself, she may expect her child to take care of her. this is speculation, but i would venture a guess to say that adopted children face a higher rate of neglect by their new parents than a child living with their biological parents. actually, that might not be speculation. i vaguely remember seeing a slide about either in my psych course or one of my biology classes.
also, i am aware of those examples listed in the wiki. i specifically asked the question about whether they exist in human behavior or not.
In the last weeks before birth is given, and in the first four or so weeks after birth, an incredible amount of estrogen is pumped to the brains of mothers, specifically to give a biological imperative for looking after your child. In an experiment on rats, researchers injected non-pregnant female rats with estrogen after other rat mothers gave birth, and found that those rats injected with estrogen became like communal mothers, caring for all the other mothers' babies. By the time the extra estrogen wears off in humans, mothers have typically bonded and formed a relationship with the child, so continued care is more likely. So I think mothers taking care of babies is actually quite a bad example of altruistic behaviour, as it is very strongly influenced by our physiology. And yes, both adopted children, and children who live with a stepfather/stepmother are much more likely to be physically and sexually abused.
I would argue that altruism does exist, but that it is always influenced by some biological drive, as all human behaviour is. Perhaps the easiest example is when a person sacrifices his or her life for a loved one. In no way can such an act be seen as benefiting that person in some way. However, the existence of a biological drive to protect your loved ones has also been argued for. So basically, if you feel that having some need to act altruistically detracts from the actual act, then it probably doesn't exist since all human behaviours are driven by some need. However, a more realistic view would be to judge the act by its own value, and ignore any supposed psychological benefit that the altruistic person gets from it, because in all honesty, if the benefit you got from altruism was that great, we would all be busy helping people instead of reading forums
On a evolutionary level, altruism ultimately stems from selfishness. However, on an individual level, I think altruism does in fact exist. Just because we benefit from an action does not mean we deliberately acted to receive the benefit. Sometimes, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are only an afterthought; we might do something nice without any intentions of any gains even if it benefits us in some way or form later on.
On October 23 2009 18:31 zeppelin wrote: There are many people who make their charitable donations anonymous. You could argue that they're doing it for the "reward" of a good afterlife, but I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who has given to charity anonymously.
On October 23 2009 19:40 Daigomi wrote: I would argue that altruism does exist, but that it is always influenced by some biological drive, as all human behaviour is. Perhaps the easiest example is when a person sacrifices his or her life for a loved one. In no way can such an act be seen as benefiting that person in some way. However, the existence of a biological drive to protect your loved ones has also been argued for. So basically, if you feel that having some need to act altruistically detracts from the actual act, then it probably doesn't exist since all human behaviours are driven by some need. However, a more realistic view would be to judge the act by its own value, and ignore any supposed psychological benefit that the altruistic person gets from it, because in all honesty, if the benefit you got from altruism was that great, we would all be busy helping people instead of reading forums
I think an even better example is someone sacrificing their life for a stranger, like a firefighter who runs back in to a burning building and doesn't make it back out. You could argue he's thinking about the reciprocation of being on the front page of the paper and getting the key to the city for saving someone, but in a snap decision moment like that I don't think that kind of cost/benefit calculation is being made - the person just wants to help and goes above and beyond their duty to try to do so.
All decisions are made for a reason, one could argue that even what would be considered the most altruistic actions could be attributed to factors such as 'because doing something selfless makes you feel good', 'feeling bad if you didn't do it', not wanting to be selfish, social conditioning, wanting to contribute etc.
It can be argued concern for others due to these factors are not in fact selfless as they are still focused on how you would feel if you did or did not do something. And therefore actions due to these factors are not truly altruistic
If you stick with this definition, I find it hard to imagine anyone could be capable of anything truly altruistic. Since we don't just do things randomly.
On the other hand, some would consider that feeling good due to an action benefiting others a form of altruism in itself.etc
i think altruism is innately present in all human beings. but then again i'm inclined to think that such acts/behavior is dependent on one's upbringing and environment.
