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