Altruism and Egoism

[Enemy of the State]

In many religions, self-sacrifice is the most important virtue. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so? Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others? Is living for one's self wrong?

[Hippolord]

In many religions, self-sacrifice is the most important virtue. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so? Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others? Is living for one's self wrong?

*Dun dah dah Dun!!!!"

He comes a Moral relativist!

*Ahem!*

There is no such thing as "Good" or "Evil", so no it is not so... For one cannot trully be evil, anyone more than one can trully be good. For you shall do always as you see fit, and such is the way of things. To abhore any human action, is to abhore what it is to be human.

We shall always have action, we shall always have thought. What said actions and thoughts are, means nothing.

Here ye! Here ye!

"Look now... at how we marvel at our ability, to define the nature of good and evil! Look at how we dillude ourselves with such notions! As to make ourselves safe? Are we? Or by such black and white concepts...what more do we do that blind ourselves?"

That was fun!

Edit/P.S.: To live for ones self is not wrong. In fact it is natural...it is the only way. Every human action, is based upon self...because that who we are....we are ourselves.

[AdamWeishaupt]

Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others?

What do you mean with "right" and what with "determined"?

Is living for one's self wrong?

Wrong? I think life in the sense of bios takes place in relations be they past, present or future. A self will in that sense not experience an intense life, should it disregard the demand of other selfnesses. Living for one's self includes the other self. I imagine in the most extreme case the other self just comes as an inner distance.

[Hippolord]

What do you mean with "right" and what with "determined"?

You just slightly rpeated what i said! And i like that! It makes me feel more important!

+rep

[Problem Sleuth]

In many religions, self-sacrifice is the most important virtue. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so? Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others? Is living for one's self wrong?

Whether or not right or wrong exist can be called into question, but that's an entirely different discussion.



There are a number of conclusions that you can reach, depending on where you derive your morality and what the logic behind it is. The prevailing view, though, is that living for one's self isn't wrong, when done in moderation. In essentially all moral systems, if you begin robbing and killing people to benefit yourself, you've crossed a line. Similarly, in most moral systems, you don't need to give away all your material belongings to others. You're simply expected to help people and act as a decent human being.

I personally adhere to a Utilitarianistic viewpoint. Whichever creates the most overall happiness for humanity. This generally creates a fair amount of balance.

[Jams79]

I've said it before Hippo but I'll say it again; A society without Good and Evil defined, is a society doomed to failure. If I have to give up my right to murder another person to live safe in the knowledge all others are prohibited from the same act, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

By what right do you claim to deny me of my rights?

[Hippolord]

I've said it before Hippo but I'll say it again; A society without Good and Evil defined, is a society doomed to failure. If I have to give up my right to murder another person to live safe in the knowledge all others are prohibited from the same act, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

By what right do you claim to deny me of my rights?

I could ask you the same thing....

We all have infinite rights, due to the fact that we have free will, i deny you of none of your rights in the end. I only express my own, if it does not fit you then by god do something about it.

I suggest you form a society with laws and restrictions in order to keep your own rights safe. I think i have heard of something like that before....

I deny you nothing, i just allow myself everything. Shall you deny me?

[AdamWeishaupt]

The most lucky case of "living for" is love. It is also the most difficult case.

[Jams79]

I could ask you the same thing....

We all have infinite rights, due to the fact that we have free will, i deny you of none of your rights in the end. I only express my own, if it does not fit you then by god do something about it.

I suggest you form a society with laws and restrictions in order to keep your own rights safe. I think i have heard of something like that before....

I deny you nothing, i just allow myself everything. Shall you deny me?

In a well designed society you are only denied rights if they impinge anothers.

[Hippolord]

In a well designed society you are only denied rights if they impinge anothers.

Im asuming that by well designed you mean YOUR definiton of well designed. It may be okay top you but to me it may be flawed. Thus i take it as my personal duty to go against it.

And whta about my rights? Am i not my own society? Does a society have to include multiple people? I think not.

As you can see by now, my last two posts have had one theme: You speak of society, and what is good for you or for "Society" my question is, What about ME? What about what I belive is right or wrong, moral or immoral. If my morals go against society what am i to do? Leave? All my friends and family, and cast myself out for the sake of keeping society together.

Or worse, am i to change my beliefs for the sake of all society? One may say that, that would be the right thing to do. But is it so Selfish, to want to follow your own morals other than those placed down by soicety in an order to keep us "Safe" and to help us "Thrive". Once again dear friend/foe... i think NOT.

[MaximiIian]

Is it so?

Altruism and Egoism is an unnecessary dichotomy. They can both exist in one person, and often do.
Example: my tendency towards altruistic or egotistical behaviour depends largely on my mood and how stressed I am.

Like damn near everything, they both have a time and a place.

[AdamWeishaupt]

Altruism and Egoism is an unnecessary dichotomy.

I agree but "and" can be and and or. The meaning 'a and b and further' can't be excluded. Interesting problem.

[S.L.I.G]

In many religions, self-sacrifice is the most important virtue. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so? Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others? Is living for one's self wrong?

I think the moral structure of a society is an attempt to enforce cohesion and stability, for the greater whole. Yes, morality changes from place to place, but theres always absolutes. There's always a required way of thinking, and a set degree of rules that are universally applied across the earth. In other words, morals may change, but the general idea always remains the same, a stable and working society. What is moral, is what works for everyone as a collective whole.

Self sacrifice is a moral absolute, a moral and practical requirement, and yet so is individual survival. I would say that altruism is morally proper, whereas looking out for yourself is separate from morality simply because its based and ingrained so essentially through instincts, it is the morals of nature. Egoism is both wrong and right, depending on the way a person perceives the world, the particular problem and context.

So my answer is maybe.

[Khannis]

Egoism is the essential nature of man. Altruism is either forced by religion or other forms of social coercion, or by nature, through love.

[vecordia]

I. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so?

No, it's comepletely crap. It's one of these primitive moral-internal lies which says: You must do good things cause it's good for everyone and therefore altruistic, but don't be selfish, because it's bad.

You, human, a creature are always egoist even unwillingly, the whole rest is fitted to this. Altruism is only child of your selfish nature, you "act of favour", besides like many more matter, including ethics itself. At least thi is what I think.

EDIT:

Egoism is the essential nature of man. Altruism is either forced by religion or other forms of social coercion, or by nature, through love.

I missed that. Well Said.

[Alkarin]

In many religions, self-sacrifice is the most important virtue. Altruism is the absolute good, while egoism is the absolute evil. Is it so? Is a man's right to exist determined only by his service to others? Is living for one's self wrong?

sounding like a socialist to me.