In an absolute sense, probably very rare. To be altruistic I think by definition, to be regardless of personal interest or satisfaction to commit an act of overall good. So a person who donates to the Red Cross out of emotional gratification may just as well be a bit of self-indulgence to boost their esteem as society would put them if they do/or not observe them, but if a person sees it as a problem waiting to be solved, attributes it like a math problem, no personal gain in any form, some kind of loss on their part, then I think so.
I think Kant addressed this, a man who acts because it is moral thing to do and finds no gratification, may even hate doing the action, is still morally superior to one who does the same out of kindness or emotional reasons.
But I think we would be all be more altruistic, if we had brain nerves interwoven between each other and we could see the world from each others shoes, memory, personality, and emotional states at any given time. Actions would be purely empathetic, selfish motives would become easier to distinct.
To include such phenomena as "emotional gratification" within the sphere of self-interest, is to be too clever by half. It suggests an intellectual sterility which would subordinate all phenomena to a rational-mechanistic framework within which virtue by definition cannot be the prime mover.
In other words, instead of viewing human behaviour as such, we are reducing it to formulae and cliches.
I've suggested once and again, that self-interest is not an explanation for human behaviour, it rather raises the questions for it.
The question is not whether our actions are bound by self-interest, but what we believe our self-interest to be.
This is a very difficult question because of the indeterminancy of the conscious mind. So perceived, nothing is fixed and sacred to self-interest. Not self-preservation. Not preservation of race and kin. Certainly not sexual reproduction. Self-interest seeps through all categorical explanations of biological or social science. It would be more appropriate to say that the very term "self-interest" means little or nothing.
Awww come on we all know you switched the Halloween work date because a. UR A LOSER AND HAVE NO PARTIES TO GO TO!! and b. u wanna bang the girl...but what you don't realize is c. u just hurt ur chances by showing weakness u should have d. lol'd at her for having to work on halloween
donating money to charity anonymously and telling no one about it but obviously feeling good about yourself= altruistic behavior?
if you think the answer is yes then it exists, if the answer is no then it doesn't exist...its all about the semantics and implications of the word altruism, in my mind there is a good reason or good effect(upon the person doing the behavior_ for every single kind act people do, whether it is intended or not. so no, altruism doesn't exist and i don't think you can say mothers doing anything for their kin is altruistic because blah blah passing on genes blah blah for the greater good of the species.
i mean a mother sacrificing her life in a battle to the death with an enemy species trying to eat her kid. sure its altruistic to the kid but on the flip side it's selfish to the enemy species cuz that enemy species is just hungry trying to feed it's kids too!
See all this awesome stuff other animals do for each other, like meerkat's watching out for hyenas for each other we don't know if the guy who alerts everyone on the hyenas gets a bonus later. All we know is that they're cooperating to survive, without understanding how the 'other half lives' we can't really compare our decision making to theirs, and if it even exists.
I think there is a huge difference between not being able to say "no" and being altruistic. I just cant refuse if someone asks me for help.
Its hard to really define whats altruism, but if you see it purely as behavior having as goal to improve the welfare of some guy that you are completely emotionally neutral to (or you dont even know in personal), then yes, altruism truly exists.
And btw I see the altruism entirely as a subject of the economy
If you want to talk about evolution, at least in many species of animals there's a balance between group selection and individual selection. Take a pride of lions: The more they share and help each other, the more likely that entire pride is going to survive and pass their genes on. However a specific lion in that pride can "cheat," taking advantage of the selflessness of others to enhance its own fitness. But if too many lions become cheaters, then the fitness of the pride breaks down and they are all in danger of dying.
In humans today we aren't closely genetically related to most people an altruist would help, but we aren't exactly obeying the same forces of natural selection that put those genes there in the first place (when groups of people were much smaller and genes would be much more intermingled).
On October 23 2009 21:19 MoltkeWarding wrote: To include such phenomena as "emotional gratification" within the sphere of self-interest, is to be too clever by half. It suggests an intellectual sterility which would subordinate all phenomena to a rational-mechanistic framework within which virtue by definition cannot be the prime mover.
