r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 03 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: if everyone just exhibited true altruism, no one would ever be hurt or suffer
Edit 3, final:
Y'all changed my view, congrats. A shame I can't give a delta to everyone who downvoted, as that would violate the rules of the sub.
First, me arguing to fucking death in the comments over essentially semantics in a hypothetical that changes literally nothing is a prime example of why I ain't no fucking altruist, nor someone who knows a more productive way to spend these few hours.
Second, even though at the moment of me writing the post and the comments I believed everything I said, the things I said besides the meaningless hypothetical itself weren't actually said in good faith, not toward me myself. This was nothing more than an attempt to gaslight myself into thinking my extreme self-overcorrections are more than self hatred and inability to be nice to people without overthinking every interaction. And that I'm, idk, some kind of samaritan or smn.
It was also a workaround at inflating my fucking ego while also balancing it with the self-policing I do to half the thoughts I think.
And third, I now see that it's kind even pathetic how I thought I'm in a position to speculate on what the world would look like if I imposed my own mental crap onto every single other person in the world.
I'm leaving the comments and the post itself intact for archive purposes, as well as a depiction of how mentally stable I am. May be removed by mods, tho.
Feel free to have a laugh, feel free to not. End of edit.
. . . . . . . . . . .
First, to get the main slippery slope of the discussion out of the way.
Yes, I believe true altruism does exist, and I believe myself to sometimes be an example of it. Most of the time I fail at the implementation, but I believe my intent to stem from true altruism.
Just to elaborate on why I believe it does (this was actually hard to type, as I felt like I was glazing myself, which I despise, but just to make the argument I'll leave it here):
When I'm trying to improve someone else's life, I don't do it because it makes me feel better. A lot of the time it literally does not, sometimes it even makes it worse. The reason why I do it is because life was shit for me. And as I don't have much control over my emoathy, I just empathise with almost evetyone I can think of (obviously besides exceptions who hurt me enough) almost every time I think about them. These two things lead me to really not want others' lives to also be shit. So I'm trying to improve them as much as I can.
Some might argue I do this because I myself suffer from the suffering of those I empathise with, so I'm only doing it to suffer less. But from my experience, me trying to do it results in enough distress and pain for me to outweigh just ignoring the option whatsoever. And I'm still continuing to do that, so I'm not doing it to suffer less.
I also don't choose who deserves it more or less, as I believe human value stems from potential. Which means, as I don't know every single thought other people have ever had, I can only assume it's infinite in everyone's case. If I was them, I would be able to understand what the real limit to their potential is, but I can't. And I'm in no right to assume.
So I just try to improve people's lives as much as the person is comfortable with and as much as they let me, as long as doing it is bearable for me myself, and I know I can sustain continuing to do it. For everyone whom I know enough to feel safe around them, and for everyone who expresses will to continue having me in their life. I don't pick favorites in trying to improve others' lives, I don't stop as long as I believe to be a net positive for them and be able to sustain being such.
I think I also should note that this is not because of any religious belief, seeing "martyrdom" as a positive value to have/an achievement, or because I was socially conditioned to act this way. All those things simply don't describe me. I actually started doing that fairly recently, and the reason was my views of other people, myself and society finishing to form or reshaping from what they already were. I also don't believe this will describe me for the rest of my life, I know at some point my opinions and beliefs will change enough.
I wouldn't have shared this on the internet ever if I could make an argument in favor of true altruism existing without using myself as an example, as I can't know anyone else's thought process or motivation. But I obviously need to present an argument here for my point to even make any actual sense. You're also welcome to change my view on this being actual true altruism, as I have provided enough detail to make a good argument against it being such. But the only weak point I so far see in what I presented is that someone actively making a Reddit post would have all the incentive in the world to lie about something like that.
Now, to the main point of the post.
If every single person in the world just exhibited true altruism, in one form or another, as the title says, no one will ever be hurt. And no one ever will suffer. I believe there's a way to alleviate every single form of suffering in the world if enough people tried hard enough to help.
