is it immoral?

then you are an objectivist.

i don't consider morals to exist

but they do.

morals define ethics which defines what we consider as good and evil.

they don't, morals is just a word used by people to define the line they consider fine, and bad

they are subjective, I agree.

but they do exist.

what you consider good and evil doesn't apply to everyone else

and they are important

I consider religion to be evil, in any form

but what **they** consider good and evil makes all the difference in the world

it does not, what societies consider good and evil changes over time

The problem is that Kant undermined the enlightenment, and the validity of reason, with the explicit purpose of justifying faith.

this paved the way for Christianity.

and then, later, Marx and Nietzsche.

yes, and thats what the left is doing today

yes

now you understand.

i always did

but its not just the left

the right considers altruism to be moral as well.

I agree with the end, just not your ideals of an "enligthenment"

they consider capitalism as a necessary evil at best, and still consider selfishness as immoral.

The way i see it, modern society just replaced God with Socialism

yes

because they are equally valid

they are not

they're both lies told to people to control them

because there is no place for reason in society.

we ultimately have just given up ourselves to faith somewhere along the line.

reason gimps control

If a leader can't have people removed on a whim, but instead be faced with "but theres no reason for it" they don't have power

right

its just a power play

this is why progressives only value "power", they consider facts to only be what the person in power declares to be true

yes, but it is only sanctioned because the intellectual elite fundamentally believe in altruism

If i say the sky is blue, but a person in power says its green, to post-moderninsts the sky is green

today, they just take it on faith that we have no free will.

no

the sky is a social construct

i like your thinking Ping 😛

close

and no the intellectual elite don't believe in altruism, if they did they'd remove all forms of welfare, and only opt for a real "safety net" and pure capitalism

