Why are the new Atheists so religious?

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

We like to call them "ATHEISTKULT". They are mostly based on the internet, particularly on the forum 'Atheism Plus', and they consider themselves a movement, of social and political means. Their manifesto goes a little like this...

 

“We are…

Atheists plus we care about social justice,

Atheists plus we care about economic equality,

Atheists plus we support women’s rights,

Atheists plus we protest racism,

Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,

Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.”

 

It reminds me of what Nietzsche said...

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed
him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the
murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that
the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will
wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?
What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?
Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves
not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125

 

So skeptical these Atheists are, yet ever so religious, not much different to the Christians they enjoy teasing so much.

For them; God may be 'dead', yet his shadow still looms, over them all.

 

[Alan C.]

Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

They apply critical thinking and skepticism to supernatural and paranormal claims, but magical thinking to political and economic claims.

[nathanm]

But I thought we were supposed to be afraid of trans fats! (!?)

If you've successfully transitioned from your religious upbringing, I think atheism should be incredibly boring.  It should be something one graduates out of.  I remember Hitchens saying something along the lines of not needing an atheist version of church because we don't need to be reminded all the time of what we don't believe.  Religious people made a claim, the claim turns out to be false, then it's over.  Check please.  You don't need to join a That Claim Ain't True Club for the duration.  People aren't members of a club that denies the existence of gods yet to be invented or against books that haven't been written yet are they?

I don't mean to say that all the speeches, books and shows are not useful; obviously they are for people transitioning.  But after you're in the club the club is no longer needed.  Paradox?  Hmmm.

[empyblessing]

This is more of the culture vacuum left in the wake of religion's demise. Neitzsche was correct. God died and nothing took his place leaving billions of young people desperately scrambling for something to identify with, anything at all to become a part of.

If they really wanted to spread their non-belief than they would encourage breeding among atheists since the theists spread their religion mainly through large families. 

[PatrickC]

Just another example of marxists attempting to comandeer the latest popular debate.

[Jose Perez]

Religious people don't know they are irrational; statists don't know they are religious; atheists don't know they are statists... the question is how do you know you are an exception to this rule? That's what I would focus on.

[Rick Horton]

 

But I thought we were supposed to be afraid of trans fats! (!?)

If you've successfully transitioned from your religious upbringing, I think atheism should be incredibly boring.  It should be something one graduates out of.  I remember Hitchens saying something along the lines of not needing an atheist version of church because we don't need to be reminded all the time of what we don't believe.  Religious people made a claim, the claim turns out to be false, then it's over.  Check please.  You don't need to join a That Claim Ain't True Club for the duration.  People aren't members of a club that denies the existence of gods yet to be invented or against books that haven't been written yet are they?

I don't mean to say that all the speeches, books and shows are not useful; obviously they are for people transitioning.  But after you're in the club the club is no longer needed.  Paradox?  Hmmm.

 

 

It's no use pretending that God doesn't exist.(as an idea) It has a strong influence on my experience. Therefore the idea of God is real. I don't really want to ignore it. It is there and it does have a huge affect on my life. 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Just another example of marxists attempting to comandeer the latest popular debate.

 

That about sums it up. The vast majority of the "new atheist"  movement is sympathetic to socialism, if not an advocate for some re-brand of the communist utopia.

Of course this isn't suprising. They are children and chief beneficiaries of the state. Most are highly "educated," and well on their way to tenure or public research grants and have not had the first thought which was not fed to them through the channel of a fellow academic statist. They buck religion only because their professors questioned religion and because they view religion as being an inferior and defunct state apparatus from which they cannot gain. The vast majority of them have "skills," which are entirely predicated on the state apparatus.

[nathanm]

 

It's no use pretending that God doesn't exist.(as an idea) It has a strong influence on my experience. Therefore the idea of God is real. I don't really want to ignore it. It is there and it does have a huge affect on my life. 

