Talk:Altruism (ethics)

message: Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that it is virtuous to treat others more important than oneself is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed in the idea that others have a higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and creativity.  For Nietzsche altruistic love was fabricated by the weak for the weak. It masks self-poisoning resentment about individual and collective powerlessness. Critics like Roderick Hindery respond that Nietzsche's own assumptions about domination by self-interest and the "will to power" are gratuitous and ideological.
Where does Robert C. Solomon's (1995) "A Passion for Justice" talk about Nietzsche's  "'duty' to help those who are weaker than oneself?"
(I did not read all of the book) Adamaero (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the doctrine

message: Does anyone know why this article is completely separate to the mainaltruism articl?e 1Z (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel like merging it with altruism, then that's in accord with my sentiment too. The reason why they're separate seems unclear to me. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all. Just so everyone is aware. There is a relevant merger discussion over on the Alturism talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article 

message: It should be clear that Ayn Rand provided an extremely deviant definition of "altruism", obviously in order to obstruct the ordinary definition. Very typical for political "philosophers" (imagine a tone of deep disgust here). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already dealt with. Forget it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayn Rand

message: IP 70.251.86.121, believing Wikipedia is his private scribble board, here added:
:Finally, one argument is strictly logical. If person A acts in B's interests, and B acts in A's interests, who will be the final recipient of their generosity? While altruism can be seen as a virtue, it by itself cannot settle matters of fairness. An alternative to pure alturisn is impartiality, exemplified by the Golden Rule.
No, the argument is not logical. It's stupid, ridiculous, off-topic, WP:OR, nonsense and pure shit. Need I say, I just removed it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Street preacher's sermon removed

message: This is a poor article because there is a list of quotes from particular individuals without any attempt to show how one opinion influenced another or why any particular author is especially worth listening to on the matter.  It needs a lot of work.  I agree that it would make sense to merge it with the main article.  Deipnosophista (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: It seems odd that Rand's views are presented here by David Kelley, given her importance as critic of altruism. Could someone find a good Rand source where she states her views?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.9.228 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Kelley? 

message: The passage following the seventh reference blatantly promotes the logically controversial idea that if everyone were altruists, the amount of unhappiness would rise. Set aside the logical controversy of this notion, the self-righteous manner in which it is put forth is more than annoying. This in addition to the fact that the segment neither presents any citation nor provides any example of the "many utilitarians" who supposedly agree with the idea seems to be more than enough to have it removed from the article altogether. If any native English speaker could write a more balanced opposition to the foregoing notion that any true utilitarian need be a self-sacrificing altruist, I think that would be a great improvement. Surely, a somewhat inconsistent altruistic moral agent would achieve higher utilitarian virtue than a self-proclaimed utilitarian individualist. Much of this article does indeed smell of objectivist propaganda. Forsmqn (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Forsmqn. I largely agree and the section has had a "citation needed" tag for over a year now. I am going ahead with a removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: As consequentialist ethics