The un-seen reward in a "selfless" act is paid in benifit to your own self-esteem. That ole sin " pride"

@HankSherman And what if the 'selfless' act turns out to be selfish and goes on to kill and destroy? If one wants to know what this does to ones self-esteem look no further than Putin (and many of his fellow followers and predecessors).

@jackjr it may be that you are mis-takeing selfeshness, with self-centerness, Putin wouldn't know selfish if it bit him on his insane, psycho ass

Yes ordinary everyday altruism, is quite normal, healthy and I do indulge in it just like everyone else.

But the idea of total neglect of self interest certainly does exist in Christian dogma, as exampled by making the saints objects of praise and sainthood the ultimate goal. And while it is perhaps easier to defend many of the requirements of that dogma, than many of the harmless sins, set up by the church, such as respecting the sabath. It is none the less true, that altruism is seen as an absolute limitless goal, for which the church does pose as the only institution able to offer forgiveness, for falling short of the absolute. And it no doubt gains much power from that.

@Fernapple That's a strawman argument.
"Total neglect of self-interest" has never been a goal for ordinary Christians, at least not in Catholicism. I've received a Catholic upbringing (ordinary, plain vanilla style, nothing special, not severe), and nobody ever told me that I should strive to become a saint. On the contrary: unlike some Protestant sects (Puritans) , the Catholic church is quite lenient when it comes to human weakness: they know that we are all sinners, that the "flesh is weak", and that perfection (aka sainthood) is reserved for a few exceptional humans, not for ordinary folks.

@Thibaud70 Exactly, you have just stated my case yourself. ( PS. I grew up proestant, see below under yvilleton.)

Saints do not exist in reality. No one does things because it might make them a saint. Everyone wants to leave a legacy (yes, even the Putin's of the world). Most saints are not really saints but made so after the fact. It is a groups way of getting others to emulate a certain behavior and make the group look good.

@jackjr It is also setting up the ideas of absolute values. No nobody really wants, or expects to be a saint today, but then nobody wanted or expected in the tenth century to be a fearless viking warrior out of the sagas. But a societies idealized models are used, like it or not, to punish those who that society considers do not live up to what it wants of them, by using guilt, among other things. And since wants, all wants, even societies wants, are often limitless, failing is always inevitable, soiety will always say, why did you not do more. Except for the lucky few who are seen as saints and heros.

Thibaud above states that. "we are all sinners, that the flesh is weak". But of course the flesh is not weak, the flesh is merely a given. As well adapted to our needs as evolution could make it, but ultimately value free. (Though it may include moral instincts.) No more weak or strong, or to be judged than a rock or a pile of sand The fact that such phrases are so easily used as a commonplace shows just how deeply ingrained is the idea of a failed creature, in need of forgiveness, that we do not even stop to think about the indoctrination behind that, or how the religion has implanted it.

@Fernapple No, I think we disagree. Your main argument was that Christian culture sets up impossible demands on people, so that they are doomed to fail.
But a key tenet of Christian doctrine is original sin, which means that we all all born deeply flawed. The pope himself has to see another priest from time to time to confess his sins and to make some atonement. Mainstream Christianity actually makes few demands on people!

It is rather the secular modern culture that prones and prescribes self-perfection, and sets up impossible demands on people, so that they are doomed to fail. Whereas Christianity knows that human beings are weak and flawed, the "happycracy" of Positive Psychology and comparable movements put a strain on us to become better and better, a demand too high for most of us, which is one reason why conditions like depression, anxiety or burn-out are on the rise.

@Thibaud70 As I said to jack above. Thibaud above states that. "we are all sinners, that the flesh is weak". But of course the flesh is not weak, the flesh is merely a given. As well adapted to our needs as evolution could make it, but ultimately value free. (Though it may include moral instincts.) No more weak or strong, or to be judged than a rock or a pile of sand The fact that such phrases are so easily used as a commonplace shows just how deeply ingrained is the idea of a failed creature, in need of forgiveness, that we do not even stop to think about the indoctrination behind that, or how the religion has implanted it.

@Thibaud70 The last thing we needed around here was another Christian apologist. The way you make things up and misrepresent information to support your arguments is equally offensive.

In this thread, for instance, you have completely misrepresented the science of Positive Psychology. But to suggest that mainstream Christianity "makes very few demands on people" when it requires them to devote their lives to things unsupported by evidence should win you some kind of trophy even in your bizarro world.

[verywellmind.com]

Impossible ? If you have ever donated blood or money, you are an altruist.

@Thibaud70 We are all altruists, but we also all fall short of total self neglect, and that creates the thin wedge needed to bring guilt to the table, and for it to be quite unreasonable unjustified guilt.

@Fernapple The donation of blood or money that we can spare is not contingent upon meeting conditions that are impossible to fulfil.

They may be altruistic, but not purely so.

@Fernapple

Impure thoughts are us?

I speak for myself and not necessarily Fernapple. Pure altruism is where one renders aid as a matter of empathy or just helpfulness. Religion, Christianity as the most familiar example, adds the threat of eternal damnation, a motive that overwhelms the humanistic impulse, and substitutes absurd and ugly mind control in it's place. Indeed, the good behavior of Christians becomes suspect, and rightfully so given the short distance to bad behavior that can be triggered with the wrong word.

@racocn8 Thank you. I accept your definition but isn't that also the definition of just plain "altruism"? I think adding the "pure" part might be redundant although if I am wrong I would like to he corrected please.

Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, traditionally demanded by Christian dogma. Which can be very costly to society at large, which has to deal with the mental health and family trauma problems which result.

@Fernapple One can act in the interest of another in an act of altruism and still incidentally and unintentionally benefit themselves, especially if one believes that there is inherent self benefit to helping another and as such "pure altruism" may be a fallacy.

@LovinLarge Exactly.

@Fernapple But you do believe that altruism exists as more than just a concept?

@LovinLarge Oh yes certainly, indeed I think that it is widespead and important. A lot of people seem to have missed, the fact that I was making a point about specifically "pure altruism" as demanded by religion, where you are not even suppossed to get the satisfaction of feeling good about helping, or think that your society may benefit, and altruism generally. This is my fault, I should know better by now than to write quickly late at night after a couple of drinks.

@Fernapple No, I apologize for missing your point originally, but in retrospect I'm sure that you are right.
Religion has never been a part of my life so I don't really know or want to know much about it, but I do respect attempts to analyze it even though I'm not always able to follow along.

In short, I understand you to say that Christianity cruelly requires the impossible goal of pure altruism of its followers in order to reinforce their reliance on the church when they inevitably fail in the pursuit. I suppose I took the discussion in a different direction because I didn't have anything to add and that wasn't fair of me. Yours is a valid point and I'm glad you made it. It is certainly is worthy of further reflection on my part.

I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, as required by Christian dogma. Which can be very costly to society at large, which has to deal with the mental health and family trauma problems which result.

@Fernapple Where does Christian dogma require the TOTAL neglect of ALL self-interest ?
Be careful when you use the word "dogma"..

@Thibaud70 It was drummed into me at a Christian school. That, as a teacher put it. "The church offers forgiveness because we are all sinners for falling short of Christs total sacrifice. "

Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, as demanded by some theist religions.

@Fernapple Oh. In that case we have no disagreement.

Agree~ you said it well. Harvard's neurologist
have seen actions in people( and animals).
I do like your version/ I do random acts- needing no reward or motive , except to help (maybe they pass it on ??? ) I am OK- you are ok

@BBJong Yeah, the pay it forward type things make it easier to accept help when I need it. In the community where I live, there is a lot of kindness (in the spirit of aloha) and it's a bit contagious, making life a whole lot more enjoyable and give us a feeling of being surrounded by love everywhere we go.

Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest.

@Fernapple Oh, I didn't really understand what you meant by "pure" so that makes sense. I'm altruistic at times, and not due to self interest, but interest in helping others, though perhaps not to the degree you mean in this post.

Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest.

Yes I agree, I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, as required by Christian dogma.

Guilt sucks.

It perhaps makes no difference either way in the great scheme, it is just a problem for the individual. Though it may even be that a large part of the success of western Christian culture, is due to its training its people well in the arts of dishonesty.

I do not have a problem with altruism as such, by "pure" I mean the total neglect of all self interest, which may though be harmful, since it means that the best able to understand peoples needs, themselves, are not taking care of those needs which can be to everyone's cost.

@Fernapple I don't believe the altruistic self, or the quest for it, creates in humanity via christian dogma any more social dishonesty than without it. many human tendencies and circumstances lead to dishonest behavior and are learned from life, not the results of christian dogma. dishonesty is a natural normal honest human characteristic.

@Fernapple thinking about western world advantage due to a christian doctrine seems a "manifest destiny" kind of thing. Especially when you aquire a new continent, and world trade really putting its boots on. timing.

@hankster Yes but a culture trained in the acceptance of high levels of cognitive disonance, as not only Christian morals, but also Christian belief requires. Has had its whole value system lowered a notch, without even being aware of it. The one thing that native peoples most often noted about western explorers, and empirialists on first encounter, time after time, was how incredibly dishonest they were, compared with "normal" people.

@Fernapple no doubt there was plenty of dishonesty, greed, and selfishness. my point is it made no difference. the folks had the wherewithal to take what they wanted and did. they would've one way or another. christian talk may have been used to justify or explain the greed, but the dishonest behavior was driven by selfishness. basic human activity across generations and cultures etc. nothing special.

@hankster So I take it that you do not believe that, the main prevailing part of a culture, most probably its religion, has any effect on the behaviour of the individual ?

@Fernapple religion has its place and influence, but money, hunger, power etc. are bigger players. religion does not prevail in culture like survival and selfishness.

@hankster But is not religion just a tool of "money, hunger, power, survival and selfishness etc. ?

@Fernapple of course it is. exactly, a tool, but it does no training nor conditioning. used to deceive or entice the victim more than the guilty. the dishonesty is present before the religion plays its part in the deceit.

@hankster Yes but there you miss the point, the dishonesty is there to start with, yes, but then it is passed on. By teaching people to accept things without questioning, which is needful for religion to succeed, by teaching them to value parroted learning over experience and evidence, to undervalue science, and to honour the trappings of fake authority, it trains them in all the skills they need for self deceit and thereby dishonesty.

Am I really to suppose that someone who has been taught to mindlessly respect sham authority, and never to question received folly, in one aspect of life, is not going to carry those same customs and habits of thinking forward into all other aspects of life ? Or that someone who is imbued deeply with the following of one cult, is going to have, by habit, the level of critical thinking skills needed to avoid falling for others, and passing on that folly to more victims ?

Partial self deceit is one of the really good con artists most useful weapons, and learning how to do sham authority, and how to suppress questioning, by example from early youth, one of their most important skills.

@Fernapple I can't get on board with the notion.