   Presentation/debate on altruism
  I'm going to present altruism to my classhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltruismMy task is to give a good presentation and try to convince my class that what I'm saying is true.Would really appreciate any comments/suggestions et.c.-----I think that the world would be a much better place if people tried to think less of themselves and more of others. For example; if I see a mother on the buss with a child-carrier/wagon/thingy I usually help her get it off the bus. It doesn't take me much time but often makes the mother happy.Of couse; like all animals man kinds egoism is deeply rooted, I won't deny that, but I think that it is the root of 90% of all suffering and therefore should be targeted when trying to make a better world.You don't have to be a mother Theresa who's lifelong task is to save the world: by just trying to live by the motto "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself" you make the world a little better. No one is a complete altruist; everyone thinks of themselves at least sometimes, but as long as you TRY to be a nice person it won't matter. No-one is going to die if you won't hold the door open for the next guy a morning when you are in a hurry.And it won't matter if you never reach the goal; you will do much good on the way and that is what matters.   
  So you're trying to convince them that Altruism is a good thing? Well duh, but the point is many people are too selfish. It's a shame how all the good ideas are spoilt by the people they would benefit - like communism for another example.What are your reasons for being Altruistic though?1)To make the world better? This relies on you being altruistic and wanting the world to be a better place.2)Because your conscience prompts you to? You can't tell people how to feel.3)Becasue you are trying to obey God's will? This works but I doubt you'll bring it into your presentation...   ;Quote:Original post by BBBI think that the world would be a much better place if people tried to think less of themselves and more of others.the problems is that people dont care what you think.any idea that is based on 'i think people should be more like x' (where 'x' is usually meant as 'me') without a plan to somehow mold them to your will, is wishfull thinking.altruism doesnt exist in nature. its an artificial construct. you might not see the direct benefit to yourself of helping a woman get her child out of the bus, but it is quite obvious. societies where indiviuals are willing to sacrifice a little to help other relatively much do better. i help woman get their child out of the train, but no way in hell would i classify myself as an altruist. thats more national-socialism than anything else.   ;  Of course altruism exists, just nobody is altruistic all the time. I don't think you can justify it as some sort of social-evolutionary construct.If I give to those with AIDS or something (to care for them not to cure them) then how does that benefit our race? Or giving food to 'useless' people who would otherwsie die - that means the 'useless' genes are given more chance tospread since those people have more chance to breed.   ;  Cooperation plays as big a role in survival as competition, it may even play a bigger role than we realize. For example, there are many symbiotic relationships found in nature. More to the point of human beings, consider the extreme length of time it takes us to reach adulthood. Without cooperation between individuals in regard to raising children, it's doubtful that we would be here today. This probably applies to other primates as well. My suggestion is to focus on the small interactions rather than the gigantic ones. For example, the sharing of food with strangers. Many traditional cultures make hospitality a priority, you can probably find plenty of examples. Along these lines also consider births, weddings and funerals and other activities that bridge the gap between individuals and communities. Also consider simple actions like giving directions or giving someone the time. And also consider the interactions between travelers. With a little bit of thought, you shouldn't have too much trouble thinking up examples of simple human decency.   ;Quote:Original post by d000hgOf course altruism exists, just nobody is altruistic all the time. I don't think you can justify it as some sort of social-evolutionary construct.If I give to those with AIDS or something (to care for them not to cure them) then how does that benefit our race? Or giving food to 'useless' people who would otherwsie die - that means the 'useless' genes are given more chance tospread since those people have more chance to breed.nothing but an (insignificant) irrational outlet of your social tendencies, which, while rationally explainable, do not work through the rational part of our brain.if you wish to call that altruism, go ahead. i do suppose it fits the definition.   ;  A lot of people seem to think that this behavior comes from unselfish reasoning. I believe it is exactly the opposite. You're only going to truely care about other people once you care enough about yourself. The more you appreciate your own life, the harder it is to ruin another life.Cruel individuals are unhappy. They don't cause suffering to bring others down to their level. They do it because they can't appreciate the effect it causes. They don't clearly see what they're taking away from the victim.   ;  You could do it from an economic perspective. By showing that altruism provides a net benefit to society (in moderation, obviously -- too much altruism and you won't have enough resources for yourself), opponents may have to challenge the underlying economic principles to weaken your argument, which is a very difficult task considering how entrenched a discipline it is.In the way of proof, you could point to the existence of apparently altruistic acts in a largely capitalist, mostly-free-market environment (e.g. Western civilization). Corporations donate untold billions of profit each year that would otherwise be demanded by their shareholders, yet shareholders typically raise no objections. This suggests a tacit approval of these altruistic acts; presumably shareholders would not want the corporation undertaking activities that were not ultimately beneficial to it.There are plenty of other purely economic examples as well. For instance, in your example about helping the woman off the bus, you exchange a few seconds of your time for an increased level of happiness in the elderly woman. In this sense, altruism could be considered an investment in society of sorts; we "bank" a few favors and good deeds by being nice to each other, and then when we're in need ourselves we ask for help in return.   ;  Whatever argument you will give, i think you should avoid equating 'egoism' with the pursuit of one's interests. That way, altruism is very quickly associated with the opposition of one's own interest, and the whole matter is presented as a choice between your wishes and those of others, in which case altruism becomes very unattractive. Furthermore, why would your interests suddenly be of less value, just because they happen to be your interests? You know most about them, you 'owe' it to yourself to advance them, that's not egoism.Egoism should better be presented as the willingness to sacrifice other people's interest to satisfy one's own in a disproportional way, and / or the willful neglect of other people.An even better argument would be to take the antagonism between the terms further out, and present ways in which people actually want to behave in an altruistic manner.I would say it's not only or even mostly 'deep rooted egoism' that causes suffering, but the general incompetence and difficulty to live your live to your potential in a satisfying way, for succeeding at that usually involves increasing other people's happiness as well. ([caution] I might have been reading too much Aristotle though, since this sounds so optimistic...eh damn Greeks messed with my mind) For the people who like evolutionary theory one could point out how 'survival of the fittest' is best seen as survival of the best adapted, which usually involves cooperation because man is a social being by nature. Of course, these are just my 2 cents.   ;Quote:Original post by DeadXorAliveFor the people who like evolutionary theory one could point out how 'survival of the fittest' is best seen as survival of the best adapted, which usually involves cooperation because man is a social being by nature. certainly man is a social being by nature, and for good reasons. but selectively so, for good reasons aswell.as i said earlier, most examples of supposed 'altruism' people bring up, remind me more of national socialism. like you and me, our old pal adolf (forgive me godwin) would have given away his seat on the bus for an elderly woman. like you and me, he didnt care all that much about much more severe things than having to stand in the bus happening to people that he wasnt involved with.[Edited by - Eelco on December 1, 2005 7:29:13 AM]