There is no such thing as altruism. Its always nature vs nurture and on first sign of distress, the so-called "civilised society" creates its own food chain.
There is no such thing as altruism. Its always nature vs nurture and on first sign of distress, the so-called "civilised society" creates its own food chain.
There is no such thing as altruism if you insist that 'feeling good' after doing good is somehow making it all selfish.
Interesting view, indeed.
I wonder how high feelings are traded on the market today.
The views are solely based on my perception. Altruism is a term which has long lost its meaning. Obviously doing good will create a good feeling. I put up my word which might seem like an interesting view, but actually it is a contextual view. Altruism is something that is not part of current context, seemingly on account of priorities. I have not seen (in my limited observation and timeline) incorporation of altruism on a massive scale. Ground reality is that there are no informal rules that govern interaction between common people, and so i put up the word food chain solely to account for survival in such environment.
You say: 'I have not seen (in my limited observation and timeline) incorporation of altruism on a massive scale.'
Now it sounds like you say that there is altruism, only not on a massive scale?
I am confused...
I have my point of view, which is not necessarily to be agreed upon by others. There is a difference between an atheist and agnostic pertaining to belief in existence of god. Analogous to agnostic belief, i belief that existence of altruism is unknown to me. So, i do not belief in it, but i am not telling others not to believe in it.
Adoption of altruism is highlighted only in media primarily by UN and through Peace initiatives of Noble prize winners. I was very clear and used the word context in illustrating its application. The word limited timeline is because i have not seen the world from its inception and is limited by my age. Similarly, the word limited observation accounts for limited places i have lived till now. Evidence based reasoning implies that sample size in which altruism is practised is small enough to represent total population. Since, if i have not seen the evidence, than i would infer that it does not exist. I am unable to correlate relationship between altruism and unfortunate events such as mass genocide and ethnic cleansing at same time. I do not have evidence to support its adoption on mass (which is for whole population), since there are plenty of evidences that contradict its existence rather than supporting its presence.
Fair enough. This makes more sense than: 'there is no such thing as altruism.' as you stated above. Thank you for the clarification!
I want to clarify that the phrase There is no such thing as altruism is my point of view and its unknown existence in the context does not make me to believe in it. I stand by, what i initially posted since posts are representing my point of view (unless hacked !!).
Of course, i am not challenging belief of others (as i put above with the difference between an atheist and agnostic). Simply put, i do not believe in it although i am not challenging its existence.