Altruistic conduct removes suffering. — jancanc
Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. — jancanc
Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. — jancanc
Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? — jancanc
P1: One's suffering is necessary for one's salvation.
P2: Altruism creates suffering in the emitter and removes suffering in the receiver.
C1: Altruism helps the salvation of the emitter but harms the salvation of the receiver. It is therefore selfish because it benefits only the altruist in the end.
But altruism is by definition an act of selflessness. This contradicts C1.
The argument is valid, but I dispute P1. A heartless man is not likely to receive salvation, even if he happens to suffer a great deal. Much like ↪John Days said, what is necessary for salvation is a good will, and suffering is only an effect of this, not a necessity. — Samuel Lacrampe
Well... from an implicit atheist stance, strictly speaking, there is no salvation — szardosszemagad
Whether they find it or not is yet to be seen; they believe that's what they will find. No feedback has ever been received about it. Whether they found it or not.There certainly are Buddhists who identify as atheists and find salvation in the aforementioned. — jancanc
Not all people can achieve salvation. Most people who can reach salvation require suffering (in order to reach salvation). Altruistic conduct removes suffering. Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? Is this an epistemic paradox? — jancanc
I was making a little joke with this statement, it contains one two many negatives (lol) I wasn't really stating that it was your argument, just a side effect of a poor joke.Also, no, I don't believe your argument is not a paradox — Anonymys
I will go with yes then; because in your scenario, the act of altruism is good for one's salvation in some case, and harmful for one's salvation in another case. And if we cannot know when it is the case, then we cannot know how to help one's salvation. — Samuel Lacrampe
So altruistic conduct is helpful for her. (because Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation). If she never has a chance of reaching salvation, how is altruism (or anything else) helpful to her? — Samuel Lacrampe
Sounds like psychopath logic — fishfry
How does Christianity avoid the paradox? — jancanc
In Christianity, to attain salvation, all you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour. There is no road to salvation via altruism in Christianity. — szardosszemagad
Not all people can achieve salvation. Most people who can reach salvation require suffering (in order to reach salvation). Altruistic conduct removes suffering. Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? Is this an epistemic paradox? — jancanc
epistemic paradoxes deal with what we know and can know — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.