In other words, instead of viewing human behaviour as such, we are reducing it to formulae and cliches.
I've suggested once and again, that self-interest is not an explanation for human behaviour, it rather raises the questions for it.
The question is not whether our actions are bound by self-interest, but what we believe our self-interest to be.
This is a very difficult question because of the indeterminancy of the conscious mind. So perceived, nothing is fixed and sacred to self-interest. Not self-preservation. Not preservation of race and kin. Certainly not sexual reproduction. Self-interest seeps through all categorical explanations of biological or social science. It would be more appropriate to say that the very term "self-interest" means little or nothing.
I don't know man your trying to demolish Hobbes, Miller, Marx, Nietzsche, the very core of universal egoism, evolutionary biology, an aspect of psychology and sociology in one fell swoop. (not saying my argument is a certain thing, I know its flawed, but reducing it down to indeterminable properties in a short paragraph, and concluding an argument that has been going on for centuries is..too clever.)
I'm very tempted to think your a dualist, not that there is anything wrong with it intellectually, but I don't want to go down that road as I don't have a sufficient and formal knowledge of it, if you would be so kind to entail proofs to your claim, its interesting to me.
On October 23 2009 18:31 zeppelin wrote: There are many people who make their charitable donations anonymous. You could argue that they're doing it for the "reward" of a good afterlife, but I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who has given to charity anonymously.
altruism definitely exists among family members (and from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that it does)
reciprocal altruism (I act altruistically in the hopes that I later benefit from the altrustic actions of another person) is something I also think exists to a limited extent.
On October 23 2009 18:26 Sadistx wrote: Of course it exists. Mother's instinct towards her child for the first couple of years is probably the most common example. .
Acutally, that's learned through society more than anything. Go look at how rich families took care of their loved children in the early 18th and 19th centuries. They'd send them off to surrogate mothers who'd care for them, breast feed them, etc until they didn't require as much care every waking second of the day
altruism certainly exists though. the people who deny it always cite shit like bill gates donating money because of the pr gain and tax credits. let's fucking see anyone clunk down 3$ mill for a bunch of greedy assholes you dont know.
how about people volunteering at animal shelters? helping coach kids sports? there's a ton of things that are purely altruistic
On October 23 2009 21:19 MoltkeWarding wrote: To include such phenomena as "emotional gratification" within the sphere of self-interest, is to be too clever by half. It suggests an intellectual sterility which would subordinate all phenomena to a rational-mechanistic framework within which virtue by definition cannot be the prime mover.
In other words, instead of viewing human behaviour as such, we are reducing it to formulae and cliches.
I've suggested once and again, that self-interest is not an explanation for human behaviour, it rather raises the questions for it.
The question is not whether our actions are bound by self-interest, but what we believe our self-interest to be.
This is a very difficult question because of the indeterminancy of the conscious mind. So perceived, nothing is fixed and sacred to self-interest. Not self-preservation. Not preservation of race and kin. Certainly not sexual reproduction. Self-interest seeps through all categorical explanations of biological or social science. It would be more appropriate to say that the very term "self-interest" means little or nothing.
I don't know man your trying to demolish Hobbes, Miller, Marx, Nietzsche, the very core of universal egoism, evolutionary biology, an aspect of psychology and sociology in one fell swoop. (not saying my argument is a certain thing, I know its flawed, but reducing it down to indeterminable properties in a short paragraph, and concluding an argument that has been going on for centuries is..too clever.)
I'm very tempted to think your a dualist, not that there is anything wrong with it intellectually, but I don't want to go down that road as I don't have a sufficient and formal knowledge of it, if you would be so kind to entail proofs to your claim, its interesting to me.
My main point was that the kind of reductionalism which a topic like this will inevitably excite tells us nothing new or interesting about human behaviour, and more often prevent intelligent questions from being asked than giving satisfactory answers.