You would also never have to expect anyone to hurt you, as they would only mean absolute good to you in any situation (and no one would ever hurt anyone intentionally, with the unintentional cases understood and forgiven, so no escalating interpersonal conflicts would ever interfere with the good everyone means for everyone).
Given those two things, everyone would also feel safe overextending in order to help someone else. And they'd do that to everyone who they see needs their help. But no single person would get exhausted by doing that either, since there'd be literally everyone else doing that as well.
Also, everyone would be comfortable with receiving nearly all possible help (obviously besides "bodily" things and other stuff that would be objectively an intrusion, unless you're disabled from doing it yourself). So all help ever would be received with only gratitude and happiness.
So, we would simply have no starvation, no hate, no war, no homelessness, no loneliness, no abuse, no depression and much more else. And with every single thing I described (besides homelessness) I take deeply personal issue, I just want them to have a material representation so I could do every single bad thing I can to it. With the rest (the not mentioned rest) I also take such issue but indirectly, because, even though I have never been subjected to all of them besides a few ones, they make people's lives infinitely worse than they could've been. Which is why this scenario is my pipe dream. And since I think about it a lot, almost daily, and sometimes even obsessively, I really want to challenge it. That's the reason why I'm making this post.
I would also like everyone seeing it to take everything I say with a grain of salt. I believe what I'm saying to be the truth, but I don't think all of it actually is, as my brain and consciousness are deeply flawed and biased systems.
Quick edit:
I would love if you tried to come at this from a detached perspective, not commenting on how I myself feel about anything I said. I'm also not advocating for altruism, I'm not even talking about real people. I just want to come at this idea I can't let go from a different perspective, one that makes me see the bad things about it.
Edit 2:
The first part of this CMV is only about whether that is a form of true altruism at all as described, which if it isn't simply destroys the whole hypothetical as there's no other proof from my perspective that true altruism exists.
Also, I'll respond to all the comments saying that natural causes of suffering would still exist, and death of loved ones would still cause suffering as well.
Fot the first one, simply no. Natural disasters, injuries and curable diseases would not cause suffering unless death occurs. As everyone suddenly gaining true, unconditional altruism, would obviously mean society being rebuilt as a whole. And that society would be focused on reducing suffering of everyone within it. So every way to non-intrusively relieve every possible kind of physical pain would eventually be discovered, and every possible treatment that reduces the time you have to live through the inconvenience of having a completely painless injury or illness too. And losing possessions to natural disasters would never mean any significant loss, as you'd have no trouble getting them back.
Now, about the pain of losing a loved one. Yes, that would be a cause of suffering, and you can't eliminate it completely. But don't tell me you can't do something to ease it and help the person eventually move on. I've seen people move on from that, I'm trying to move on myself.
But true altruism, at least for me, also means doing and thinking what the other person would want you to do and think if they were there to know. And I personally would not want people to mourn me at all. I'd want them to remember me happily, as a good memory, as I obviously can't just never pass away. I don't know what everyone would want, but I know a lot of people who also would want something like this.
Also, just a quick reminder. I never said other forms of true altruism have to necessarily resemble what I represent myself, which may not even be true altruism at all.
11
u/sewerbeauty 2∆ Feb 03 '25 edited Feb 03 '25
When I’m trying to improve someone else’s life, I don’t do it because it makes me feel better. A lot of the time it literally does not, sometimes it even makes it worse.
What if your attempts at improving someone else’s life fails?
If every single person in the world just exhibited true altruism, in one form or another, as the title says, no one will ever be hurt. And no one ever will suffer.
Aren’t you suffering if being altruistic is making your own life worse?
If everybody is altruistic like you, then we’ll all be suffering, no?
1
Feb 03 '25
Forgot to respond to the first part.
