Originally posted by jsobeckyAnd just who decides which claims are valid?
YOU DO! That's the point.
You are not defining altruism. You are trying to promote a feel-good sensation without thinking of the consequences.
The definition for altruism is very broad and abstract. The only way the word makes any sense in daily living is to give it meaning. The definition
you brought up is from zoology studies and its usefulness to our discusison is somewhat vague, yet if you pay careful attention to the definition, you
will note that it requires the detriment of the individual only as far as aiding the group. An analogy might be soldiers, whereas they sacrifice
themselves for the good of the group.
You have this standard vision of how to help people, and that is, to give something to everyone who asks for a handout. You can be said to be guilty
of promulgating this way to help people as you share this same vision of "helping the needy." I don't really know what you are asking for here.
Why does "help the needy" only have to equate to welfare and other social programs? Why can't "helping the needy" equate to getting them a job
or education?
You know why? Because it's much easier to give a homeless man a piece of bread, then it is to right the circumstances that led to his demise.
People are too lazy to help in a meaningful way, and that is not practicing altruism. True altruism in the context of our discussion would be to
sacrifice oneself so that society has the least amount of needy as possible. That's not going to come through bread handouts either, but from
exactly what you've been talking about. What you see as the best way of helping people would, in fact, be true altruism.
Altruism is just a word, and as with all words we attach meaning to it. In this case you have attached your own negative meaning to altruism, because
you have a certain vision of what altruism looks like. Altruism is such a broadly defined word jso, that it can mean so many ways of helping others.
It's just a matter of what the word means to you.