Pyschological Questions

[Rapier]

How can altruism be negative?

When it becomes absolute selflessness (or just plain selflessness).

That would seem to lead to a contradiction in terms. If you sacrifice yourself too much then you cannot give more later. A true altruist must survive for others too?

Sorry for the tangent.

I'm not feeling too bright today (although I was never a bright person, lol), but I'll try to answer this.

That's the point. When you sacrifice too much that you lose some things that are a necessity for you for the benefit of others, that is a way of self harm.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Rapier

[amiabletemplar]

So, the logical conclusion is that violence and greed can be good with moderation, which means they're not as bad as they sound, just as altruism and pacifism are bad without moderation.

My point was that simply saying, "oh, it's natural, so it's not a problem" is a facile and ineffective retort. There are natural things that we should not do, and non-natural things that we should do--if it is in fact "right" to do (or not do) a particular thing, the fact of it happening (or not happening) in nature is

In general, though, I'd say violence is about as bad as it sounds. What are the legally justified uses of violence? Well, most of the time, preventing other violence. E.g. officers of the law may, with a warrant, arrest and confine a suspected murderer--this arrest and imprisonment is a (relatively mildly) violent act, but it is done to help protect others from violence, and to discourage citizenry from participating in future acts of violence. Greed, on the other hand, does not seem to have such a place--and it may even be impossible for it to have such an argument in its defense, limited though it may be. Greed is about personally acquiring resources etc. How can the state, by definition a multiperson entity which pursues some form of group goal (often claiming to pursue the common good, whether or not that is actually the case), exert "greed to prevent other greed"? Isn't it, by definition, a (perhaps weak) form of altruism, for an individual or group to prevent another individual or small group from disproportionately ("greedily") consuming all of a resource, and instead seeing that it gets shared in a more (if not necessarily perfectly) equitable way?

Furthermore, I'm not really sure that you can argue that "altruism and pacifism are bad without moderation." Firstly, what does "moderation" mean? Introducing a qualifier like that allows you to flexibly modify what you mean, without making it clear when or how you have made such modifications. It becomes almost impossible to discuss, unless you make specifics, which I suspect you will find difficult to do, without making your argument circular.

Secondly, what would "immoderate" altruism or pacifism look like? The former sounds like "giving away so much that you fail to be able to uphold your future obligations." But that wouldn't be "altruism" anymore, because behaving altruistically requires putting the good of others before your own--including "keeping your promises to others." You would have to be breaking your own rules, intentionally harming some in order to help others, and thus that doesn't sound like "altruism" anymore. The latter would seem to have its practical application as "refusing to prevent others from behaving violently because that would also require violence." Yet this is something that many people genuinely believe is the correct thing to do; that any act of violence damages the perpetrator even more than it damages the victim. Entire religions or religious denominations consider such "immoderate pacifism" essential to their philosophy--for example, many branches of Buddhism* pursue a universal pacifism, and the religion of Jainism believes that all animal life, not merely fellow humans, is precious and sacred, such that they carry brooms with them to gently sweep the path ahead, so as to not step on and accidentally kill an insect. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the (typical) Buddhist or Jainist pacifist doctrine, I'm just saying that these are substantial, and in Buddhism's case worldwide, philosophical traditions that directly challenge the very notion of "immoderate pacifism."

*It's worth noting, though, that some do not. The Shaolin school of Chan Buddhism, for instance--which has fought in multiple wars and pirate-repelling campaigns over the centuries of its existence. There's a reason that Shaolin kung fu is the most famous school of martial arts in the West, though it might not be the most widely-practiced--I don't know the numbers.

When it becomes absolute selflessness (or just plain selflessness).

I'm not feeling too bright today (although I was never a bright person, lol), but I'll try to answer this.

That's the point. When you sacrifice too much that you lose some things that are a necessity for you for the benefit of others, that is a way of self harm.

A dangerous word to use, "selflessness." That's another one that Buddhism strongly encourages (in two very different senses**). It's also one encouraged--with varying degrees of success, I admit--in all of the Abrahamic religions, and most other monotheistic or duotheistic (e.g. Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism) religions as well. See the Bible chapter part of my sig comes from:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

This is a pretty comprehensive and straightforward definition of selfless love: it even includes "it is not self-seeking" and "it keeps no record of wrongs." Whether or not real Christians actually achieve this, it's definitely been in the book for something like 17 centuries, and many theologians have noted the importance of selfless love (the Latin word is caritas, from which we get the modern word "charity"; the Greek is ἀγάπη, agápē, which in the Christian context is "selfless love," the love of God for humans, and by necessary extension the love that humans should feel for other humans).