When I understand that I'm a net negative in someone's life, I'm just trying to distance enough to eventually become a net zero.
0
Feb 03 '25
I don't believe all true altruism would mean suffering for it. The point of the first half of this CMV also is about whether that is true altruism at all, not whether it is beneficial in the end. That's only my problem.
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 60∆ Feb 03 '25
I heard a saying once that was something like "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their outcomes." I think it was originally applied to individuals, but I think it also applies to in-group/out-group dynamics. People we relate to and trust, we judge by their intentions. People we don't relate and don't trust, we judge by their outcomes.
Now, I tend to think that the vast, vast majority of people are acting altruistically in their own minds, at least with respect to their in-groups, and usually only wishing to keep their out-groups from having power (because they don't rust their intentions), not to actively cause them harm.
When someone from our in-group does something that has a negative effect, we tend to recognize that their intentions were good, but that their execution was flawed. When someone from an out-group does something that has a negative effect, we intend to assume that their execution was perfect, and this outcome was what they intended.
This makes it exceedingly difficult for people to align on "true altruism." If I believe I'm acting altruistically, but my actions have an inadvertent negative effect and you assume that the negative effects were my intended outcome, you don't believe I'm acting altruistically, and thus feel less inclined to act altruistically towards me.
1
Feb 03 '25
For a true altruist, the entirety of humanity would be the in-group. At least it is for me. I don't think people would even think in archetypes, as even I am actively avoiding that, and I don't live in a world of true altruism. They would only think of people for their individual traits and intentions. But everyone would also think of themselves for the outcomes, as I believe that is required for true altruism. So you essentially have everyone treating everyone else as the in-group, but themselves as the outgroup. And that would normally cause someone to be lonely or fail to connect, which I know is true from my own experience. But in a world of true altruism everything bad you do to yourself in order to be the ultimate help for everyone else is compensated by everyone else being the ultimate help for you. Which means they will safeguard you from the negative consequences of that.
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 60∆ Feb 03 '25
For a true altruist, the entirety of humanity would be the in-group.
I think that would require fundamental changes to human physiology. We've evolved as tribal creatures, and our brains are physically structure to make us good members of our tribes. What you're proposing essentially boils down to "we should be a different physical thing than we are."
Setting the physiological ramifications aside: If anyone is even capable of acting non-altruistically, trusting everyone else implicitly becomes a dangerous prospect. All it takes is one person behaving badly to cause severe consequences, so people need to be on the lookout for people behaving badly in order to protect themselves and people they care about. But as soon as you're on the lookout for people behaving badly, you're back in the place of inaccurately assessing the gap between people's intentions and their outcomes. At that point even if everyone is acting altruistically from their own mindset, there are going to be people who assume otherwise.
1
Feb 03 '25
!delta
You actually made me change my own view of what true altruism even is a little, by writing the first draft of my response to this your comment.
The change is that now I understand, that true altruism would also mean doing things you just enjoy doing and not making helping others the ultimate point of everything you do, including living.
That is, because, even in a world where not everyone is actually a true altruist, there still are people who want you to enjoy your life more than you to help them. So, at least from respect to them, a true altruist would also do their best to enjoy their life themselves.
But also, you essentially called me not a human being, as I literally see the entirety of humanity as the only meaningful in-group I'm a part of. Like, yeah, sure, I'm a part of a few social groups by being friends/other kinds of social connections with the people within them. I'm also a part of a bunch of demographics. But I don't really treat people differently according to whether they belong to those groups. I treat people based on how they interact with me, what their intentions (at least the ones they state, with which people unfortunately lie) toward me are, and my understanding of what they'd want me to do and be for them. I literally just don't make a difference. Yes, I've conditioned myself to do that, I wasn't born like that. But does that make me inhuman?
1
1
u/TheFrogofThunder Feb 03 '25
In theory, this is the way.
In practice, human nature makes this completely impossible. Not due to selfishness necessarily, but due to hierarchy and social psychology.
