Why Why?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

 
I think so yes.

Pretty sure some of the Greek schools do not require a belief in gods.

A more modern perspective; I'm an egoist. It is simply to my advantage to 'aim forth the good'. Essentially, I avoid doing wrong to others because there are consequences. I sometimes behave in a  benevolent way for the sake of reward. That reward may simply be a nice feeling. I think this a common human motivation. From time to time I will act in an altruistic way. IE doing what I see as right/good  for no other reason than it is right or good.

It's my observation (anecdotal evidence) that there are indeed altruistic acts, perhaps billlions on any given day.  However, as far as I'm aware I've never met or heard off an altruistic person. That doesn't mean there aren't any. However, it does seem to suggest such people may be bit thin on the ground. Of course it could simply be that I'm  a nasty and bitter old cynic who finds it hard to see the good in people.   

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


My Reference: Egoism and Altruism  Ronald Milo

Interesting train of thought. I agree there is an internal motivation to being altruistic as you stated - ie. the reward is that you feel good because you know you have made someone else's life a little better, so in that sense is that simply being selfish? Taking this a bit further - let's say that I give away the majority of my income to people poorer than myself. If I get greater personal satisfaction from that than spending it on myself to increase my lifestyle, is it truly altruistic, or self-appeasement? 

Alternatively, as a thought experiment, could you imagine a person who has spent their entire life predominantly helping other people and getting tremendous personal satisfaction from that, who eventually gets emotionally numb to the "satisfaction" part, but carries on doing it because of habit... does that make this person actually more altruistic?

 
If one's behaviour is reduced to indifference, but good results anyway, the act remains good because I'm assuming the good acts were originally based on some moral code. For the person, who has apparently become a sociopath, the acts become morally neutral.

My apologies for resorting to Godwin's Law.  I do so because most people are aware of the matter-of-fact way many perpetrators of the Holocaust become casual and indifferent to the suffering they inflicted. They seemed to have accepted a totally different moral code. One in which the murder of inferior (Untermenschen)  was a good, even noble thing, for the good of superior humanity (Herrenvolk) . Were then  those actions moral, immoral or morally neutral?***


There is a legend/myth that Emperor Ashoka The Great (268-232 bce) once asked a monk if good karma could be earned simply by say doing massive good works, such as say building roads, schools, feeding the poor. The monk answered "NO". Good actions for the sake of reward are without value for the giver 

The Buddha said "above all loving kindness". The gaol is compassion, which is not based on selfishness or sentiment .

We're getting into the question is morality objective?  My view is that some morality, such as helping and protecting one's own immediate group, is hard wired. Such acts have been observed in Chimps. I suspect there is an evolutionary advantage.

However, the rigid dogmas of morality taught by organised religions are not examples of objective morality imo. In day to day life, it is my opinion that morality tends to be relative and somewhat fluid. 

Not sure I've answered your question, but that's about the best I can do right now. 

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

*** there's a cynical aphorism that "Them that has the gold makes the rules"


I've long been of the opinion that The Nuremberg War Trials were largely a matter of victor's justice and tokenism.