From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:42:04 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

altruism: *unselfish* regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.

I'll come back to the bi/relationship relevance after I've answered a few
points which have been made so far.

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>Maybe it's silly of
>>>me, but I do not like seeing bad ideas spread around with no one
>>>objecting to them.
>>I think the only person spreading this particular bad idea around is
>>you (Muffy), I'm afraid.
>Really?  I'm amazed.  I could have sworn that it existed before I was
>born, and that it is prevalent all over the world, even though I have
>hardly ever left the continent I was born on.

I meant "on this group", and I thought that would be blindingly obvious,
but obviously I was mistaken. I apologise for the confusion.

>>>>>what I *also* do not believe is in sheer altruism -
>>>>>getting all your pleasure indirectly, by causing pleasure to others.
>>Well, if you don't believe in altruism, you won't believe that it's in some
>>people's nature. But it is; not everyone is wholly selfish. I, and people
>>like me, can never be happy by being selfish or self-centred, and can only
>>be at peace by giving.
>
>This is interesting.  It seems that you are saying that we have the
>choice of either being "altruistic" or being "selfish."  Is there
>nothing in between?  I certainly think that there is, and that a nice
>balance of being concerned about yourself and being concerned about
>other people is much better for people than either of these extremes
>that you seem to be saying are the only options.

No, I never said that. It's a continuum, of course. And of course it's
healthy to find a balance between being concerned about yourself and
concerned about others. But last week you were saying it was harmful
to be concerned about others at all.

>>So you think altruism should never be attempted?
>Yes.

So you think people should stay at the selfishness end of the spectrum? I
thought you said people should find a balance, surely that involves trying
to be more altruistic, less selfish?

>>You never help people, or only if you think you will gain something yourself?
>Yes.

Ugh.

>I wish that people would realize that it is impossible to do
>anything to improve the world without benefitting themselves by doing
>so.

So altruism is actually impossible, I see.

>  I wish that people cared about other people enough that they
>realized that they would always be happier by making someone else
>happier.
>
>Instead, we have people preaching "altruism."  The basis of altruism is
>that you *can* do things which are good for other people but not good
>for you and that you *should* do those things, because it somehow makes
>you a better person.

It does, in my book.

>  Well, I believe that it is *possible* to do
>something which is good for someone else but not for you,

You just said "it is impossible to do anything to improve the world without
benefitting themselves by doing so". Now you say it is possible. You seem
confused.

> but that all
>instances of such things are destructive to the person doing them.  As
>for the non-destructive things, people do them and then, rather than
>feeling good because they now live in a slightly better world, they get
>all self-satisfied and smug because they are so self-sacrificing.

NOT TRUE and I resent being called self-satisfied and smug.

>  This
>blinds them to the fact that they have just done something good for
>*themselves*, because they are told so often that they *shouldn't* be
>thinking of themselves, or doing good for themselves, because that is
>(*shudder*) SELFISH.

I have some difficulty parsing that sentence. I know I'm not told often
that I shouldn't think of myself; the cult of the self seems all too
prevalent in this society.

>Yes, I'm selfish.  I was selfish when I sat in the mud and held a beaten
>and bloody woman's head in my lap for an hour until the ambulance and
>police showed up.  I never got the mud, grass, and blood stains out of
>the white pants I was wearing at the time, but I did something to make
>the world more like the place I want to live in.

Well, I would have done the same thing for unselfish reasons (improving
the life of the woman, not the world) but at least the result is the same.

>>I just view it as expressing my distaste at your moralistic-sounding
>>disapproval
>I have certainly not
>been discussing the moral issues involved.  I have been talking about
>whether or not it is beneficial to someone to do something, not whether
>or not it is morally right.  As far as I'm concerned, if people wish to
>be self-destructive, that is up to them, morally speaking.

I'm glad to hear it, that's certainly not how it sounded to me.

This thread was originally about relationships. I think the best way to
conduct relationships (at least, for me) is to be unselfish and giving.
If the other person is unselfish and giving back, everything is fine. I
don't see what's so destructive about that. Doesn't anyone else conduct
their relationships this way?


//jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
Newsgroups: soc.bi