 

That's a very good point.  It's a social matter I suppose.  For me I avoid the issue with my family because it's easier that way.  Cowardly?  Probably.  My folks are already very indifferent about religion but we do discuss more serious religious conflicts elsewhere in the family (currently, a Jehovah's Witness\Catholic rift with my aunts).  I will come out as atheist if asked, and I doubt there would be much of a problem.  (My coming out about not-voting vanished like mosquito sigh in a windstorm…really anti-climactic!) Religion has always been about the superficial BS and not the core dogmas. So it's a more lightweight theism on the whole, but obviously for other people it's a major deal as you say.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

I do think a point worth mentioning is that Conservatism (and even popular Libertarianism to some extent) has typically been associated with Christianity/Traditionalism/Fundamentalism by popular culture, therefore the new Atheists may feel obligated to be a counter to those social and political ideas as well, because of that association.

[PatrickC]

I do think a point worth mentioning is that Conservatism (and even popular Libertarianism to some extent) has typically been associated with Christianity/Traditionalism/Fundamentalism by popular culture, therefore the new Atheists may feel obligated to be a counter to those social and political ideas as well, because of that association.

From a political point of view I quite agree with you. However, the irony is that socialism tends to take on those very same christian virtues and values of alturism and collectivism. At least from the new teatament perspective.

[Demitri]

 

I do think a point worth mentioning is that Conservatism (and even popular Libertarianism to some extent) has typically been associated with Christianity/Traditionalism/Fundamentalism by popular culture, therefore the new Atheists may feel obligated to be a counter to those social and political ideas as well, because of that association.

From a political point of view I quite agree with you. However, the irony is that socialism tends to take on those very same christian virtues and values of alturism and collectivism. At least from the new teatament perspective.

 

I find myself wondering what definition of "altruism" you are using.

I wonder this because it is my understanding that everyone here subscribes to the non-aggression principle (I do), and we believe that everyone should do the same.
A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society.

Religions generally try to parade their version of altruism as some form of self-sacrafice, and that has been giving altruism a bad rap in much the same way as "anarchy means absolute chaos" gives anarchism a bad rap.

So are you talking about the twisted religious idea of altruism then?

[PatrickC]

I find myself wondering what definition of "altruism" you are using.

I wonder this because it is my understanding that everyone here subscribes to the non-aggression principle (I do), and we believe that everyone should do the same.
A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society.

Religions generally try to parade their version of altruism as some form of self-sacrafice, and that has been giving altruism a bad rap in much the same way as "anarchy means absolute chaos" gives anarchism a bad rap.

So are you talking about the twisted religious idea of altruism then?

I'm not sure I've ever come across your definition of altruism before. Which isn't to say it's not true, just that it's very new for me. I've always understood altruism as one of those impossible virtues of 'self-sacrifice' and 'selflessness' that can never be reached in the purest sense, because of the rather obvious detriment to ones own life. Which of course is ideal for most collectivist ideaologies, like religion and statism that seek to control and modify peoples behaviours, by re-asserting our failure to ever reach such a standard.

If I understand you correctly you see individuals adherence to the NAP alone as being essentially altruistic.

[Libertus]

I'm an atheist, that means, I don't believe in god. That's that. What on earth are you talking about? Seems like an obivous attempt to lump non-believers into a group, give the group a label and then badmouth the whole group, associate attributes with its members, when all we have in common is, we don't believe in god. Collectivism at it's finest, and I'm surprised about the positive response this post gets from some people on this forum. Do you want me to come to your church and talk about them being christian cult members? Or would that be trolling?

[PatrickC]

I don't understand Libertus. The discussion was focused specifically on 'Atheism+', which is a special little band of atheists that have been lumping political ideaolgy into their little group. Unless I have misunderstood this wasn't a thread meant to bash atheists in general, if that makes sense.

[Jose Perez]

 

A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society.

 

Altruism is a choice you have whether you practice the NAP or not. People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it gives them a "justification" for aggression, especially passive aggression. Your associating altruism with the NAP sounds to me like you view anarchy the way anarcho-socialists do? 

[Demitri]

 

I find myself wondering what definition of "altruism" you are using.

I wonder this because it is my understanding that everyone here subscribes to the non-aggression principle (I do), and we believe that everyone should do the same.
A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society.