becausei n the long run that will eliminate leeching/weak people and only create a strong society that advances through competition

```Is math sexist? One Vanderbilt University professor believes that it is.

Writing in an academic journal last month, the professor complained about the masculinization of math and how it causes the oppression of women.

Describing mathematics as a “white and heteronormatively masculinized space,” professor Luis A. Leyva insists that factors including teacher expectations and cultural norms “serve as gendering mechanisms that give rise to sex-based achievement differences,” per Campus Reform.

Leyva argues that a “gender gap” exists in mathematical ability due to these social constructs, and that there isn’t any inherent difference in male and female cognitive abilities when it comes to the subject. The differences, he says, give rise to the “myth of male superiority.”

Female underachievement in the field is highlighted, he argues, by teachers who point it out and reinforce cultural expectations.

In the article titled “Unpacking the Male Superiority Myth and Masculinization of Mathematics at the Intersection,” Leyva says that teachers “contribute to the masculinization of the domain that unfairly holds students to men’s higher levels of achievement and participation as a measure of success.”

In other words, being held to a high standard keeps women down.```

no, you're wrong, welfare systems are the **embodiment** of altruism

hahaha read the first sentence then the last one.

because people will learn to survive and learn they are strong enough to survive without a "nanny state"

I though the elite believed in votes

no, they're the embodiment of "ooh look at how nice we are aren't we good?" its the Kind person al over again, they don't do it for the person being helped, tehy do it to make themselves feel good

the nature of altruism is **neccessary sacrifice**. It is a sacrifice of value that is done out of duty. By paying taxes you are giving up something you value, in return for ultimately something you likely do not value.

if you do the sacrifice because you want to, i.e. out of charity, it ceases to be a sacrifice.

it ceases to be altruistic.

Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish argument

Altruism is just gaining favor by showing how nice you are

a true form of Altruism would be to teach people to be independent and strong so they can live their life, find a good partner, and hopefully get children to continue the species as strong as possible

no

that is teaching people how to be selfish.

teaching people to be strong so they can find a mate and sustain themselves is selfish now?

I thought it was selfish to keep people dependent, so they vote for you cuz they know they can't survive on their own

no, that is altruistic, because you are sacrificing to sustain them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51pMod2Aaso

yes, and then what happens when you die? they die too because they learned to need your help, not survive on their own once yuo're gone

this is why Africa is such a dependent and shitty place, because those people are dependent on our help, which in turn keeps them infantile, like children because they can't grow up and survive

why would they? they get free stuff if they're helpless

>when sheep are docile and hopelessly dependant

Altruism is selflessness, but there is nothing about it that says it needs to be necessary in anyway, it can be entirely inconsequential, what ocelot is talking about is moralism

The umbilical cord is palpable.

I have been trying to explain this for about half an hour now. The dominant morality of the entire world today is altruism.

I wont argue that that is what people want to believe

i'm arguing that theres no altruism in keeping people in a child-like dependant state where their only way to survive is by your graces

i reject your view of altruism so to speak

Altruism isn't a moral, morals are very discrete

Everyone should have equal opportunities is a moral

but it is, because you have to sacrifice your produced value in order to feed them.

Which is why deporting illegal immigrants and building the wall (whether or works or not is another matter entirely) is actually the humanitarian thing to do for Mexico.

yes, like a Parent does to its child

no, that is a principle.

but a parent values their child living.

so it isn't a sacrifice to look after them.

A parent also values their child be able to sustain themselves, A parent is not gonna be around forever

yes

they'll want their child to be strong enough to survive on its own

Listen. Do you want to know the true nature of altruism? Communism. Naziism. These are the enevitable extremes of altruism.

THAT is the true altruism for me

To sacrifice your time and life(work) to raise a child to be self-sustaining to continue the species

which is what soceity if its REALLY altruistic should do, not take someones hard earned money BY FORCE mind you, and give it to any random schlob that says "waah i can't survive on my own"

Wouldn't communism and naziism be a form of forced altruism, rather than what Jay is trying to describe?

sacrificing yourself for the greater good becomes sacrificing **everyone** for the greater good.

It is exactly that Jaden

altruism eventually neccessitates force.

Communism is putting a gun to peoples head and saying "you're going to sacrifice your work and time for someone else" you don't get a say in it

which is why i reject your altruism position Revolver

the ultimate altruistic act is to commit suicide.

The welfare state started with altruistic views, people agreed to help others until they could get back on their feet and then they were cut off, now; that's not the case. People are forced to have their taxes pay for people that sit on welfare their whole lives. So people aren't doing it because they feel charitable, they are being forced to, which takes away the altruistic nature of it.

I don't fancy becoming selfish or short-sighted. Or dependant on a rug that can be pulled out from underneath of me.

it is to give up your life.

Allowing others to go against your morals can be altruistic so that makes no sense

and there is such a thing as learned helplessness and it can start as early as the age of 2

O_Castitas, you rock 😛

no, its the other way around, taking the charitable nature away **increases** the altruistic nature of welfare.

because it becomes more dutiful

There is a difference between helping and having a person rely on something

but that is my view on it, Altruism is self-sacrifice for others, the best way to do it would be to teach people to be independent so they can be strong in times that need strength

and it means that you value your sacrifice less.

but that isn't altruism!!!

Anyhow, as much as i love arguing endlessly and repeating the same talking points, its 2:20 at night for me on a Tuesday 😛 i need some sleep

no, it doesn't the definition of the word is someone who willingly gives to another at a cost of some sort to them, for the benefit of the person they are helping

teaching people to be self reliant is teaching them to live for themselves i.e. selfishness

no, the definition has been altered. Kant defines altruism as **dutiful sacrifice**.

that is the definition of Altruism, to take away the act of doing so willingly takes away the altruistic nature of it

I don't see how its selfish to teach a person to survive without the help from someone else's good grace

Holodomor is a prime example of that

Altruism = selflessness "self" not "other"lessness

the key word is duty.

then it is the duty of the population to teach others to survive

what about cavemen and fire

no it isn't

its the duty of man to learn to live for themselves.

one person had to learn it, had peopel surrounding his fire, so it taught thme to do it so that they would leave his cave, what of that then

Isn't that how we survive and thrive, though, by passing down knowledge we've learned?

how is teaching a sacrifice?

people can't live for themselves if they're dependant on a force that can take it away from them arbitrarily

you mean if they don't have rights.

which was my original point.

we need Ayn Rand.

it's like achild and learning to read, if you constantly come to the childs aid and read it to them, they will learn that you will do it for them, and then they don't bother learning, so when that child goes to school, suddenly they can't do anything at school, they can't read and thne it effects if they can write or not