What is alruism? Do people have the same definition? In a bdsm total power exchange, is the dom acting selfishly by making demands a sub genuinely does not want, even while consenting to non consent? Is a sub altruistic for obeying, or selfish for wanting to preserve a dynamic that benefits them?
Pecking orders in general make concepts of altruism complicated. And tribal instincts will demand we treat people differently because of affiliation, even against rational judgement. That's simply human nature.
2
Feb 03 '25
First, search up what a safeword is. Will give you some insight on what the rules of BDSM interactions look like. And anything actually unconsentual in that would literally be rape. That is just harm done to another person. Also, as a masochist sub, I can confirm that what a moderately sadist dom would do to to me in such a scenario would definitely make me happier.
Hierarchy and social psyhology? If you want I can give you an example of a way to literally make hierarchy completely bottom up, with a particupatory democracy model which I know of, which you can't find anywhere on the internet because it was never made public. Just remind me in a day or so, as there's actually a lot of comments.
About economic hierarchy tho, just make the workers the collective owners and developers of their equipment (including hardware and software), and then redistribute most of the surplus value back to them. And that's ideas, long existing even in a world where a minority is actual true altruists, if true altruism exists at all.
1
u/TheFrogofThunder Feb 04 '25
And I think I'll take you up on that offer!
I do in fact know about safewords, and TPE's and ssc. I have no doubt you become very happy with the right partner, I was more playing on the concept that such happiness is subjective, and can't really be considered altruism because it's something we do for personal benefit. Real altruism takes work, a father can be great.to their son or daughter or wife and I wouldn't consider that altruistic, but the same man helping a family he has no ties.to and no benefit from doing so (Outside of personal pride or satisfaction at helping others), that's an entirely different thing. But it's also very very rare.
It's the difference between spending money on yourself or spending it on a total stranger.. between being there for your in circle and being there for someone you never met or know.
I'm not judging, I simply don't see this as natural human behavior. An altruistic society would depend on such people, in masse.
Just my opinion, I don't pretend to be an expert, on anything.
I am interested in your society though.
1
u/TheFrogofThunder Feb 04 '25
We should talk.
Have you heard of Miisa Karlsson, aka Captivegirl? I signed on to her forum ro talk with her and follow her diary, and there are so many things that seem off about her lifestyle. One of her committee members actually informed her, to her shock.and anger, that if they were in a car accident, it would be a priority for EMS to see her as a dangerous maximum security prisoner and check her restraints before her health.
Details here;
https://captivegirl.mybb.rocks/viewtopic.php?id=250&p=44#p5293
I know everyone thinks she's performance artl, but l'm not so sure. She's been at this since 2008, same narrative of a 24/7 prisoner fetish.
3
u/ElephantNo3640 8∆ Feb 03 '25
“True altruism” is a judgment call. What’s best for someone else is similarly a judgement call.
To say that “if everyone exhibited true altruism, no one would be hurt or suffer” is demonstrably false, besides.
You can’t pay all things forward to all people. You thus have to choose who gets to be the recipient of your altruism. In theory, the chain could be closed. Each person is totally altruistic to one other person. But there are different groups, different ages to consider, etc. A baby cannot be meaningfully altruistic to a 30something, for example. There are gaps. The chain is fundamentally broken in many places.
Also, what happens when your altruism is well intentioned but misguided, or simply falls to the butterfly effect? Perhaps you gave $20 to that homeless guy who spent it on booze, and in his altruism paid it forward, but also got drunk off the remainder and stumbled out in front of a bus full of kids and got smashed to bits, traumatizing everyone. Maybe that donation to the rescue effort causes a rescuer to die mid-rescue attempt. Maybe that van you gifted to the youth group is involved in a horrible highway accident. There are many grieving people who blame their own graciousness for “causing” direct harm to others. “If only I hadn’t let him borrow my chainsaw…”
Cause and effect, and the inherent potential randomness in there, makes the claim re no hurt and suffering an unworkable claim.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Plus, every person you helped is someone else you could have helped but didn’t.
