DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Rapiddude** · 09-22-2012, 03:29 AM

Hey if I may interject, something that i believe is under-explained and is important, maybe not to you but important to me at least, which is the occurrence of altruism which is just mentioned briefly. Anyway I believe altruism falls under morality, and is therefore relevant. The question that I wanna ask is why does it exists at all?

First of all I must say I agree with the group survival thing. In the sense that whatever benefits the group prevails. But I really cannot imagine how charity is the group any good at all? What sense is there in sparing an adversary? Or giving resources (food, clothing, etc) to the sick for example. If i remember correctly, natural selection and genetics were brought up earlier. All the more reason it doesn't make sense. The weak should be allowed to die (pls, this is NOT my personal opinion) but oftentimes we spend a lot of time and resources on the sick. In fact it is morally wrong to NOT care for the sick and dying. Sick And dying can in fact demand even more stuff and rights than a healthy person-can, by virtue of their illness and impending death? Doesn't make sense.

Actually you picked very marginal examples. Altruism is very valid and most of all it works for the smallest unit group like family. It is very important that your genes survive there fore your family must survive, kids and even wife who will help you in this task. Generally we care for our families more than for our larger groups like tribes or nations.
It is, and was, very important to care for our wounded warriors. We didn't leave them dying in the battle fields, but mended injuries and carried them home. Today, as in the past, to produce a warrior takes years of investments and training. It was very important to save as many as tribe could. A little bit of caring for wounded could save a tribe in a future.
Other example of essential altruism could be sharing with all tribe or effected families in case of major natural disaster like fires, drought, floods.
If it comes to poor or sick unessential people in a tribe, they were always the last to be helped. The resources were much more limited in the past than today. They usually didn't live long. Today though, we live in rich times and we can spare plenty even for the least unfortunate once. Surely it doesn't make sense from evolutionary/survival point of view, but we have so much to give these days, so it goes.
Altruism must have been human condition for so long that we are wired to feel pleasure when we share, give gifts, or help others.

When it comes to charity, often "group" doesn't matter. Heck even species doesn't matter. We would feed a hungry cat. Cats have no place in group survival. Or ferrets. Although it's plainly obvious that while cats feed their young, they will NOT feed other cats. Or starving humans for that matter.So I must say altruism is a very human condition. Again, in today's times we have so much that we simply indulge in pleasure of giving and sharing. Our altruism is being spilled out even on none humans. We have pets just for our fun, and they don't need to work anymore; pool sleds ,hunt, kill mice, plow fields, etc. Especially women, not having many kids or any, have to find some other helpless, defenseless, cute creature (infant like) to care for and love.
One can conclude that in western world we tuned the world a bit upside down. Interesting times of big social experiments. Future will tell if we took a wise path.

I'm pretty sure that you can find at least rudimentary altruism in all primates.

If your theory is correct, then it means that altruism is essential for group survival. And defies natural selection. I mean the fittest won't need your help don't they? So how is it essential? I hope I made my case well.

09-22-2012, 03:29 AM	#20
Rapiddude Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 314 Senior Member	Hey if I may interject, something that i believe is under-explained and is important, maybe not to you but important to me at least, which is the occurrence of altruism which is just mentioned briefly. Anyway I believe altruism falls under morality, and is therefore relevant. The question that I wanna ask is why does it exists at all? First of all I must say I agree with the group survival thing. In the sense that whatever benefits the group prevails. But I really cannot imagine how charity is the group any good at all? What sense is there in sparing an adversary? Or giving resources (food, clothing, etc) to the sick for example. If i remember correctly, natural selection and genetics were brought up earlier. All the more reason it doesn't make sense. The weak should be allowed to die (pls, this is NOT my personal opinion) but oftentimes we spend a lot of time and resources on the sick. In fact it is morally wrong to NOT care for the sick and dying. Sick And dying can in fact demand even more stuff and rights than a healthy person-can, by virtue of their illness and impending death? Doesn't make sense. Actually you picked very marginal examples. Altruism is very valid and most of all it works for the smallest unit group like family. It is very important that your genes survive there fore your family must survive, kids and even wife who will help you in this task. Generally we care for our families more than for our larger groups like tribes or nations. It is, and was, very important to care for our wounded warriors. We didn't leave them dying in the battle fields, but mended injuries and carried them home. Today, as in the past, to produce a warrior takes years of investments and training. It was very important to save as many as tribe could. A little bit of caring for wounded could save a tribe in a future. Other example of essential altruism could be sharing with all tribe or effected families in case of major natural disaster like fires, drought, floods. If it comes to poor or sick unessential people in a tribe, they were always the last to be helped. The resources were much more limited in the past than today. They usually didn't live long. Today though, we live in rich times and we can spare plenty even for the least unfortunate once. Surely it doesn't make sense from evolutionary/survival point of view, but we have so much to give these days, so it goes. Altruism must have been human condition for so long that we are wired to feel pleasure when we share, give gifts, or help others. When it comes to charity, often "group" doesn't matter. Heck even species doesn't matter. We would feed a hungry cat. Cats have no place in group survival. Or ferrets. Although it's plainly obvious that while cats feed their young, they will NOT feed other cats. Or starving humans for that matter.So I must say altruism is a very human condition. Again, in today's times we have so much that we simply indulge in pleasure of giving and sharing. Our altruism is being spilled out even on none humans. We have pets just for our fun, and they don't need to work anymore; pool sleds ,hunt, kill mice, plow fields, etc. Especially women, not having many kids or any, have to find some other helpless, defenseless, cute creature (infant like) to care for and love. One can conclude that in western world we tuned the world a bit upside down. Interesting times of big social experiments. Future will tell if we took a wise path. I'm pretty sure that you can find at least rudimentary altruism in all primates. If your theory is correct, then it means that altruism is essential for group survival. And defies natural selection. I mean the fittest won't need your help don't they? So how is it essential? I hope I made my case well.
	Quote