The myth called "Human Rights"

[The Galirandi]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

[Volnotov]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Do you believe this your self, because I honestly believe you are fooling your self right now...

[The Galirandi]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Do you believe this your self, because I honestly believe you are fooling your self right now...

Yes, why wouldn't I?

Apart from the fact that you've convinced yourself that it's impossible for human beings to think differently from you, of course.

[Volnotov]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Do you believe this your self, because I honestly believe you are fooling your self right now...

Yes, why wouldn't I?

Apart from the fact that you've convinced yourself that it's impossible for human beings to think differently from you, of course.

Did I say that? People like you wan't to make them self believe that they donate to chairty without thinking about there own feelings, desires and reason why they did it.

You are a human being, not a robot. You have feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts just like me.

[Treznor]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Do you believe this your self, because I honestly believe you are fooling your self right now...

If he is, then so are a lot of other people. Whether or not genuinely altruistic motives are real is less important than the fact that genuinely altruistic acts are real and happen every day around the world. Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism. Why these people do these things isn't something you can reasonably assume; everyone has their own personality with their own internal set of motivations. The best you can do is try to figure out why you would do it in their place.

[The Galirandi]

Did I say that? People like you wan't to make them self believe that they donate to chairty without thinking about there own feelings, desires and reason why they did it.

You are a human being, not a robot. You have feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts just like me.

Indeed. And where it comes to helping those who need it the possibility that I will suffer some kind of negative consequence -- or gain some sort of reward -- is unimportant. My feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts can be useful decision-making factors, but when they come into conflict with my instincts and morals, they are left by the wayside.

Do bear in mind that for several years I suffered from an illness that suppressed most of my feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts. I still helped others who needed it, gave to charities and so on. It didn't make me feel good or satisfied or dutiful or whatever. Indeed, I didn't feel anything much at all. But the altruistic instinct runs deeper than the conscious level on which reason and emotion exist. If you don't understand how that's possible, I'm a bit sorry for you.

[Volnotov]

Altruistic acts are those that are motivated by the intention to benefit others rather than yourself. Anything you get in return ("warm fuzzy feelings" or whatever) is purely secondary. I don't help others because it makes me feel good; I help others because it makes them feel good. Because they need help. My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Are you sure? Because I find it hard to believe you are actualy a human being...

And that's why your argument fails.

My own feelings, thoughts, or desires are immaterial.

Do you believe this your self, because I honestly believe you are fooling your self right now...

If he is, then so are a lot of other people. Whether or not genuinely altruistic motives are real is less important than the fact that genuinely altruistic acts are real and happen every day around the world. Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism. Why these people do these things isn't something you can reasonably assume; everyone has their own personality with their own internal set of motivations. The best you can do is try to figure out why you would do it in their place.

Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism.

Before saying that they did it because they believe they have too or because they can't live with someone dying when they could have done something, I provide you with the folowing question.

Provide to me, a list of motivations for a human being to do things that are a selfless with no concern for her or his own emotions, feelings, desires, selfinterests, ect...

Do bear in mind that for several years I suffered from an illness that suppressed most of my feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts. I still helped others who needed it, gave to charities and so on. It didn't make me feel good or satisfied or dutiful or whatever. Indeed, I didn't feel anything much at all. But the altruistic instinct runs deeper than the conscious level on which reason and emotion exist. If you don't understand how that's possible, I'm a bit sorry for you.

Congratz, you fall into the second category. Helping others because you believe you have to because of a certain ideology.

[Treznor]

Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism.

Before saying that they did it because they believe they have too or because they can't live with someone dying when they could have done something, I provide you with the folowing question.

Provide to me, a list of motivations for a human being to do things that are a selfless with no concern for her or his own emotions, feelings, desires, selfinterests, ect...

Why? What would it change? I get finished saying that the motivations are less important than the fact that the actions are real, and you demand a list of those motivations? The fact that people genuinely do things for other people with no apparently reward to themselves is sufficient for me to accept that my point is made. Unless you're prepared to claim those things don't really happen, in which case I'll be happy to Google it for you.

[Kamsaki]

Provide to me, a list of motivations for a human being to do things that are a selfless with no concern for her or his own emotions, feelings, desires, selfinterests, ect...