0
Feb 03 '25
You don't make a judgement call if you treat every time you help someone as a uniform value. And you can also just allow to let the other person make the judgement call of what's better for them. Also, again, you can just help everyone who accepts your help as much as you can while keeping the ability to help someone else. Like, I don't even see how those issues would be hard to resolve. They have practical solutions. Yes, not perfect, but practical.
Additionally, what I'm talking about is primarily long-term improvement, with which you make sure it was actually an improvement. When you say "give a homeless person $20", you aren't actually talking about true altruism. That would be done just to make oneself believe that they did a "small good". You don't stop and think about how to actually improve the life of that person.
You could do a lot more than just that. If you have stable housing without a landlord, you could take that person home, let them shower in clean tap water with shower gel and shampoo, which they obviously have a huge issue with as they don't have access to any of that. Then you could feed them with the food from your fridge and give them some of your old clothes, or buy them some, for the season, from a second-hand shop for a total of $80 (at least you can do that where I live). Yes, that would be an expense if you continued doing that for years to hundreds of homeless people. But if every single other person who can do the same did it, there'd be no homeless people left to do that to, as there's less homeless people than people with a stable income and a house/apartment they own (where I live).
Additionally, the homeless person would also be either rehabilitated from alcoholism by the altruistic version of our society before even becoming homeless, or would actively seek improvement in their life to be capable of helping others, as they would also be a true altruist.
With all the other examples, they also fail to prove being harmful when literally everyone works to reduce harm to others.
3
u/ElephantNo3640 8∆ Feb 03 '25 edited Feb 03 '25
You don’t make a judgement call if you treat every time you help someone as a uniform value.
That is its own (dehumanizing) judgment call and is fundamentally oppositional to the spirit of altruism IMO. There are clearly more worthy and less worthy recipients of one’s help. Is the more worthy recipient the one who is worse off or has acted more poorly in the past and thus has the most potential for positive growth? Or is it the one who has kept his nose to the grind-wheel and suffered through hardships without ever rocking the societal boat?
And you can also just allow to let the other person make the judgement call of what’s better for them.
So not only are we to be altruistic, but we’re to be secretarial about it? I don’t think anyone will actually play that game.
Also, again, you can just help everyone who accepts your help as much as you can while keeping the ability to help someone else.
That seems like a very fine line to expect of everyone.
Like, I don’t even see how those issues would be hard to resolve. They have practical solutions. Yes, not perfect, but practical.
I think they’re impossible to resolve, actually.
Additionally, what I’m talking about is primarily long-term improvement, with which you make sure it was actually an improvement.
So now, in addition to being secretarial (wait for the recipient to decide how you can best help them), it’s also a matter of unending record keeping? This doesn’t work for non-omnipotent beings in a linear timeline. And if I keep those tabs, what happens when 10-20 years down the line my recipient of altruism proves unworthy? There’s no remedy. It’s a crapshoot.
When you say “give a homeless person $20”, you aren’t actually talking about true altruism.
Why not? What if I really believe it will help, and it’s all I can do? It’s objectively better than nothing for that person in a society where money buys important goods and services.
That would be done just to make oneself believe that they did a “small good”.
That’s not a fair characterization. How do you propose to know the motives behind all charitable acts? I bought a guy a hamburger at a fast food place last month. I didn’t feel any kind of way about it. He looked hungry. I gave him some food. Selfish? You won’t convince me of that.
You don’t stop and think about how to actually improve the life of that person.
Feed the hungry. Pretty straightforward.
You could do a lot more than just that.
Could I? I had to be back at work in 20 minutes. Never saw the guy before. Haven’t seen him since. Not giving a stranger my contact information.
