Is "If" still relevant to today's world?

[niky]

That's the thing. If you get satisfaction out of doing something for the benefit of others, does that automatically mean it's not altruism? Ergo... if you think altruism is a good thing, then, you cannot truly exercise it? Smacks of semantics. As in... if you find pleasure in suffering, then you cannot truly suffer. It's turtles all the way down, man. I treat it like I treat consciousness. Who cares how illusory it is... if it looks like it and feels like it, work within the model.

 

[Danoff]

If that's how you want to define it, you're on an arbitrary slope.

What level of personal reward is acceptable to still be called altruistic? Personal satisfaction? Recognition? Fame? Money? Power? Where exactly do you draw the line and why? Altruism is about living for others - and human beings are incapable of that.

I think that the only thing that comes close is self-sacrifice for love. Perhaps a parent and child or husband and wife. But that doesn't make you an altruistic person, and it's not really what we're talking about.

 

[niky]

I agree it's arbitrary, but I'd draw the line at self-satisfaction. Because even if you don't get self-satisfaction from committing the the act itself, you will get self-satisfaction from the fact that you've adhered to some rigid moral or ethical code that you've set for yourself that tells you that performing the act is something you should do, even if you didn't particularly want to do it.

In the end, there is always some degree of self-satisfaction in doing anything that you voluntarily do, so I don't believe that this can be used to define an act as selfish or altruistic.

 

[Vegard]

Altruism is about living for others - and human beings are incapable of that.

Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
—Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)—

 

[Danoff]

I agree it's arbitrary, but I'd draw the line at self-satisfaction. Because even if you don't get self-satisfaction from committing the the act itself, you will get self-satisfaction from the fact that you've adhered to some rigid moral or ethical code that you've set for yourself that tells you that performing the act is something you should do, even if you didn't particularly want to do it.

In the end, there is always some degree of self-satisfaction in doing anything that you voluntarily do, so I don't believe that this can be used to define an act as selfish or altruistic.

Like you said, arbitrary.

Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
—Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)—

Albert Einstein was a pretty smart physicist. Not sure why he's qualified to weigh in here.

 

[niky]

Of course, by defining anything that causes self-satisfaction at any level as selfish, you deny the existence of altruism altogether.

You need to make room in a social model for it to exist, otherwise, you have nothing with which to label altruistic acts.

 

[Danoff]

Of course, by defining anything that causes self-satisfaction at any level as selfish, you deny the existence of altruism altogether.

You need to make room in a social model for it to exist, otherwise, you have nothing with which to label altruistic acts.

I would label them as altruistic acts, and not label the person as altruistic. Again I'm willing to admit that individuals are capable of altruism on occasion, I just don't think human beings have the capacity to live their entire lives that way. Certainly nobody who has ever existed that I know of fits that description.

Not only that, but I think an altruistic person would be a very unhealthy person - someone who has exactly zero self-respect.

 

[eran0004]

I got into a bit of a debate with a guy at work today.

I had mentioned something about Rudyard Kipling's "If" and implied that is was a sage and timeless mantra to adhere to, to conduct oneself generally in life. This other guy was of the opinion that "If" was for wet blanket/ sissy types and had no relevance in todays 'day and age' and it is outmoded and old fashioned.

So what of it then? For those less read, "If" is quoted below:

It's written for a certain time, for a certain class (upper, anyone?) and for a certain gender (male), and it portrays an ideal rather than a description of a man.

At that time, females were considered emotional, irrational, hysteric, contrasting the gentleman properties of remaining calm and rational in all situaitons. If we look at the modern world, most of those ideas are gone and replaced by others, some better, some worse. What Kipling describes in the poem would still be relevant as general treats (in some environments at least), but it's no longer relevant to describe them as being male treats. Because the ideals of men and women has changed, and because today it's not only men who can be in the position (the "If") that the poem depicts.

Edit: Another thing that's outdated is the media. Today, a similar message would probably be communicated through a song, or a youtube video of a celebrity having an "awesome speech" or something like that.

 

[Pupik]

In the end, there is always some degree of self-satisfaction in doing anything that you voluntarily do, so I don't believe that this can be used to define an act as selfish or altruistic.

^ This.

Edit: Another thing that's outdated is the media. Today, a similar message would probably be communicated through a song, or a youtube video of a celebrity having an "awesome speech" or something like that.

Repost if you like If. Don't repost if you're a heartless scumbag.

And that's why; those with too much time on their hands are hopscotching onto the next thing 10 seconds later.