So: is "selflessness" really a problem, or is it more like what I said above--where you give to the point that you break your promises with others? Remember that, in the minds of many, many people (myself included), "selflessness" and "altruism" are practically synonyms. You can't have one without the other--a "selfish altruism" would be a contradiction.

**There is "selflessness," and there is "Self-lessness." The former is "I give of myself freely to others, without hope of recompense," and defines the profound and transcendent love that a Buddha has for others: it is precisely this selfless love that is the reason for refusing to actually exit the cycle of samsara and go to the nirvana state. It is the highest virtue in pretty much every branch of Buddhism (at least all the ones I know of), in the sense that it is the ultimate fulfillment of enlightenment. On the other hand, "Self-lessness" (note the capital and hyphen) is their philosophy that there is no attribute, no quality or characteristic, that you can point to and say "this is Me, this is my True Self." They view the Self as something that must be eternal, yet all the things you can point to in your Self are in fact temporary and will eventually change into something else. Thus, it is not possible to say whether you do or do not have a Self--absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all, but even if there were an eternal Self there is nothing you could point to and say "this is my Self."

Edited December 22, 2015 by amiabletemplar

[Makaze]

Templar explained my meaning well.

[Rapier]

That was some interesting food for thought, thanks. I had to stop and reflect about this a bit (well, for 5 minutes? maybe) before coming back to write an answer. Let's see...

In general, though, I'd say violence is about as bad as it sounds. What are the legally justified uses of violence? Well, most of the time, preventing other violence. E.g. officers of the law may, with a warrant, arrest and confine a suspected murderer--this arrest and imprisonment is a (relatively mildly) violent act, but it is done to help protect others from violence, and to discourage citizenry from participating in future acts of violence. Greed, on the other hand, does not seem to have such a place--and it may even be impossible for it to have such an argument in its defense, limited though it may be. Greed is about personally acquiring resources etc. How can the state, by definition a multiperson entity which pursues some form of group goal (often claiming to pursue the common good, whether or not that is actually the case), exert "greed to prevent other greed"? Isn't it, by definition, a (perhaps weak) form of altruism, for an individual or group to prevent another individual or small group from disproportionately ("greedily") consuming all of a resource, and instead seeing that it gets shared in a more (if not necessarily perfectly) equitable way?

The way I see it, violence is a necessary evil for this kind of world. Since we live in a world where animals - and people - are willing to use violence against us, using violence - or merely bringing up the threat of violence - as a means of self-defense is our only option to avoid or counter (as in, apply just enough force to stop) aggressions done toward us. It is not always that issues can be solved peacefully, and most of the time they can be solved peacefully exactly because the means to violently coerce those who step out of line are available for use.

As for greed, I'll use the same argument that you used toward me. We need a better, stricter definition of what we mean about greed. Personally acquiring resources for yourself (how you defined greed) on strict sense is not inherently evil, because we obviously need resources to live, but I think you're trying to use the meaning of greed as "taking resources to yourself in spite of others". On that case, I agree with you, except on cases of extreme necessity (eg, two people share a lifeboat that can only float with one person, and they are forced to kill each other to keep their lives). But greed's meaning isn't exclusive to this. The State clearly can't be greedy because, in theory, it exists to aid, and greed breaks its essential purpose.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure that you can argue that "altruism and pacifism are bad without moderation." Firstly, what does "moderation" mean? Introducing a qualifier like that allows you to flexibly modify what you mean, without making it clear when or how you have made such modifications. It becomes almost impossible to discuss, unless you make specifics, which I suspect you will find difficult to do, without making your argument circular.

Ok, I agree that "moderate" is far too ambiguous and ample. I can't draw a line, because of this. If I use any example, chances are it will border on the extremes instead of on "moderate" cases. I'll choose a meaning that isn't so strict, then: By moderate I mean "an action of a kind that escapes or avoids the extremes of said kind". It is easier to show the extremes than show what is in between since those are so clearly visible.

But then, this discussion would be silly, wouldn't it? Everything taken to the extreme is harmful. There are things that are harmful even when taken "moderately" - whatever this word means - but nothing escapes the harmfulness of the extremes.

Secondly, what would "immoderate" altruism or pacifism look like? The former sounds like "giving away so much that you fail to be able to uphold your future obligations."

That was not the intended meaning. It would be more like "giving away so much that you harm yourself in the proccess". Logically, if everyone needs resources to live, and I end up forfeiting many of those resources/necessities to help others in spite of myself, I am going to harm myself. How can this be moral or even reasonably acceptable in such cases? I think this shows straightforwardly why too much altruism is bad. This is how altruism can be negative.

The latter would seem to have its practical application as "refusing to prevent others from behaving violently because that would also require violence." Yet this is something that many people genuinely believe is the correct thing to do; that any act of violence damages the perpetrator even more than it damages the victim.

