[roydivision]

Definition of altruism - "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."

To be clear - I'm not at all against doing good things for others and getting recognition for it, there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not altruism.

[gravescale]

At the very least altruism brings some kind of positive feeling, be it personal happiness to see others benefit or some feeling of social or even religious duty fulfilled, even if completely privately and never mentioned to another living soul. I don't think any altruism can be said to be utterly without some kind of benefit to the altruist.

[roydivision]

Personally I don't think pure altruism even exists, per the definition. Actively and knowingly doing something good for someone else for absolutely no personal benefit is impossible. This is to all intents and purposes a contradiction.

[seabass-labrax]

I disagree with you, but it would probably be an impossibility for me to prove it! Why? Well, as soon as a truly altruistic act is observed by third-parties, there's a chance the actor could be rewarded for it (for instance, by being honoured by society). Then, we would have at least the ability to claim that the actor was doing it for the chance of a reward, rather than purely selflessly. Thus, truly altruistic acts can only be immune from accusations of selfishness if they are entirely unobservable!

Of course, I hope you'd agree that such an accusation would not always be plausible - the higher the personal risk of the act relative to the potential reward, the less plausible selfishness is and the more plausible altruism is.

I personally have acted altruistically - as you describe it, "actively and knowingly doing good for someone else for absolutely no personal benefit". I can't prove it to you, but I think it's a natural consequence of empathy. I'd posit that altruistic acts are often done by those in situations where they are vulnerable themselves, which is why events like natural disasters are often accompanied by unusual levels of social cohesion and acts of personal sacrifice. That instinct can be exploited, of course; yet, by itself, it is a beautiful thing.

[roydivision]

> Thus, truly altruistic acts can only be immune from accusations of selfishness if they are entirely unobservable!

Are you yourself not an observer? If you feel good about having done it, it can't be completely selfless, you are benefiting by feeling good.

I realise I'm splitting hairs here, just to re-iterate - I'm not trying to take away from kind acts.

[fsckboy]

you're exaggerating the defintion of unselfish. It's unselfish of me to share my lunch with you when you've forgotten yours, even though I still eat my half of my whole for the selfish reason that I don't want to faint from hunger. A good reputation stands as encouragement to other to also be unselfish, so it's not selfish of me to wish to be recognized as recognition comes for free.

altruistic does not mean hair-shirted

[teekert]

Yeah I also found that: "Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives."

Doesn't that just sound plain evil?

I mean, I can imagine sacrificing myself for relatives, especially for my kids and I wouldn't consider it detrimental to my own interests. In fact, knowingly letting my kids die while I could have prevented it by giving my own life sounds like entering hell from that point forward... So altruism must be something particularly insidious and obnoxious. Does it really even exist? Seems like it would require a lot of indoctrination and cognitive dissonance.