What you're getting at, I suppose, is that people risk their lives for apparently empathic causes with essentially selfish motives. I think I enter the burning house to save the family because they need my help, but actually I've been conditioned through selective reward to do actions of that thought, and subconsciously, I do it because I expect praise. Similarly, even though one would rationally receive no reward for doing something actually suicidal in praise of another, because we've been conditioned, we still subconsciously do it for the reward we think we deserve.

What this line of reasoning depends on, though, is Tabula Rasa. Maybe I haven't been conditioned to do some particular kind of behaviour; maybe it's just biologically innate, through evolutionary selection or some such mechanism. In which case, the ultimate explanation is not that I'm doing it for selfish motives, but that I'm doing it because of purely environmental factors. Even where I've been conditioned, for example, to rationally consider my choice to self-sacrifice, I might possess a purely biological disposition to throw myself in harm's way for my kid. Thus, I'm not doing it because of what I expect to get out of it, in fact actually opposing what I take to be my self-interest, but simply because that's what my physiology dictates.

[Kagetora]

Why are people always whining about their civil rights?

About their privacy, their right to have freedom of speech, their right to do whatever they wan't, the right to be treated ethical and humane, ect.

I believe it is time for this nonsense to end.

Ofcourse, right now you may think "Nonsense? Those are my god damn rights you fascist!"

Well, I have a question for you.

Who says you have those rights?

Who or what decides that?

Is it us Humans?

Well, I'll present the following question to you.

"If all the people on the world would stop believing there was gravity, would gravity cease to exist?"



Why am I posting such a silly question you may think, well the reason is that from my experience believe start to believe that human rights is a fundemental law of nature, just like gravity.

But I believe that is flawed.

I don't believe we have rights just because the media and politicians keep telling us that.

If we would all believe tomorow that the Earth is flat, then the Earth certainly wouldn't suddenly turn into a flat disk.

Human Rights don't exist, and they certainly not something like gravity or other laws of nature.

It's a thing made and invented by Human beings.

But where do these so called "Human rights" come from?

1 Word - Religion.

Think of the 10 commandments.

Or the Codex of Hammurabi in ancient mesopotamia.

And now, onto the question.

Who decides we have "rights"?

Well I would say - no one.

From this point of view I would say we have no rights, neither do we have duties.

Ofcourse, but now we live in a society.

And I believe that in order for a society to survive, and mankind in general we should make laws - to protect human from exploitation for example. And give people duties and responsibilities. Like paying your tax, going to work, don't kill other people, ect.

But I do not believe we have rights, and I can't understand how there are still those that believe believe we do - with, in my opinion having no proof whatsoever.

But ofcourse, believe what you will.

Because who says you are not allowed too?

Despite the weirdly formatted post, I think that who decides we have rights is... everyone, or close enough that the remainder is insignificant.

[The Old Anzian Natives]

All the best to you if you think we can progress without rights.

[Volnotov]

Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism.

Before saying that they did it because they believe they have too or because they can't live with someone dying when they could have done something, I provide you with the folowing question.

Provide to me, a list of motivations for a human being to do things that are a selfless with no concern for her or his own emotions, feelings, desires, selfinterests, ect...

Why? What would it change? I get finished saying that the motivations are less important than the fact that the actions are real, and you demand a list of those motivations? The fact that people genuinely do things for other people with no apparently reward to themselves is sufficient for me to accept that my point is made. Unless you're prepared to claim those things don't really happen, in which case I'll be happy to Google it for you.

Not wanting a reward for it doesn't automaticly mean you did not do it out of selfinterests.

But feel free to enlighten me, provide some google links and ill change my mind.

What this line of reasoning depends on, though, is Tabula Rasa. Maybe I haven't been conditioned to do some particular kind of behaviour; maybe it's just biologically innate, through evolutionary selection or some such mechanism. In which case, the ultimate explanation is not that I'm doing it for selfish motives, but that I'm doing it because of purely environmental factors. Even where I've been conditioned, for example, to rationally consider my choice to self-sacrifice, I might possess a purely biological disposition to throw myself in harm's way for my kid. Thus, I'm not doing it because of what I expect to get out of it, in fact actually opposing what I take to be my self-interest, but simply because that's what my physiology dictates.

As I said, second category: doing it because you believe you have too, are told you have too, or for biological/evolutionairy reasons(including physiology and psychology)

[Treznor]

Every time a parent or guardian sacrifices something for the sake of a child, that's an act of altruism. Whenever a volunteer fireman enters a burning building to save someone, that's an act of altruism.