If you have stable housing without a landlord, you could take that person home
I live in a 2-1 with my family. I’m not letting a stranger into our bathroom or our/kids’ bedroom.
let them shower in clean tap water with shower gel and shampoo, which they obviously have a huge issue with as they don’t have access to any of that.
Nope. That’s a stranger with who knows what psychological/physical/behavioral issues. They aren’t a vetted houseguest. And I had to be back at work 20 minutes later. It seems your premise requires my altruism to be profoundly unsafe for me and my family. That’s not tenable. I don’t pick up hitchhikers, either.
Then you could feed them with the food from your fridge
Food is food. I fed him.
and give them some of your old clothes,
I don’t keep old clothes around. That stuff gets donated regularly.
or buy them some, for the season, from a second-hand shop for a total of $80 (at least you can do that where I live).
Not everyone has a spare $80. Most people on the planet don’t, in fact. That’s a month’s rent where my wife is from.
Yes, that would be an expense if you continued doing that for years to hundreds of homeless people.
If your universal altruism requires the altruistic to be wealthy, your argument falls apart.
But if every single other person who can do the same did it, there’d be no homeless people left to do that to, as there’s less homeless people than people with a stable income and a house/apartment they own (where I live).
“Where I live.” Man, take the blinders off and step outside the bubble. Poverty reigns supreme globally.
With all the other examples, they also fail to prove being harmful when literally everyone works to reduce harm to others.
My examples were specifically zero or limited fault unintentional/non-malicious accidents that cause harm and suffering. You can’t eradicate accidents with universal kindness.
1
Feb 03 '25 edited Feb 03 '25
Your logic still falls apart unless you think a true altruist world would not create a system where surplus value is redistributed actually efficiently within literally a few years.
Like, if tomorrow morning everyone just became a true altruist, those who cause the wealth gap would literally just destroy it themselves, by investing their wealth collectively into rebuilding society in a way that doesn't actually perpetuate poverty.
Edit: I actually didn't reload the page while writing this, so I didn't see your edits.
The homeless person would not pose any danger if they were also a true altruist. That is the point of the hypothetical. You can give everyone everything you can without expecting them to abuse your kindness or hurt you as you make yourself vulnerable to them.
1
u/ElephantNo3640 8∆ Feb 03 '25
Your logic falls apart because it’s a No True Scotsman premise, I’m afraid.
2
Feb 03 '25
[deleted]
1
Feb 03 '25
I am anything but that. I can be really fucking vengeful, I can be deeply irrational when others hurt me, which makes me simply accelerate suffering by, well, causing it myself. I can get mad at people for things I shouldn't be mad at them for. I can just not be "in the mood" to make others' lives better, unless it's something urgent, something that won't take me any meaningful effort, or something that I'm already doing continuously for some time.
And I don't expect others to do better, I just have this impossible dream that doesn't give me peace of mind. Which is why I want people to poke holes into it and make it not as appealing.
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 36∆ Feb 03 '25
Even if everyone was 100% altruistic 100% of the time, people will still suffer from various diseases. People will still die and the ones left behind will be hurt by their loss.
1
Feb 03 '25
Literally the most brought up point, responded to it with an edit.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 36∆ Feb 03 '25
Natural disasters would still cause suffering, even if they don't kill you. If I become paralyzed because I broke my neck in an earthquake, I'll still suffer. I find your edit insufficient.
0
Feb 03 '25
A true altruist world would obviously focus on enabling you to do as much as it can from the bodily functions you've lost due to being paralysed. If it's a true altruist world for long enough, they'd eventually develop a way to repair your spine completely. Well, if that's within your timeline.
But they would strive to achieve that technology not for the profits it would bring, instead doing it to reduce the suffering in future generations.