The statement that all actions encompass self-interest is of course a truism, too obvious to argue for. Marx and Nietzsche, Mills and Bentham, Tocqueville and La Rouchefoucauld, Spencer and Freud, Goethe and Stendhal, Metternich and Machiavelli, Milton's Moloch, Belial, Mammon, Beezlebub and Satan all said so.
But did not Marx and Nietzsche have contrary, and even incompatible views as to what true and primary "self-interest" was? Did not Milton's devils, all in full possession of their wits, advocate very different avenues of revenge against God? The apocalyptic visions of early Christianity, the self-destructive impulses of German romanticism, the patriotism of English industrialists during the World Wars, the autoparalysis of Hamlet can all be rationalized down to self-interest, yet does it really aid our understanding of these phenomena?
Are not homo economicus, egoisme sacree, sexual and utilitarian theory not merely moral partialities for a particular sin? Centuries prior, Christian philosophy had already identified not the one, but seven such primary objects lurking within the human heart, and still insisted that they could be overcome by human altruism. A more sophisticated moral philosophy, in my judgement.
I am inclined to think that how we identify our self-interests is not separable from what we identify as virtues. Saying that our actions are self-interested cannot really remove the moral dimension behind all self-interest. Self-interest after all, isn't really the antithesis of morality. Only materialism is.
Now I have a few questions to ask about that, and I apologize if there are contradictions, I am tired from a test earlier today and I will revise some of these later: *And I have never taken a philosophy course, I only know from random readings, I am aware, and I'm trying to re-direct, condense it, but any answer is appreciated.
1.) Do you believe sin is an innate property of this moral proposition, a universal claim?
b.) What are these 7? Why are you so certain that Christian philosophy has enveloped these, questions these malignant capacity in humans? Why not the Avestan texts of Zoroaster on his conceptual belief of mainyu, Hume's claim that there are no substances, or even a Spinozean claim that deterministic naturalism is every fabric of existence, shared by one God, evil, merely incomplete ideas?
The very notion of an Abrahamic God feels restrictive, and I think epistemological religious experience basks on such invested ambiguity, that since we may never know the bottom of the well of all material things, there must be some kind of immaterial substance that substantiates it. An irreducible causality between mind, separate between substances, physical/mental, which may or may not even be there in the first place.
c.) Are you claiming that such "self-interest" is a necessary characteristic of subjective virtue on ontological grounds or sensory claims?
2.) Let's take the example of Libertarian freedom, psychological determinism, and psychological egoism. You always do as you desire, it reflects means, not ends, psychological determinism entails you always do what you want to do most, and psychological empiricism in our best interests, never act "altruistically" even if they all these co-exists on their own. Now this has empirical support, but not easily disregarded, we accept it at face value. True by definition, but we cannot see how people can have libertarian freedom on that account; so there, a basic attempt at compatibilism. And my regard is, how do you define this "human" altruism, what is its intrinsic sophistication, that is absent from all definitions of self-interest, conventional isms, and the cliche that religion is often a moral arbiter? Is it syncretistic? Can secular ethics, re-worded, persist in its place?
Altruism is a flawed concept. It's easy to explain why anyone would help their kids/family, and even someone sacrificing themselves for someone. ( if they value that persons life more than their own, thus even though they die they are still pursuing their own goals).
altruism is an arbitrary standard, anything you do for yourself is bad, but doing something for a random distant strangers is good? Do you really need to feel guilty for a hard days work? for trying to get by, for taking care of your own needs and aspirations? As long as you're not lying cheating stealing and threatening people with a gun, then you're probably doing something good. Altruism is bullshit for popes, kings, and queens to justify otherwise unjustifiable sacrifices from the people under them.
On October 23 2009 18:31 zeppelin wrote: There are many people who make their charitable donations anonymous. You could argue that they're doing it for the "reward" of a good afterlife, but I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who has given to charity anonymously.
I give to charity because it makes me feel better as a person. I take out the garbage so my wife doesn't yell at me. I believe in X religion so that I don't suffer pain in the afterlife. I am nice to people because If I am not I will become a social outcast and it will make my life more difficult.
EPT