Before saying that they did it because they believe they have too or because they can't live with someone dying when they could have done something, I provide you with the folowing question.

Provide to me, a list of motivations for a human being to do things that are a selfless with no concern for her or his own emotions, feelings, desires, selfinterests, ect...

Why? What would it change? I get finished saying that the motivations are less important than the fact that the actions are real, and you demand a list of those motivations? The fact that people genuinely do things for other people with no apparently reward to themselves is sufficient for me to accept that my point is made. Unless you're prepared to claim those things don't really happen, in which case I'll be happy to Google it for you.

Not wanting a reward for it doesn't automaticly mean you did not do it out of selfinterests.

The fact that people do things for no apparent reward doesn't mean they didn't do it out of self-interest? I'm willing to concede that there may be subconscious motivations people aren't aware of, even social conditioning that may prompt this behavior. But what does that matter? What's important is that these acts happen daily, all around the world. I don't see how motivation for it is even an issue.

But feel free to enlighten me, provide some google links and ill change my mind.

I'm not quite sure what you'd like me to google for you. The acts or the motivations? The acts I can do, but you seem adamant that you won't accept that anyone does anything without a purely selfish motive.

[Kamsaki]

As I said, second category: doing it because you believe you have too, are told you have too, or for biological/evolutionairy reasons(including physiology and psychology)

But such reasons aren't preclusive to entirely selfless action: They're about environmental selection, which might be explicitly harmful to the person doing them. The obvious example would be a "decoy" gene in herding animals - if the entire herd possessed it, much fewer would die due to predators, even though anyone acting on that impulse would be dead and gone.

To say that it's not altruistic because it's biological is to miss the inherently social nature of natural selection.

[The Galirandi]

Do bear in mind that for several years I suffered from an illness that suppressed most of my feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts. I still helped others who needed it, gave to charities and so on. It didn't make me feel good or satisfied or dutiful or whatever. Indeed, I didn't feel anything much at all. But the altruistic instinct runs deeper than the conscious level on which reason and emotion exist. If you don't understand how that's possible, I'm a bit sorry for you.

Congratz, you fall into the second category. Helping others because you believe you have to because of a certain ideology.

You didn't understand my post at all, did you?

Whatever. People living in fantasy worlds of their own creation is par for the course around here.

[Volnotov]

Do bear in mind that for several years I suffered from an illness that suppressed most of my feelings, desires, emotions, and thoughts. I still helped others who needed it, gave to charities and so on. It didn't make me feel good or satisfied or dutiful or whatever. Indeed, I didn't feel anything much at all. But the altruistic instinct runs deeper than the conscious level on which reason and emotion exist. If you don't understand how that's possible, I'm a bit sorry for you.

Congratz, you fall into the second category. Helping others because you believe you have to because of a certain ideology.

You didn't understand my post at all, did you?

Whatever. People living in fantasy worlds of their own creation is par for the course around here.

But the altruistic instinct runs deeper than the conscious level on which reason and emotion exist.

Inb4 neuroscience.

Really, I have no intention anymore whatsoever to tell you that altruism does not exist.

But feel free to fool your self.

[The Galirandi]

Really, I have no intention anymore whatsoever to tell you that altruism does not exist.

Huh. And yet you did tell us that altruism doesn't exist (although the only way you could justify it was by massive goalpost shifting in order to redefine all human behavior as "selfish"). So this whole debate was a waste of our time? Consistency, man! XD

[Volnotov]

Really, I have no intention anymore whatsoever to tell you that altruism does not exist.

Huh. And yet you did tell us that altruism doesn't exist (although the only way you could justify it was by massive goalpost shifting in order to redefine all human behavior as "selfish"). So this whole debate was a waste of our time? Consistency, man! XD

I have posted over a dozen posts giving arguments about why altruism doesn't exist and that the human being is selfish.

You believe that people do things without caring about themselfs, their feelings, their beliefs, who they are, the consequences it may have on them, their emotions and their interests.

Maybe that would be true if would all be senseless and feelingless robots. But I oppose that, for obvious reasons. Have you ever helped another person in your life without caring about yourself, your feelings, your beliefs, the reason why, the consequences, your emotions and personal interests? Have you ever been a thoughtless, feelingless and emotionless robot?