Religions generally try to parade their version of altruism as some form of self-sacrafice, and that has been giving altruism a bad rap in much the same way as "anarchy means absolute chaos" gives anarchism a bad rap.

So are you talking about the twisted religious idea of altruism then?

I'm not sure I've ever come across your definition of altruism before. Which isn't to say it's not true, just that it's very new for me. I've always understood altruism as one of those impossible virtues of 'self-sacrifice' and 'selflessness' that can never be reached in the purest sense, because of the rather obvious detriment to ones own life. Which of course is ideal for most collectivist ideaologies, like religion and statism that seek to control and modify peoples behaviours, by re-asserting our failure to ever reach such a standard.

If I understand you correctly you see individuals adherence to the NAP alone as being essentially altruistic.

 

 

According to the World English Dictionary, this is the definition of altrusim:

1.	the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2.	the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others

First, I would say this does not exclude concern for one's own welfare. The idea that altruism = self-sacrafice is a religious "spin" on the concept stemming from the idea of 'turning the other cheek'. Self-sacrafice is abhorrent as a virtue of living, and can only be a positive thing when it is literal (such as performing an act that takes your own life, but saves the lives of others.) Alas, such literal actions can only be done once, and thus, are a post-mordem virtue only.

Second, I would say that upholding the NAP is a "right action which produces the geatest benefit to others". It also has the benefit of producing great benefit to ourselves. Is there disagreement about this?

Upholding the NAP does not automatically mean that one is altruistic. However, a society where the NAP is the 'norm' would be an altruistic one because of the repercussions of upholding the NAP. In the absence of those who would initiate violence, it is far more profitable to cooperate with others for mutual benefit than it is to do otherwise. Again, altruism does not mean self-sacrafice; it does mean following an course of action which benefits others.

[Demitri]

 

 

A resulting society where the non-aggression principle was practiced as the "norm" would be -by the definition I understand- an altruistic society.

 

Altruism is a choice you have whether you practice the NAP or not. People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it gives them a "justification" for aggression, especially passive aggression. Your associating altruism with the NAP sounds to me like you view anarchy the way anarcho-socialists do? 

 

 

The NAP is altruistic in itself. However, I agree in that it does not mean that one who practices NAP must default to choosing to be altruistic in other areas of life.

This "People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it
gives them a "justification" for aggression," makes no sense, as aggression toward another is -by definition- not altruistic at all. Choosing to be altruistic can't logically be used as proper "justification" for not being altruistic at another time. If so, then the initial altruism was not "unselfish", it was an attempt to "bank good points"... Whether or not someone claims to be altruistic, if they act in this way they are not altruistic. Therefore one cannot "be altruistic a lot". Either you are altruistic, or you are not.

This, "[...] especially passive
aggression." only makes sense if you believe that self-sacraficial BS = altruism.

You made me do some research just to figure out how the hell 'anarcho-socialists' view anarchy. I only got over being allergic to political terms a short time ago, so bear with me if I don't know all the fancy-shmancy politico-lingo. When I searched for the term 'anarcho-socialist', I kept finding my way to "Libertarian socialism". I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about, but if so, I agree with some of what I read of them and disagree with other parts... So I don't really know if I view anarchy as a anarcho-socialist or not. I would appreciate some clarification, if you'd be so kind as to help with that.

Thanks for the comments!
Cheers!
~Demitri

[Guest darkskyabove]

When I witness people arguing apples vs. oranges, I like to make juice.

It should be stated that "altruism" has a bad rap due to religious indoctrination; i.e., making it a requirement for moral behavior. And most of us here know that religious requirements are ALWAYS violated by religious leaders; how else to explain the Catholic Church's enormous wealth, while they tell their adherents to DONATE.

Demitri attempted a proper course by providing a dictionary definition, but what good is a textbook definition if people assume the word to mean something different.

I would HIGHLY recommend distancing oneself from the practice of labelization [that might be a new word ].

Rather than assuming that some label is valid, why not explain one's position. Are people in so much of a hurry now that the use of one word to define a group has become paramount.

