|
| Thread: Altruism is evil |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
posted September 21, 2011 12:11 PM |
|
|
Altruism is unfeeling/inhuman, by the sound of it. I'm not surprised people would associate that with evil, but that's simply not the case, because an evil trait (sadomistic for example) is still doing it for your own, twisted pleasure, no autruism is unfeeling in the deed, hence cannot be good/bad, it's effects may be so, but the individual is not to blame, for he is but a tool.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2011 05:25 PM |
|
|
|
wait, are you talking about altruism or mind manipulation?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 23, 2011 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If altruism is helping others for the sake of others, it will look good until you realize that it lacks any condition to make sure the end result is good.
If it didn't end up in something good, it'd not be altruism in the
first place, and here I include intention.
Imagine you're gonna help me learn English, but I suck at it and the end result is that if you really should have helped, you should have ignored me and let me learn by myself, in stead I thought you'd do it "all" for me, so I did nothing. So I fail learning English, but what you did was still an act of altruism. What you did was still something "good".
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 09:24 AM |
|
|
OhforfSake: Altruism would be that a English teacher attempts to do his job, teaching the students English, and fails miserably because he fails to realize that none of his students are capapble of learning with the methods he use.
Altruism would also be that he succeded.
And what about soliders? Raping, pillaging and burning "for their country", that means their intention is then "to help their country".
So then their action is altruistic, regardless of the end result, because the definition of altruism ignores the end result.
So the real question should be: Why is my definition of altruism wrong, and your correct?
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what about soliders? Raping, pillaging and burning "for their country", that means their intention is then "to help their country".
So then their action is altruistic, regardless of the end result, because the definition of altruism ignores the end result.
This reminds me of my more youthful days, when I still facepalmed over things I read on the internet.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 03:30 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 15:35, 24 Sep 2011.
|
Haaha . His logic is irefuteable. The first thing on every soldiers mind when hes on his daily routine of "raping, pillaging and burning" is the good of his country. Obviously.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
|
No arguments against = irefutable logic.
Elemantary my children.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 06:59 PM |
|
|
and what about their intentions towards the invaded country?
they are the enemy, so nothing we do to them can be morally wrong?
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 08:48 PM |
|
|
Has the thought ever crossed your mind Dia that the soldiers use that as an excuse? It is the state or country they go to war for that dictates whether the actions they take are for the best of the state/country.
If the soldier isnt acting according to the states principals for the mission they are not acting on behalf of the state. Your example is quite poor... In case you were being serious. You werent right?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
Thing is, Diablo, that the longer this discussion goes on, the higher the chance that you actually read one of your posts; and if you did that, the sheer magnitude of your horrified "what-the-****-am-I-saying" self-realization would most likely doom us all.
So, in a way, you should be thankful to us altruists for looking out for you.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 10:52 PM |
|
|
Then prove the core or essence of what I am saying to be wrong.
If you can not do that, accept it.
If you merely disagree with the "word" that you think the core should have, just say so.
Meanwhile I will be saying many wrong things, because nobody of you will be willing to explain anything either. 
____________
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 10:59 PM |
|
|
I disproved your example. If its an example for your essence I disproved your essence. Whats your point?
And if its a wrong example well then you yourself dont seem to be able to say what you want to say, and if you dont know what you are trying to say how should I?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 24, 2011 11:45 PM |
|
|
Then how do I know that you can read?
____________
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 01:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And what about soliders? Raping, pillaging and burning "for their country", that means their intention is then "to help their country".
So then their action is altruistic, regardless of the end result, because the definition of altruism ignores the end result.
So the real question should be: Why is my definition of altruism wrong, and your correct?
I already told why I believe it's outside the definition of altruism, when you start to talk about doing harm to other people.
Beside I'm not saying your definition is wrong. I don't even know what is the correct definition. I'm saying that your intepretation of the consequences of the definition you've presented is in violation with that same definition.
I mean you might have a point, the definition you've presented requires something which for a human raised in most societies would usually be completely obvious, and no I don't know what it is. Yet if you give that definition of altruism to a machine, I'd not be surprised if it "find" the definition lacking, or to be more precise, the programmers would not get the program to act in accordance with their visions.
However, I do doubt very much that the computer would necessarily end up deciding to harm others, to do someone in particular a "favor". Especially if you simply define that "someone" is a part of anyone, which was the point of my original post in this thread.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 09:11 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 09:13, 29 Sep 2011.
|
for some reason, the title of the thread makes me think of the pope pursued for crime against humanity
next : Hitler was Jesus
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 09:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hitler was Jesus
All a matter of perspective dear friend, to you he was jesus, to me he was jesus, but to the rest of these fine folk, he was not  .
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 30, 2011 08:43 AM |
|
|
OhforfSake:
Quote:
Beside I'm not saying your definition is wrong. I don't even know what is the correct definition. I'm saying that your intepretation of the consequences of the definition you've presented is in violation with that same definition./quote]
Quite simple: No its not, and we both know that.
Otherwise this is a long ended debate.
|
|
|
|
