Memes

"People help other people because it makes them feel good". I'd say the meaning is "people help others in need so they can feel good". Is there a problem with this? If someone in need of help receive that help, they will feel alleviated, while people giving help will feel good. I don't know, it sounds great to me. Even if the helping ones wouldn't feel a thing, like robots, it would be still great, in my book, because someone in need is being attended.

Now, if the helping ones feel bad for helping, and the others feel good, then I can see an issue. The only problem I could see is to be angry because there are people in need to start with.

Kind of. I agree partly. My mother used to knit winter clothes, for free, for some institutions and she wasn't the one delivering them. They never knew who she was, and she didn't bother.

Donating to charities often gives tax benefits.

I mean, you're not wrong, but your point is also kinda meaningless. Of course, you only ever do things because there's something in it for you, even if that something is just feeling good about yourself. If there was truly nothing in it for you, then why would you do it?

But that misses the point of the "people are inherently selfish" vs "people are inherently generous" discussion, because it's not actually about whether people do things only for themselves at the most literal level, instead it's about whether people inherently get something out of doing things for others without external motivation. So your point works the same on both sides of the argument.

We hear that argument a lot, and though some people's charity may be motivated purely by egoism I don't think it applies to the majority at all. The argument assumes that if doing something makes you feel good, then that feeling must be the sole motivation for that action, which is dubious. And if we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, every action that does not make you feel bad is egoistic, and the concept becomes completely meaningless. Saving a child from falling down a cliff? Egoistic! Intervening when someone is treated unfairly? Egoistic! Giving up your chair for an elderly person on a crowded bus? Egoistic!

Let's take this last (admittedly small, everyday, non-dramatic) example. Sure, you could give up your seat purely because you want to look like a good person to others (although it's doubtful anyone would even notice). It's also possible to experience this feeling called empathy, to see an elderly person struggling to keep their balance while standing up and to want to alleviate that particular suffering. Everyone else is sitting down looking at their phones, so there's no community pressure to speak of. No one would call you out if you just pretended not to notice. And the discomfort from standing up on a really crowded bus on a bumpy road could easily outweigh that little buzz you get from doing good.

I'll go even further; it's even possible, in a scenario like this, to not even think about how it's going to make you feel or your self-image or whatever. You just want to help someone else because it's in your power to do so. If this isn't an example of not being egoistic, what would be? What would be the opposite of egoism? To act completely dispassionately?

And what about someone sacrificing their own life to save another? Striving to do good in the world does feel better, yes, but empathy is also a burden. Still, there are genuinely good people out there, that do good deeds and do not take any credit for it, even do it anonymously. And I can tell you from experience, not all of them walk around on clouds feeling like saints. Some of them even experience crippling guilt because they feel they do not do enough. How is that egoism?

that's a very grim way of looking at goodness. Of course doing things you believe are making a positive change makes you feel good, of course helping your community makes you feel good, and it does feel nice to be recognised and known as a good person.

It's a strange ambient idea in our society, that to be truly good you must suffer, and never find joy in the good things you do. Not to turn conspiratorial, but to me it sounds like a cope from actually selfish people who look at people who do nice things and think to themselves "they're only doing it to be popular and feel good about themselves, why else would anyone do anything"

Even animals are not based on such "animalistic instinct", most of animals cooperate on some level.

You can see it all play out in a microcosm on reality shows like Survivor. People cooperate and compete. They cooperate TO compete. They cooperate when it benefits them the most, and betray each other when they think they’re most likely to get away with it. Some people are more trustworthy than others. Some are extremely likely to betray, but then they struggle to benefit from cooperation.

Groups of people engaged in a kind of eusocial super cooperation are very rare and tend to be fairly small. They also tend to act the most like a clique; being highly discriminatory against the outgroup.

My take on this is that the greatness in humanity comes from being a bunch of egoistic assholes capable of doing the right thing and help each other.

A selfless person doing something selfless is normal. A egoist doing something egoistic is normal. An egoist doing something altruistic is what raises us from pure instinct to humanity.

Ok but socdem. And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist]

??? That is a novel take "let us split power with our oppressors, but Nordic countries don't do that"

they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

Yeah the USSR was and China is a transitionary socialist state lead by a communist party.

Get it together people.

Ok but socdem. And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist] just think about how they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

What are you trying to say?

Does it really matter what scheme the elites use to wring out all surplus value out of the population to repurpose for their own ends ?

are you really saying emulsified rat lips, chicken trimmings, porkins, and beef slurry didn't exist in 3500 BCE?

"One of the USSRs biggest mistakes was giving Ayn Rand an education"

"And when all those self made champions went away and created a new society, free of the old one, one of them asked 'does anyone of us know how to cook?'. And then they screamed in fear".