No one can define me with a word. No one can define anything with just one word. And no, two words doesn't cut it, either.

There lies a paradox of philosophy. On the one hand, the intent is to simplify, and create an atmosphere of greater understanding. On the other hand lies the complex use of language, whereby the most simple can be convoluted into extreme complexity.

Boiling off the extraneous, what's left is that I am a human, you are a human. For as much as YOU do not accept being labeled, why label another? WHY?

Stay tuned...

[Demitri]

... labelization [that might be a new word ]

I like it!

I have tried (and failed) to find a label that adequtely applies to me. So far, the best one I have found is "Polymath". Of course that's not a political stance label; I haven't even begun to look for a label in that mess of jargon. I guess with as difficult as it has been to find "polymath" as a label for what I know and do, I dont think I'll endeavor to find a label that works for me when it comes to my philosophical ideas. Guess I'll just have to keep being me, and having my own thoughts about stuff.

... what good is a textbook definition if people assume the word to mean something different.

I think it is good to help inform people where they have been misled. This also extends to understanding the proper use of words. Language has power, and if (as politicians, and religious doctrine are well versed at doing) the language can be twisted it to suit particular goals, then they can be used as a weapon. Understanding the proper meaning of the words then becomes the shield against a weapon of language.

If we do not discuss distinctions, what then, is there to discuss?

[PatrickC]

Second, I would say that upholding the NAP is a "right action which produces the geatest benefit to others". It also has the benefit of producing great benefit to ourselves. Is there disagreement about this?

Upholding the NAP does not automatically mean that one is altruistic. However, a society where the NAP is the 'norm' would be an altruistic one because of the repercussions of upholding the NAP. In the absence of those who would initiate violence, it is far more profitable to cooperate with others for mutual benefit than it is to do otherwise. Again, altruism does not mean self-sacrafice; it does mean following an course of action which benefits others.

Thanks for the correction and that was a much clearer explanation of your definition and not a disagreeable one at that.

It's interesting to note that the Wikipedia definition attempts to strip (rather well) 'moral obligation' from the word, by distinguishing it from 'loyalty' and 'duty'. It later admits that there is still much debate about the definition.

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but one's self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (e.g., a god, a king), or collective (e.g., a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving).

However, whilst I have learnt something new here today, I think you can safely assume that people on this forum will be using the cultural (even Randian) definition of the word. Not dissimilar to the definition I used in my previous post. I'm not sure I want to get all nit-picky with their definition, when I understand what they mean. Unless of course the more precise definition lends itself to a better understanding of one’s position or argument, if that makes sense.

Darkskyabove - Who was labelling whom? Your criticism was unspecific and broad and didn't make a lot of sense (at least for me).

[Jose Perez]

Good points, Demitri. I think you're confusing altruism – a principle for the behaviour of individuals –  with "altruism" as an effect of the NAP.

 

First, I would say this does not exclude concern for one's own welfare. The idea that altruism = self-sacrafice is a religious "spin" on the concept stemming from the idea of 'turning the other cheek'. Self-sacrafice is abhorrent as a virtue of living, and can only be a positive thing when it is literal (such as performing an act that takes your own life, but saves the lives of others.) Alas, such literal actions can only be done once, and thus, are a post-mordem virtue only.

 

Why do you think this is positive? Killing yourself to save others is the paragon of self sacrifice.

 

Second, I would say that upholding the NAP is a "right action which produces the geatest benefit to others". It also has the benefit of producing great benefit to ourselves. Is there disagreement about this?

 

Yes. That would lead to a discussion on the definition of "benefit to others" – you could argue that because statism produces the greatest benefit to certain others, it still fits the definition of altruism... The reason to uphold the NAP is not utilitarian (benefit), but moral. 

 

Upholding the NAP does not automatically mean that one is altruistic. However, a society where the NAP is the 'norm' would be an altruistic one because of the repercussions of upholding the NAP.

 

Altruism is a quality of the individual, as you see in the definition; "others" only makes sense with respect to the individual. Still, I can understand what you mean by (global) "repercussions", but that is an ideal that only comes as an effect of free market principles, and yet free market principles can only be sustained if individuals (peacefully) seek their own self interest – which is the opposite of altruism. 