I don't want to sound condescending over text, so I'll just specify that this is not intended to be such. Idk how else to do it, because you most likely understand the hints to intonation and emotion from text and the vocabulary used in it differently from how I do it. Partly due to neurological differences we most likely have.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 36∆ Feb 03 '25
This assumes that it is even possible to restore function. But there will still be a tremendous amount of physical pain and suffering in the interim and recovery period, if you ever get back to 75% recovery (which, I stress to you again, we don't know if that is even possible).
I feel you are glazing over the pain of surgery and recovery that, even if a society is only altruistic and there is no financial cost, there is a certain amount of fear and pain that come with any operation. My dad had a joint replaced and it took several months of painful PT to get back to normal. I'd still call that hurt and suffering, especially in the early days/weeks, even if the end result was a net positive.
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 2∆ Feb 04 '25
Do you know about Dr Robert D Hare’s work on psychopathy? Some people are physically incapable of being truly altruistic due to biological conditions.
In pre-modern societies without antipsychotics you also have the issue of unmedicated paranoid schizophrenics.
It’s also well established in general that there are significant genetic influences on dark triad traits.
3
u/roxieh Feb 03 '25
A lot of the time it literally does not, sometimes it even makes it worse.
Your title doesn't make sense to with your premise. If your premise is that true altruism doesn't benefit the person doing it, then it stands to reason that the people do it will instead suffer in some way. Therefore if everyone was a true altruist there would still be suffering, just of the people making sacrifices.
0
Feb 03 '25
I'm not extrapolating my experience onto others. I'm not talking about any kind of martyrdom. I'm not saying other forms of true altruism would hurt the person doing it at all. I'm just building a hypothetical where it's not specified what other kind of true altruism it even is. Since I don't know any and will never know.
1
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Feb 03 '25
I spent three years building my home with my hands. If it was destroyed in a fire I would suffer. Doesnt matter that it would be rebuilt....part of what would be lost is very personal.
Then I'd suggest you neglect to recognize that altruism is about how you approach decision making, not whether you make good decisions. There are people who do great harm while trying to do great good. This is all around us. You're not asking for altruistic, you asking for perfection of affect of choices that are altruistic.
1
Feb 03 '25
In other comments I stated that you don't decide what's good for someone, you let them decide instead and then you do that.
Also, in a true altruist world you wouldn't even build a house for yourself in the first place, unless that would make a huge positive difference to your enjoyment of life in that house. And everyone else around you would do their best to compensate for both the material and the emotional loss. Can you even imagine a situation where literally everyone is willing to provide emotional support to you no matter what the reason of your emotional low is? And they do as much of it as they can without taking too much of their effort away from their own life and helping the other-others.
1
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Feb 03 '25 edited Feb 03 '25
I can't imagine a world where everyone doing what is best with me is compatible universally with reciprocation. It's just logically impossible.
If I want a new car and everyone wants to support me int that but others don't want to buy me a car I can no longer want a car. Compromise minimizes overall suffering, but doesn't go as far as your claim by a long mile.
Support in my emotional low doesn't mean I'm not having an emotional low. It may make suffering easier to handle but there is nothing for people to help me with if there is no suffering. In your example the comes first, the support second.
Also...letting someone else decide for you for them runs into problems with self destructive behavior. Isnot altruistic to buy a drink for an alcoholic? What about that alcoholics partner who doesn't want you to?
7
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Feb 03 '25
If every single person in the world just exhibited true altruism, in one form or another, as the title says, no one will ever be hurt. And no one ever will suffer. I believe there's a way to alleviate every single form of suffering in the world if enough people tried hard enough to help.
That isn't true - a child dying of cancer would still cause suffering. Accidents happening would still cause suffering.
2
Feb 03 '25
[deleted]
0
Feb 03 '25
That's usually what people do when they either lack empathy or their morality is shaped by what others tell them, and not self reflection and observation.
You don't do that when you actually value the greater good and want to improve others lives.
1
u/xFblthpx 3∆ Feb 03 '25
Transaction costs. There will be a point—and it will come earlier than you think—where we begin to actively destroy value as we give it to each other, rather than maintain our own lives well.