altruism
ˈaltruːɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: altruism

disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

duty

dutiful sacrifice.

no it's not

Self-imposed duty and enforced-upon duty are two different things.

that is the person willingly doing it, it's not dutiful sacrifice

what part of disinterested and selfless doesn't mean duty?

both lol

Different people work with different moral rules.

Duty is an obligation, a requirement, a responsibility.

nothing of that definition says it's obligatory

nothing

its not sacrifice if a person puts a gun to my head and says you're gonna work for others or die

Thats slavery

yes, a moral or legal obligation.

the morality that obligates sacrifice is altruism.

I'd rather be able to stand on my own two feet, and decide for myself what's worth sacrificing for.

then you are selfish.

Blanket-statement.

yes Mr.Binary, thats why i think the true act of selflessness, is setting people free, aka, teach them to survive on their own

its a binary choice

sacrifice or don't sacrifice

live or die

Disinterested: 1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage. 2. having or feeling no interest in something.

and selflessness is pretty much understood

i.e. not selfish and not valued

If that's selfish by someone's strange, arbitrary definition, I don't really care all that much. I'd much rather help people out because I want to, not because I have to. And I _do_ want to help people.

it's an act performed on your own free will

so to continue to support people with your money by force is not Altruism

But you can't always _just_ be selfless, because then, you don't ever focus on yourself. And thus, you're in a worse position to sacrifice and help.

you arne't doing it because you choose to, you are doing it now because you are being forced to

Heres a new perspective for you

How is being a ball and chain to someone else an act of self-sacrifice?

in other words, how is being the beneficiary of an altruist person making you selfless? if anything it makes you selfish, for using another persons sacrifice

I do not choose to have my tax money go to welfare

they force that upon me

I would choose to have my taxes go to schools and healthcare

I think you are misunderstanding me here: as an Objectivist, I consider rationally pursuing values, i.e. selfishness to be a virtue.

not to support a family of 8 who refuse to work

It seems to be the difference between indifference and duty.
Indifference is a passive state, whereas duty is an active one, since the other definition is "a task or action that someone is required to perform."
Is that the same thing as a lack of motivation?

read this please: https://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

that's why I said, ther eis a difference between helping and having that person rely on you to survive

I mean, in the end, you can't ever completely separate independance from all humans. Many have tried. All have failed in the end. It always goes south.

Robots don't make very good citizens

there is a distinct difference

Just ask communism

I'm not trying to make robots

but you are trying to imply that peopel are selfish for wanting to perpetuate the success of the human race

yes, because they are!

because they don't want peopel relying on them and they want to teach them to do thing for themselves

that makes no sense!

^

no they aren't at all

do you value the human race?

why would giving someone freedom over their own life be selfish?

if that were the case, cavemen would have died out a long time ago, had the man who invented fire never shared it

selfishness is about value

if you value something, you are selfish for pursuing it.

if he was the only one that knew how to do it, and he died, then the rest of them would have too because they didn't know how to do it

I value the human race's continued existence. Because I know that if my life doesn't leave some kind of something behind positive, I'll know that I've lived a nigh pointless existence. Doesn't mean I can't do anything for myself. It just means that I _want_ to sacrifice for the good of humankind.

no, because it benefits him to have other people know how to do it, because then his children will have fire.

I _want_ to do this.

I was never taught that.

to give a person the chance to get off the dole and make something of themselves is not selfish in the slightest

yes, i value my childrens ability to not be a slave to another persons whims, boy am i a selfish bastard 😛

I weighed the world, and formulated opinions accordingly.

want is the most selfish of emotions.

The equation obviously isn't that simple in my eyes, others can value you and thus suicide is not at all altruistic

ehhh...

I would argue lust is the most selfish emotion

Not all selfishness is inherently bad all the time

lust too

It depends on the situation.

i thought Pride was the strongest emotion

no it isnt

and that lust and all teh other sins came from that

Want is a selfish thing sure, but lust can turn a want into a need that can override ones senses

yes, if it is irrational.

to lust for something is almost akin to want, that's why the two usually come up in the same conversation

Where as want can be sometimes selfless

I can want for the world to be a happy place

that isnt exactly very selfish as wanting something only for me

it's not wrong nor selfish to want to help people make something of themselves and to better their life

where as if i lust for traps long enough

I could become gay o.o

Hunger is the strongest emotion if you're hungry enough

I would like to reiterate. I consider selfishness to be a virtue because it is the means by which I pursue living on earth. That is what it means to be an objectivist.

what if i WANT to go to bed, but people disagree with me on the internet?

lol

provided that it is rational.

Greed is good.

then you are being altruistic by staying up lol

its 2:35 at night! y'all killing me

I'd say voluntary and self-aware sacrifice for the good of others, and truly _wanting_ to do it, isn't even remotely selfish.

now you are learning first hand that altruism is anti-life 😂

Ah but are you soing good and sacrificing for others, or for the good feeling from it?

becuase thats what virtue signaling is

exactly

thats the point

that is a selfish act

Can't I do both?

you can, but its still selfish

Sounds like a consequence that will happen, regardless of your motivation.

short anser no, with an if. Long answer n owith a but.

Nah, I disagree with you.

it can't be altruistic unless it is a duty.

No you just do what I do.

Refuse to get ANY benfit from it

It's selfish on one front, selfless on another.

if its a duty its not selflessness because it didnt come from free will but duty

Help someone and the only thing you ask is for them in turn to help one person

Just because there's a "negative", that doesn't somehow negate the positive.

If anyone compliments you, you down right refuse it and say its just a normal thing to do

nothing can be selfless if it's forced upon a person

Altruism definitely fucks with the gene pool at least

that is why communism is the prime example of an altruistic ideology. You must sacrifice everything you value for the people, and be given as little value as possible in return.

no its not

Alturism also has a goal for a group.

Helping one group to keep them dependant and weak helps your group

Look at the world right now, look at nato

communism is all about self interest, they do it because it benefits them, not because it benefits anyone else

Lol communism never says give up what you value pls

the leaders do

but the people give up everything.

all their land

Never forget that north korea has 6 work days

Different people lead different lives. I want to live a life I personally deem worth living in _my_ case. I wasn't swayed by some ideology, or some random guy spewing nationalistic propoganda. I weighed the world, and deemed myself to be the few, and the others, the many.

all their money

This doesn't exactly fit into a government type, though

and one day of non voluntary volunteer work for the nation at your job on the seventh

Bad stuff happens there

It keeps them to busy to hungry and to dependant on the next day for them to rise up

that is why it is important to allow rational self-interest to become a virtue. Because it leads to people taking the responsibility for their own lives.

yes it does