Uh.... that's right. I still do not understand what is wrong with it, and all you said was that people believe it is wrong as a way to refute my argument, which is... not a valid way to refute an argument. It does not matter what people believe or what is preached on ideological books.

I'll continue this later, when I'm on a better state of mind (I'm being bothered by other stuff right now, my bad. If this posts sounds too crappy and incomplete yet, well, you can wait until I complete it later).

[Skynstein]

Nature selects strongly against incest because it diminishes genetic diversity. So it would be bad?

I haven't studied genetics in a long time, but if each living being had some sort of "genetic lock" to prevent us from mixing with our kin, we would subconsciously but chemically and biologically reject it. However, there's also the moral element, but the immorality of incest is nothing more than a rational construct which stems from the observation of its negative biological consequences and does not mean you can't feel attracted to your kin. In fact, if you were trapped with your opposite gender siblings on an island with no hope of ever returning to civilization, it's possible you'd engage in sexual activity with them and have offspring since it's the only way your particular band of people would be able to survive, even if not ideal since incestuous offsprings have a high chance of being plain inferior.

[eclipse]

So is violence, yet we see no problem with instructing others to curb their violent tendencies--and punishing them when they fail to do so. What makes greed different?

Also, be very careful of committing a fallacious appeal to nature. Just because a behavior is found in nature, does not make it automatically good. Similarly, just because a behavior is not found in nature, that doesn't make it bad. Incest occurs, quite frequently, in nature (particularly among our close genetic relatives, the bonobos), but I doubt that would be an acceptable reason for humans to engage in it.

The hell?

I didn't say anything about greed being good or bad. Don't put words in my mouth.

[amiabletemplar]

That was some interesting food for thought, thanks.

My pleasure.

The way I see it, violence is a necessary evil for this kind of world. Since we live in a world where animals - and people - are willing to use violence against us, using violence - or merely bringing up the threat of violence - as a means of self-defense is our only option to avoid or counter (as in, apply just enough force to stop) aggressions done toward us. It is not always that issues can be solved peacefully, and most of the time they can be solved peacefully exactly because the means to violently coerce those who step out of line are available for use.

Part of my reason for bringing up the pacifism stuff is that there are arguments which deny the validity of your claim, here. You are making an existential claim--"there are acts for which the only effective solution is violence"--so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that is true. The complete pacifist says that that existence claim does not hold; since the claim has been questioned, the onus is on you (the one making the claim) to justify it.

As for greed, I'll use the same argument that you used toward me. We need a better, stricter definition of what we mean about greed. Personally acquiring resources for yourself (how you defined greed) on strict sense is not inherently evil, because we obviously need resources to live, but I think you're trying to use the meaning of greed as "taking resources to yourself in spite of others". On that case, I agree with you, except on cases of extreme necessity (eg, two people share a lifeboat that can only float with one person, and they are forced to kill each other to keep their lives). But greed's meaning isn't exclusive to this. The State clearly can't be greedy because, in theory, it exists to aid, and greed breaks its essential purpose.

Nothing wrong with pursuing a more rigorous definition. Let's grab a few, then, shall we? "Excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions" (Random House via Dictionary.com); "1. excessive consumption of or desire for food; gluttony. 2. excessive desire, as for wealth or power" (Collins English Dictionary, via Dictionary.com); "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed" (Merriam-Webster); "Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food" (OED). With all of these definitions, we see intensifiers that indicate an extreme: excessive, rapacious, intense. It would seem, then, that "greed" as generally used in English is inherently an extreme, harmful-to-others thing. If we instead wish to refer to something that is not extreme, and which does not carry the overt disregard of other beings, we may need to use a different term. Often, "enlightened self-interest" or "rational egoism" are the terms applied here--which would of course entail exactly the "limitation" you're asking for.

Ok, I agree that "moderate" is far too ambiguous and ample. I can't draw a line, because of this. If I use any example, chances are it will border on the extremes instead of on "moderate" cases. I'll choose a meaning that isn't so strict, then: By moderate I mean "an action of a kind that escapes or avoids the extremes of said kind". It is easier to show the extremes than show what is in between since those are so clearly visible.

But then, this discussion would be silly, wouldn't it? Everything taken to the extreme is harmful. There are things that are harmful even when taken "moderately" - whatever this word means - but nothing escapes the harmfulness of the extremes.

Aha, you have seen through my clever ruse! :P But yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say with the "without becoming circular" thing. "Moderate," as you've agreed, is too difficult to grasp directly, and focusing on the extreme simply leads to tautologies, to "bad behavior is bad," which helps us little. Hence why, above, I was quite willing to consider a new definition--if the problem has reached the point of all forms of analysis being ineffective, clearly we must re-consider the question.