 

[Jose Perez]

 

The NAP is altruistic in itself. 

 

Interesting view... Non-aggression or any non-action shows no particular interest in the welfare of others; saying it does is not the same. That is the whole idea of passive aggression or deterrence; you might as well say that these are altruistic too because they represent a withdrawal of a possible aggressive action out of a concern for the enemy.

Ostracism – which would be used in a free society against aggressors – is perfectly compatible with the NAP and cannot be altruistic either, by the definition of altruism.

(EDIT:) Altruism is a predisposition for positive action. The welfare of others requires action, especially actions that are opposite to the individual's own welfare. These are of course the actions that are required of us by false philosophies of all kinds.

 

This "People who don't practice the NAP like to be altruistic a lot because it
gives them a "justification" for aggression," makes no sense, as aggression toward another is -by definition- not altruistic at all. Choosing to be altruistic can't logically be used as proper "justification" for not being altruistic at another time. If so, then the initial altruism was not "unselfish", it was an attempt to "bank good points"... Whether or not someone claims to be altruistic, if they act in this way they are not altruistic. Therefore one cannot "be altruistic a lot". Either you are altruistic, or you are not.

 

Again, this would mean that something like self defense is not possible for an altruistic person because they would not be altruistic in that precise moment.

Sure, the whole point of altruism is to "bank good points" for aggression that is regarded as legitimate and moral – like self defense is. It starts with the idea that raising your own children is an altruistic action, which is pure evil. The mother "has to" attack the child because he is "selfish"... Parents like to be altruistic a lot; sometimes they will have natural impulses and love for their children, but most often they'll act out of self sacrifice, remind their children who's boss, and plant the seeds of future statism and religion.

 

This, "[...] especially passive
aggression." only makes sense if you believe that self-sacraficial BS = altruism.

 

I hope what I wrote about childhood will clarify and add justification to my belief that it is not BS. Human beings are able to self attack and predict violence, in order to avoid it. Passive aggression is so effective because of this and the fact that this is mostly the kind of aggression that children – who are dependent on their parents – receive.

 

You made me do some research just to figure out how the hell 'anarcho-socialists' view anarchy. I only got over being allergic to political terms a short time ago, so bear with me if I don't know all the fancy-shmancy politico-lingo. When I searched for the term 'anarcho-socialist', I kept finding my way to "Libertarian socialism". I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about, but if so, I agree with some of what I read of them and disagree with other parts... So I don't really know if I view anarchy as a anarcho-socialist or not. I would appreciate some clarification, if you'd be so kind as to help with that.

 

In my view, anarcho-socialists have this motherly fantasy that a society of non-aggression is compatible with a denial of property rights and a scorn for selfishness and capitalism. This stems from what I pointed out above. When most of the aggression is received and repressed by the child from his own "caring" parents in a passive way (perhaps as a result of neglect, or a certain situation with the siblings...) the child becomes susceptible to the violent cues of fellow citizens later in life without the need for overt aggression or threat, and thinks that other people should be susceptible too – thus obviating the need for government.

Does that make it clearer? what do you think?

[Demitri]

 

However, whilst I have learnt something new here today, I think you can safely assume that people on this forum will be using the cultural (even Randian) definition of the word. Not dissimilar to the definition I used in my previous post. I'm not sure I want to get all nit-picky with their definition, when I understand what they mean. Unless of course the more precise definition lends itself to a better understanding of one’s position or argument, if that makes sense.

 

 

I fully agree with you. I disagree with Wikipedia and with what has become the now-common use of the word altruism. I think it is a deliberate bastardization of the concept the word was meant to convey; bastardized by religions into their form of morality. This bastardized concept of altruism is where Joseito's entire argument stems from, so I agree completely with you.

Since my definition of altrusim is obviously different from the bastardized religious concept used around here (as expertly demonstrated above; thank you, Joseito), I am going to leave this debate where it is. I said what I meant to say already, and have no desire to re-hash it. As Xelent mentioned, there is an on-going larger debate about the definition of altruism.

