Purpose of life

[genkaus]

Then the term altruism is wrong. No human behavior is selfless there is always a motive.

The key of altruism being that the primary beneficiary is someone other than yourself. But I agree, altruism is an irrational and impracticable ideal.

---

If you ensure a "utterly selfish" or "utterly altruistic" extreme model, you could also argue the case selfless altruism does not really exist either.

Note the difference. Utterly selfish means there is no benefit for anyone other than oneself, plain selfish means benefit to oneself is the primary and benefit to others is secondary. Utterly altruistic means there is no benefit for oneself, plain altruistic means that the benefit for others is the primary and that to oneself is secondary. While the "utterly" models are complete opposites, the "plain" models are irreconcilable as well.

All actions generally originate in terms of some selfish need or requirement to be fulfilled or expectation of reciprocity. Much like the selfish gene, whilst not promoting any sort of will upon it, the reasons to help others are rooted in your own self-serving instincts whether you mean to or not.

Then don't pretend that it is altruistic if the primary motive is self-serving.

Certainly exceptions can be argued, but they are rare. Your argument is that altruism must mean that you do not live life to the fullest, which I dispute.

Here's my argument -
1. Living life to the fullest requires you to put yourself and your life as the primary motivation of your actions.
2. Altruism requires that that you put yourself and your life in a second place.

Therefore, any altruistic action results in you not living your life to the fullest.

Many people would consider that having a child is part of a full life, to them at least, although by no means a universal.

This example would hold if you could show that having a child was an altruistic endeavor.

The tradition and acceptance of the golden rule of morality is steeped in this selfish altruism, in that we sacrifice some of our own happiness in order to prevent others from harm, and by doing so, protect a non-chaotic state which allows us to live our life fully in other ways. Contributing to social disorder is understood on some level to detract from our fulfillment of a full life.

If it ends up being an advantage, then it is not a sacrifice, but plain common sense. If we are following the golden rule with expectation of reciprocation, then we are not being altruistic, since in this case our needs and desires form the primary motivations.

More to the point, while linguistically an oxymoron, it describes the majority of interactions which are rarely purely hedonistic or selfless.

Actually, you'd be doing yourself a favor if you looked at it only linguistically. The dictionary meaning of the word has been so watered down that it bears little resemblance to the ethical doctrine it represents.

The word was coined by August Comte, and the ethical doctrine it represents states that "individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others", further going on to state

"[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."


Linguistic oxymorons can still be rational. But as concepts, selfishness and altruism are simply irreconcilable.