That was not the intended meaning. It would be more like "giving away so much that you harm yourself in the proccess". Logically, if everyone needs resources to live, and I end up forfeiting many of those resources/necessities to help others in spite of myself, I am going to harm myself. How can this be moral or even reasonably acceptable in such cases? I think this shows straightforwardly why too much altruism is bad. This is how altruism can be negative.

But is that actually a problem? Soldiers, who put their lives on the line to see their homelands protected, are typically considered noble (when they are not seen as inflicting inappropriate violence!), yet that is arguably the highest form of self-sacrifice. If the association with violence is a problem, instead consider firefighters or paramedics: their job requires them to continually risk life and limb for complete strangers, and as a result they are typically seen as noble, heroic, etc. Yet this is, again, an example of the highest form of selflessness, of placing your very life on the line for a complete stranger, not merely once, but over and over again. "No greater love hath a man, than that he lay down his life for his brother"--and, in the Christian sense, we are ALL brothers!

Uh.... that's right. I still do not understand what is wrong with it, and all you said was that people believe it is wrong as a way to refute my argument, which is... not a valid way to refute an argument. It does not matter what people believe or what is preached on ideological books

.

You are correct that what I said does not refute your argument. However, when you are the one making a positive existence claim, such as "there are acts of greed [or whatever new word we wish to use] which are morally permissible" and "there are acts of altruism which are morally wrong," then if that claim is challenged or questioned, the burden lies on you to demonstrate that these claims do in fact bear out. In other words: I am calling you to task, to substantiate your unsubstantiated existence claims.

I'll continue this later, when I'm on a better state of mind (I'm being bothered by other stuff right now, my bad. If this posts sounds too crappy and incomplete yet, well, you can wait until I complete it later).

Understood. I don't think your post sounds crappy, but I do think that your arguments would benefit from further refinement--I just wanted to respond to the germs of good thought I saw in them. I hope that posting this doesn't come across as "kicking you when you're down"--you just made some good points, even if they were in an incompletely developed state, and I wanted to respond to them. That way, when you can come at this with a fresher mind, you can incorporate further refinement. Or that's my intent, anyway--and we both know what the road to Hell is paved with. :P

[Erdall]

When does desire become greed?

Desire is necessary for survival. If we had no desire we would not do anything and would shortly die. Greed is usually defined as a desire that has grown beyond keeping us alive and begun to impede the survival of others. Greed is usually considered a negative because it requires exploitation, theft, and other harmful acts. The person who experiences greed does not think they are a bad person, but most people, including psychologists, are likely to become the victims of greed. If there are two greedy people, they will see the other's greed as bad, but not their own.

Desire is 100% normal as natural, greed is the excess of any desire.

And excesses tends to usually lead to NO good behavior for anyone.

Accurate post imho by the way.

Theoretically, when you give so much that there is no longer enough for you. I don't know of any real life example of this happening, though.

Another quite big truth, no one could be pure enough to ask nothing in exchange of big sacrifices. Well, at least unless is getting what he or she thinks he needs.

Thinking of the usual example of Jesus Christ's last sacrifice ... I believe he was exemplifying the sense of humility by not fighting back against those who appeal through the abuse of power and even violence. Instead of rebelling against the powerful and the blind, raging people condemned him to death for so little, he chose to carry own his own sins (the big cross he drags on his back) and let the world, corrupted by only itself, see how wrong they could be.

What may I may mean to meant before, is just ... that one may need to be a little altruist for a better common good behavior among us. Giving our little best inside us is fairly enough. I'm pretty sure that can work for almost everyone.

The way I see it, violence is a necessary evil for this kind of world. Since we live in a world where animals - and people - are willing to use violence against us, using violence - or merely bringing up the threat of violence - as a means of self-defense is our only option to avoid or counter (as in, apply just enough force to stop) aggressions done toward us. It is not always that issues can be solved peacefully, and most of the time they can be solved peacefully exactly because the means to violently coerce those who step out of line are available for use.

Statement: more like a second needed evil force to appeal with. Is not worthy to look all times as a first and mostly-only available option. People tend to think in a similar way, not necessarily evil, twisted or even violently, but rather how they usually feel, and then bursting whatever they feel through many unnecessary speeches.

But I agree with the rest. Most things can be solved through peaceful terms, you know. A prepared mind is required, then a tempered, calmed heart is secondly but also very importantly needed. And third and finally step, you must act with all of that in mind about what I said before, with proper and hard practise.

Never avoiding feelings in their purest form (bursting rage, pure sadness, etc.), they can show anytime, but rather for stronger reasons. Anytime you feel very sad, you shall unleash that emotion just for once. It's sad how many people tend to keep these sort of emotions inside of them, clouding their own minds and even their hearts. With such excesses, is no wonder why some persons are not happy even with themselves at times.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Edrall