[The Galirandi]

You believe that people do things without caring about themselfs, their feelings, their beliefs, who they are, the consequences it may have on them, their emotions and their interests.

Not quite. I believe that people do things with the primary motivation of helping others. Their own feelings, beliefs, etc etc are all secondary to this. This opinion is based primarily on personal experience (my family is like that, and I wouldn't be alive right now without the un-self-interested kindness of others).

Maybe that would be true if would all be senseless and feelingless robots.

Um, "making decisions based on factors other than feelings/emotions/thoughts" does not mean "lacking feelings/emotions/thoughts altogether." This wouldn't seem to me to be an exceptionally difficult concept to grasp.

But I oppose that, for obvious reasons. Have you ever helped another person in your life without caring about yourself, your feelings, your beliefs, the reason why, the consequences, your emotions and personal interests?

Yes. My feelings, beliefs, personal interests, etc -- when they came into play at all -- were rationalised after the fact. The actions themselves were instinctive.

Have you ever been a thoughtless, feelingless and emotionless robot?

Yes, but fortunately it cleared up on its own and I'm now (almost) fully functional again. That's one place I don't want to go back to.

[Volnotov]

Not quite. I believe that people do things with the primary motivation of helping others. Their own feelings, beliefs, etc etc are all secondary to this. This opinion is based primarily on personal experience (my family is like that, and I wouldn't be alive right now without the un-self-interested kindness of others).

I believe it is the other way around, people's own feelings and beliefs come first, after that comes the motivation to help others(wich was due to their beliefs/feelings). Or ofcourse, you imply people do it out of instinct.

Um, "making decisions based on factors other than feelings/emotions/thoughts" does not mean "lacking feelings/emotions/thoughts altogether." This wouldn't seem to me to be an exceptionally difficult concept to grasp.

Elaborate. Let's say there are 3 motivations for people to do things, feelings, thoughts(beliefs/ideology) and instinct. Are there more motivations besides that?

Yes. My feelings, beliefs, personal interests, etc -- when they came into play at all -- were rationalised after the fact. The actions themselves were instinctive.

Hmm, interesting. THis got me thinking and has now resulted in me changing my opinion.

Yes, but fortunately it cleared up on its own and I'm now (almost) fully functional again. That's one place I don't want to go back to.

So what you are basicly saying is that what you did for others what truely instinctive? Without thought, feeling or emotion?

Thus in the end we have 3 motivations, thought(belief and ideology), feeling and instinct.

If instinct is absend of thought and feeling then I believe altruism is possible. But only when not thinking about it and not feeling anything about it. And now that I have come to think of it, I must somewhat agree with you, but I would still like to investigate this further.

I believe we have come to an agreement, now I ask my self the question. What is the motivation of this instinct? Greater good? Personal gain, again? Or something else.

Let's discuss this further.

[The Galirandi]

Not quite. I believe that people do things with the primary motivation of helping others. Their own feelings, beliefs, etc etc are all secondary to this. This opinion is based primarily on personal experience (my family is like that, and I wouldn't be alive right now without the un-self-interested kindness of others).

I believe it is the other way around, people's own feelings and beliefs come first, after that comes the motivation to help others(wich was due to their beliefs/feelings). Or ofcourse, you imply people do it out of instinct.

It depends on the person. A selfish person (one who puts their own desires and needs before anyone else's) can still perform altruistic actions (if their own desire, need, emotion etc requires that they help others without seeking any reward), as you've described. Then of course there are altruistic people, who put the desires and needs of others before their own. These people might derive their thoughts, beliefs, etc from this basic altruistic personality; or they may have made a conscious choice to be altruistic based on their thoughts and beliefs; or there could be many other possible reasons.

Um, "making decisions based on factors other than feelings/emotions/thoughts" does not mean "lacking feelings/emotions/thoughts altogether." This wouldn't seem to me to be an exceptionally difficult concept to grasp.

Elaborate. Let's say there are 3 motivations for people to do things, feelings, thoughts(beliefs/ideology) and instinct. Are there more motivations besides that?

Undoubtedly. But to find out, you'd have to ask everyone who does altruistic things. I know only my own reasons for actions. I don't know why, for instance, a doctor we barely knew, in a foreign country, chose to save my life without asking for or expecting monetary compensation in return.

Yes. My feelings, beliefs, personal interests, etc -- when they came into play at all -- were rationalised after the fact. The actions themselves were instinctive.