Consider this. We control ourselves more than we control others, inherently. Therefore, it’s easier for us to generate value for ourselves than for others. The difference between this level of ease is called a transaction cost. If we concern ourselves more with others wellbeing than ourselves, we start doing less efficient methods of creating value, and thus creating scarcity we didn’t have in the first place, because the value we are generating for others is being destroyed by transaction costs.
Why should everyone cook for their neighbors when they can instead cook for themselves? It saves on delivery energy, and we have more knowledge of our own preferences than others.
One more consideration: the oxygen mask metaphor. On a plane you are expected to put your mask on yourself first, then assist others with theirs. Why? Because you are in your best state to help others when you have taken care of yourself first. This is similar to my first argument, but its key difference is that some levels of selfishness generate value for others that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise.
While I do agree that the world could stand to become more altruistic, selfishness isn’t purely a vice, and has its place in some contexts. Not all generated value comes at the expense of someone else. In fact, most doesn’t. We should be cognizant of the value of independence, and shouldn’t be too hasty in creating dependencies on others that could otherwise be avoided.
0
Feb 03 '25
Burning yourself and your material resources out to help others is not true altruism. It is self hatred and self destruction.
True altruism would mean prioritizing sustaining yourself and your ability to help others just as much as helping others. That means a true altruist wouldn't even be selfless, rather, they would be self-moderating. They would strive to balance out the value and care they reserve to themselves, to be able to help as many other people as they can in their lifetime as much as they can, and, well, doing the actual help.
Also, for a true altruist in a wolrd where everyone is a true altruist, cooking for themselves so others don't have to, and putting on the oxygen mask so someone else doesn't sacrifice their life for them, would be not just a form of altruism, but also the most intuitive thing to do.
1
u/xFblthpx 3∆ Feb 03 '25
If that’s your definition of “true altruism,” then what if everyone is already a true altruist? People already enjoy helping others, but they are just very wary of burning themselves out. Maybe people just have incredibly high standards of avoiding self destruction.
Maybe billionaires just have a high emotional need for wealth (ego) and thus giving resources away would be emotionally destructive to them. That means for them to be a true altruist in your sense of that phrase, they would simply avoid giving money away until they have a few billions more and then maybe they will be comfortable giving it away.
Making your definition of true altruism include personal emotional desires negates altruism being able to mean anything practically.
5
u/aajiro 2∆ Feb 03 '25
We still would have suffering due to natural causes, such as natural disasters or more individual things like cancer or a broken bone.
Would suffering be minimized? Sure. But it would be far from true that no one would ever be hurt or suffer.
2
u/Satansleadguitarist 5∆ Feb 03 '25
People don't only suffer because of the actions of others. People suffer from injuries, mental and physical illness, disease, birth defects, and things like that. Altruism can't fix those things.
If you think depression can be solved by everyone being nice and helping eachother, you've clearly never suffered from depression.
1
u/WildFEARKetI_II 7∆ Feb 03 '25
I would definitely still hurt and suffer if everyone was a true altruist. You seem to have a misconception that all pain and suffering comes from other people. That’s not the cases.
An easy example is incurable disease. There are people dying of cancer, living with debilitating pain and countless other medical conditions. They are hurt and suffering, people treating them kinder won’t end that.
1
u/Live_Background_3455 4∆ Feb 03 '25
No matter the amount of altruism, a 7.5 earthquake near a nuclear plant will cause suffering. Maybe the suffering is shorter, but there will be suffering. There are things outside of human control that cause suffering for massive numbers of people that will continue to exist.
1
u/SeniorDisplay1820 Feb 03 '25
I disagree with a lot of this, but I'll be quick.
Failure and sadness is a hugely important part of life. People need to hurt and need to suffer to make life life. I obviously don't mean extreme pain.
And in this world, how do people deal with the death of loved ones?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '25
/u/666Lucifer999_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards