Nietzsche's argument against altruism.

[Hume]

Another view of morality, value pluralism.

"Paradoxically, then, in fact, what makes social movements about diversity so popular is that they are fuelled by moral monism; that is, “the belief that there is one and only one reasonable system of values.” It is because people feel passionate about their understanding of justice, democracy and fairness that they feel so strongly about making it inclusive."

Value Pluralism & Plurality of Choice | Issue 163 | Philosophy Now

Christophe Bruchansky looks at maximising the diversity of choice.

philosophynow.org

 

[Kafka]

"moral monism". LOL.

 

[Litmus]

Does altruism actually exist?

If I VALUE altruism it means that it increases my happiness to act in an altruistic way. I am "helping" someone and that makes me feel "good". So I am gaining a benefit to myself by acting altruistically which effectively makes it non-altruistic.

The only truly altruistic action would have to be taken when one desperately does NOT want to take it and finds NO VALUE in taking the action.

This is not to say that there aren't good and bad actions and ones that are closer to altruism than others, but whether one is capable of pure altruism seems to be a legitimate question.

this is just an additional benefit of altruism.

of course it's real.

only truly selfish people would question the very existence of altruism.

this is yet another "enlightened" thread designed to diminish morality and increase evil.

 

[Hume]

this i

Maybe debate instead of posting the same stupid picture all the time.

 

[Kafka]

this is just an additional benefit of altruism.

of course it's real.

only truly selfish people would question the very existence of altruism.

this is yet another "enlightened" thread designed to diminish morality and increase evil.

Actually if you read my first post in this thread you'd understand my position better. Try that and then get back to me.

 

[Litmus]

Actually if you read my first post in this thread you'd understand my position better. Try that and then get back to me.

i got you perfectly.

you're unfocused throwing of shade indicates you have nothing.

 

[Kafka]

i got you perfectly.

you're unfocused throwing of shade indicates you have nothing.

I explained my position. If you wish to critique in any way it is imperative that you actually read and understand it. Clearly per your post you didn't follow my reasoning since you said absolutely nothing that related my position.

Try again.

 

[Cypress]

Nietzsche understands that a lot of people who talk about altruism aren’t altruistic at all. As he says about the German political leaders of his day, he finds it unbelievable that they can go to church every Sunday and take communion, because they’re the most unChristian people on the face of the earth. A high value is set on altruism, while any sign of pure self-concern is disparaged. It’s a pretty common moral stance, even when people don’t actually act on it. People who are not altruistic will rarely own up to being selfish.

Brian Leiter | Issue 163 | Philosophy Now

Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, and founder and Director of Chicago’s Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values. Angela Tan chatted with him about Nietzsche.

philosophynow.org

I don't find the author's argument very appealing.

Beethoven was a self-absorbed and self-promoting man who wasn't the least bit interested in morals like altruism and self-sacrifice. According to this Nietzschean Übermensch view of life, the world would have been robbed of Bethoven, to the detriment of humanity, if he hadn't been a selfish man, and given the latitude to totally focus on his needs and interests. Not to mention he himself would have been robbed of a meaningful artistic life by not being so self-absorbed.

Beethoven was a world class asshole. I don't think it is logically necessary to be reprehensible assholes like Beethoven and Wagner in order to be a creative person. Brahams was by all accounts a decent, charitable, and caring person

 

[Litmus]

I explained my position. If you wish to critique in any way it is imperative that you actually read and understand it. Clearly per your post you didn't follow my reasoning since you said absolutely nothing that related my position.

Try again.

I don't find the author's argument very appealing.

Beethoven was a self-absorbed and self-promoting man who wasn't the least bit interested in morals like altruism and self-sacrifice. According to this Nietzschean Übermensch view of life, the world would have been robbed of Bethoven, to the detriment of humanity, if he hadn't been a selfish man, given the latitude to totally focus on his needs and interests. Not to mention he himself would have been robbed of a meaningful life by not being so self-absorbed.

Beethoven was a world class asshole. I don't think it is logically necessary to be reprehensible assholes like Beethoven and Wagner to be a creative person.

the ubermensch is not necessarily immoral. that's the common Nazi misreading of Nietzsche.

 

[Cypress]

the ubermensch is not necessarily immoral. that's the common Nazi misreading of Nietzsche.

I didn't say it was immoral. I implied the Übermensch concept was elitist and self-absorbed.

 

[Litmus]

Actually if you read my first post in this thread you'd understand my position better. Try that and then get back to me.

it is wrong that gaining a personal benefit makes it non altruistic.

that makes it a win-win.

your position is assinine and non-rational.

 

[Hume]

I don't find the author's argument very appealing.

Beethoven was a self-absorbed and self-promoting man who wasn't the least bit interested in morals like altruism and self-sacrifice. According to this Nietzschean Übermensch view of life, the world would have been robbed of Bethoven, to the detriment of humanity, if he hadn't been a selfish man, and given the latitude to totally focus on his needs and interests. Not to mention he himself would have been robbed of a meaningful artistic life by not being so self-absorbed.

Beethoven was a world class asshole. I don't think it is logically necessary to be reprehensible assholes like Beethoven and Wagner in order to be a creative person. Brahams was by all accounts a decent, charitable, and caring person

I guess. I never listen to Beethoven and don't really care.

 

[Kafka]

I don't think it is logically necessary to be reprehensible assholes like Beethoven and Wagner in order to be a creative person.

I agree. But I guess it makes me curious why you remain a repulsive word-class asshole yourself. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time you blasted others for behavior you yourself embody.

 

[Kafka]

it is wrong that gaining a personal benefit makes it non altruistic.

Why?

your position is assinine and non-rational.

Except I explained my position. Too bad you couldn't understand it

 

[goat]

Actually if you read my first post in this thread you'd understand my position better. Try that and then get back to me.

Hunter-gatherers are codependent on every member of the tribe for survival. If one or 2 people got killed, odds are the entire clan would also die. It was to their advantage to keep everyone alive.

 

[Cypress]

I guess. I never listen to Beethoven and don't really care.

Beethoven was the example of Übermensch cited by the author in your article.

 

[Hume]

Beethoven was the example of Übermensch cited by the author in your article.

I know.

 

[EdwinA]

Socialism can be considered a moderated form of altruism, but, again, that altruism also brings benefits to the people who support the system.

If I give up a little of my $$$$ so that someone else may have a better life, presumably I will gain an advantage as well since our society will be more equitable and decent for all the members and if I find myself in need --which happens to everyone from time to time-- I will have the comfort of knowing I will be protected as well.

In a very real sense social animals are, by definition, socialist to some greater or lesser extent.

Yes. It's hardwired into mammals, especially humans, given their long 'childhoods' and general inability to care for themselves for many years while young, and then in old age. Unfortunate social factors change, like the ability to acquire lots of wealth, mass urbanization, warfare, etc., tend to mute and destroy such natural instincts in populations and generate sociopathy and psychosis. Some religions evolved as a tool to moderate the negative effects of 'progress'.

 

[EdwinA]

Nietzsche was probably mentally ill and suffering from chronic depression.

The neurological illness of Friedrich Nietzsche - PubMed

Friedrich Nietzsche's disease consisted of migraine, psychiatric disturbances, cognitive decline with dementia, and stroke. Despite the prevalent opinion that neurosyphilis caused Nietzsche's illness, there is lack of evidence to support this diagnosis. Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This would also account for his appeal to other mentally ill people.

 

[Litmus]

Why?


Except I explained my position. Too bad you couldn't understand it

if charity is real charity it helps even if the giver also gets something out of it.

tax deduction.... a good feelng .... whatever.



how does the giver getting something render the charity invalid?

it's a win win.

your position is idiotic.

you're just seeking to destroy morality just like the other Nazis.

and you're stupid.