Hmm, interesting. THis got me thinking and has now resulted in me changing my opinion.

You may be the first one on NSG to do so. Congratulations. :P

Yes, but fortunately it cleared up on its own and I'm now (almost) fully functional again. That's one place I don't want to go back to.

So what you are basicly saying is that what you did for others what truely instinctive? Without thought, feeling or emotion?

Well, being devoid of thought, feeling, and emotion was a result of major depression. But yeah. A sort of altruistic instinct seems to run in the family.

Thus in the end we have 3 motivations, thought(belief and ideology), feeling and instinct.

If instinct is absend of thought and feeling then I believe altruism is possible. But only when not thinking about it and not feeling anything about it. And now that I have come to think of it, I must somewhat agree with you, but I would still like to investigate this further.

I believe we have come to an agreement, now I ask my self the question. What is the motivation of this instinct? Greater good? Personal gain, again? Or something else.

The motivation of this instinct? I'm not sure. Being an instinct, it's largely subconscious. I suspect it's tied to our sense of self-worth in some way, since when my self-esteem and self-confidence are high I notice and understand other people better and therefore am more likely to help them, but that's the correlation-not-causation fallacy speaking. (It doesn't appear to be the case that doing a compassionate act causes an increase in self-esteem. If anything, when I'm in a depressive mood, it often makes me feel worse.) I do know that my biggest failure -- something I'm trying to remedy -- is that I just don't pay much attention to people most of the time, and therefore miss opportunities to help them. I also know that my altruism instinct often comes into conflict with my self-preservation instinct; which one "wins" again depends on my level of self-esteem.

Anyways, dinner.

[Whole Conviction]

1. I am not, I did not change the definition. I merely took a definition provided by wikipedia and left it unaltered. Many people have even agreed on that definition in this thread.

Meh, meh, meh. Much of the rest of the post is reiterations of things already said. Repeating it doesn't make it true. I still think our main point of conflict is the definition. So let's discuss it further.

In fact, let's turn it on its head. Here's a definition of selfishness:

[urlhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/selfish]=selfish[/url]

1. Holding one’s self-interest as the standard for decision making.
2. Having regard for oneself above others’ well-being.

Many of the acts you describe as 'selfish' fail both these tests. While selfish emotional feedback was a component, it isn't always the primary driver, and a lot of people have regard for others over the self.

So what exists between your definition of altruism and real selfishness? We'd need to invent a new word.

As it happens, we have one; and its common usage includes exactly these sort of fuzzy areas. That word is.... 'altruism'. In fact, let's look at other definitions of altruism. From wiktionary:

Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.

Nothing there about it being 100%. Nothing there to suggest that any single instance of self-benefit from an act renders it 'not altruistic'. I noticed you quoted your previous definition from wikipedia, not a dictionary. After stating the definitions you mentioned, it then goes on to record many examples of altruism. It also says that altruism is a subject of philosophical discussion, but gives only one definition. Huh. Might be a violation of neutral-point-of-view.

Regardless, my point is threefold. One, people generally don't need altruistic acts to be 100% selfless in order to describe them as altruistic. Second, if we accept your definition of altruism, it creates a nonsense where we have acts that are neither altruistic nor selfish. Third, your view of human nature is pretty skewed and negative.

Nice try by attempting to assert a single definition of altruism. I almost didn't look it up myself. But then I did.

[Rolamec]

So what exactly is your point?

Human rights, like social contracts, aren't "natural" but artificially created. No one individual has "...inalienable rights..." or rights that exist across all cultures and countries. Aside from attractive rhetoric, the OP makes a good point, "human rights" are a social myth.

[Betoni]

Thus I ask my self the question,

Is altruism possible?

Do not worry young padawan, you will get there eventually. A true cynic would understand that the average human does not have the mental capability to predict the outcomes of their actions be they "rewards" or not. After all, impulse is the most likely motivation for any action we take.

[Rhodmhire]

Well, no fucking shit we created it, we gave the concept a name and actually figured out what the hell it was after we got keen. Maybe you wouldn't say we "created" it, but did we "create" time? Technically we just constructed a (mostly) accurate system of telling time based off of recurring patterns of celestial bodies and, in more ancient contexts, terrestrial occurrences.

We may not be endowed by some Santa in the sky, but just because it's not inherent, perhaps, it's a "myth?"

What exactly are you trying to say?