To summarize my understanding:

What I understand altruism to be is unselfish action which benefits others, but does not require self-sacrafice. To me, an example of true altruism would be a child giving a gift "from the goodness of their heart" to someone in the form of a picked flower. It is not self-sacraficial, demanded, coerced, or expectant of anything other than a small measure of appreciation (a smile, or "thank you", etc) in any way, but it is unselfish and done for the benefit of another. Understanding any meaning for the word 'altruism' that does not apply to this example, is part of the bastardized version.

That is my view.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

Darkskyabove - Who was labelling whom? Your criticism was unspecific and broad and didn't make a lot of sense (at least for me).

 

Apologies for lack of clarity. My statements about labeling was meant to be general.

My idea is to not rely on the use of one or two words when a fuller explanation will be required anyway.

For example: if I was to write about the possibility of giving simply for the act of giving, why use the word altruism at all?

Convenience would be a valid reason, but once encountering resistance due to differing interpretations, wouldn't it be simpler to restate my position without use of the disputed label?

[Demitri]

Darkskyabove: I agree with your sentiment about explaining my position without using an otherwise controversial label. However, my problem only comes when others use a term to mean one thing, and I have a different definition from them. This causes a break in the clear communication, and can cause problems since we then have two different understandings of what is being talked about.This is especially true when I am not aware that a particular term is controversial. So when I hear a term being used in a way that does not make sense to me based on how I understand it (usually according to the dictionary definition), conversations such as this one begin.Does that make sense?

[Guest darkskyabove]

My suggestion is write however is the most comfortable. It makes little sense to try anticipating the specific level of understanding of any reader.

It is only when confronted with a response that appears to be using a particular word in a way different from your intent that the problem can quickly escalate into a debate over a definition, rather than the original debate.

At that point it would seem prudent to let go of the definition debate and restate the argument without the offending label.

Might be easier said, than done. My whole life is a "work in progress".

[Demitri]

I agree. However most issues of definition like this aren't with a word I am using, but with the definition of a word someone else is using as they attempt to explain something.Many times the problem gets worse if I ask them to explain without the word that is causing the problem, because they refuse to. As for why they refuse to, I can speculate, but I don't see how that would help the actual issue.

[YMS]

Religious people don't know they are irrational; statists don't know they are religious; atheists don't know they are statists... the question is how do you know you are an exception to this rule? That's what I would focus on.

 

Errm, i must be missing something here, what makes an Atheist a Statist again?

[Daniel Chambers]

YMS,

I think, in context, Jose may have meant "athiests + don't know they are statists."

Personally, I didn't care for politics until my belief in God started to wane. I needed to fill that void with something and a political position was a ready alternative.

As it turns out, having an attitude of "how can I help?" fills that void nicely.

[jpahmad]

 

 

According to the World English Dictionary, this is the definition of altrusim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others 2. the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others

First, I would say this does not exclude concern for one's own welfare. The idea that altruism = self-sacrafice is a religious "spin" on the concept stemming from the idea of 'turning the other cheek'. Self-sacrafice is abhorrent as a virtue of living, and can only be a positive thing when it is literal (such as performing an act that takes your own life, but saves the lives of others.) Alas, such literal actions can only be done once, and thus, are a post-mordem virtue only.

Second, I would say that upholding the NAP is a "right action which produces the geatest benefit to others". It also has the benefit of producing great benefit to ourselves. Is there disagreement about this?

 

Upholding the NAP does not automatically mean that one is altruistic. However, a society where the NAP is the 'norm' would be an altruistic one because of the repercussions of upholding the NAP. In the absence of those who would initiate violence, it is far more profitable to cooperate with others for mutual benefit than it is to do otherwise. Again, altruism does not mean self-sacrafice; it does mean following an course of action which benefits others.

 

 

Isn't "unselfish-concern" an oxymoron? 

 

How can you be concerned about something without experiencing an acute subjective emotion?   If you act on that emotion in the attempt to alleviate it, then you are acting in self interest?

 

I never understood the concept of altruism.  It seems to me impossible.