Altruistic conduct removes suffering. — jancanc

Nope, not true at all. Take, for example, good Samaritan kidney donation, where a person donates a kidney to a total stranger. The operation isn't that difficult, but it does require 3-4 days in hospital and there is some risk. They don't get paid and they don't get recognition. The hospital organizes the recipient and the donor is not allowed to know who the recipient is, just to be sure there is no ulterior motive going on.

Depending on your perspective, it's not really suffering, but still, it's major surgery. There is definitely discomfort and some pain post-op.

Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. — jancanc

Altruism is synonymous with loving behavior. The two cannot be separated. Love is always helpful, even when it's not appreciated.

Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. — jancanc

Sounds like some kind of devils' advocate argument.

Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? — jancanc

This is a pretty confusing sentence, but I think what you'r to trying to ask is, is altruism really altruism if the person being altruistic gets a spiritual/intrinsic reward for being altruistic? The answer is, yes. Happiness is not a reward. It is a bi-product of a well-lived life. How can one be accused of finding satisfaction in doing good?

Altruism is real, and we need a lot more of it.

Hello. I will try to turn this paradox into a syllogism for clarity.

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 said, what is necessary for salvation is a good will, and suffering is only an effect of this, not a necessity.

I think Jancanc is trying to come from a Buddhist source, but he did not say that (I don't know why.) There is a Buddhist route to nirvana/salvation, and a Christian way. Both involve (in Buddhism it's a necessity, in Xty it is not) altruism on the path to salvation. In Buddhism this leads to a paradox and in Xty it does not.

Hi many thanks for the answers, very thought provoking.

I would say, IF we assume the premises are true, does a paradox arise? (Like you guys, I also dispute the premises, but I am just agreeing with them for the moment to see how a paradox is meant to come about) It is from a Buddhist source definitely.

With respect to the reformulation, I agree with all except P2 "Altruism creates suffering in the emitter and removes suffering in the receiver."

For the purposes of my argument, only the second clause here is pertinent: "altruistic conduct removes suffering for the receiver". Actually, the whole argument is focused not so much on the altruist but the receiver of altruistic conduct.

So I'll try and reformulate better:

1. Only some people will reach Salvation
2. Most people who will reach Salvation need personal suffering (e.g. the personal suffering helps them renounce life which in turn leads to salvation)
3. Billy is altruistic to Bob
4. Bob's suffering is thereby removed.
5. Bob now finds it harder to reach salvation (with his suffering removed he is less likely to renounce life)
6. So Billy, the altruist, did not actually help Bob!
8. Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation
9. So altruistic conduct is helpful for her.
7. But how does Billy know that the receiver of his altruism can reach salvation? How does he know his altruistic conduct is going to help or hinder (another quest to salvation)?

Now, for the sake of argument, assuming all the above is true, is this really an epistemic paradox?

Thanks again for all the thoughtful answers!

Altruism is real, and we need a lot more of it. — John Days

That I agree with 100%!

How does Christianity avoid the paradox?

Jancanc: this is how christianity avoides the paradox (I am quoting Sam, no imput by me):

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

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. So I dispute P1 for different reasons than Sam.

Thanks, I see exactly now. From the Buddhist (or an implicit atheistic stance) things are more complex.

Well... from an implicit atheist stance, strictly speaking, there is no salvation.

Buddhism is a transition between theism and atheism... that's why Buddhist call some of their activities "transcendental"... it transitions from atheism to theism, without embracing either.

Well... from an implicit atheist stance, strictly speaking, there is no salvation — szardosszemagad

I think it could be stated that there is a salvation, such as the denial of all desire etc; even death itself. Even independent from a Buddhist perspective. There certainly are Buddhists who identify as atheists and find salvation in the aforementioned.

your posts raises the question what the difference between a Buddhist atheist and a material atheist is. The Buddhist believes in reincarnation, and that is a supernatural process; much like god is a supernatural element. Supernatural is a no-no for a material atheist.

So is there salvation for a material atheist, do you think, Jancanc? One would tend to agree with John Gould that suffering and pleasure are both eliminated by an eternal death. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. So would you still say that for all atheists (incl. material atheists) suffering leads to salvation?

There certainly are Buddhists who identify as atheists and find salvation in the aforementioned. — jancanc

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.

That's the only problem with belief systems which regard the afterlife. No feedback. None. Nada. So nothing is believable, and everything is believable. Any claim about life in the afterlife is equal to every other claim in dependability and precision; both being zero.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I thought the goal of Buddha in creating his eightfold path was to cease suffering; where as it sounds like you are saying that suffering is necessary for salvation. Maybe these propositions can be reconciled, but how so?

Also, what do you mean by "Only some people have a chance to reach Salvation"? Why is that, and how do we know which ones?

My initial post is an argument I do NOT agree with. My question was, assuming the premises to be true, does the argument result in a paradox? I agree with you (and the other posters) that the premises are faulty. Yet I'm trying to see how they think it is a paradox. Once formulated as a "paradox" it is easier to dispel! Your last statement sums up the view that it is an epistemic paradox: "and how do we know which ones [can reach slavation]"?

1. Only some people will reach Salvation
2. Most people who will reach Salvation need personal suffering (e.g. the personal suffering helps them renounce life which in turn leads to salvation)
3. Billy is altruistic to Bob
4. Bob's suffering is thereby removed.
5. Bob now finds it harder to reach salvation (with his suffering removed he is less likely to renounce life)
6. So Billy, the altruist, did not actually help Bob!
8. Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation
9. So altruistic conduct is helpful for her.
7. But how does Billy know that the receiver of his altruism can reach salvation? How does he know his altruistic conduct is going to help or hinder (another quest to salvation)?

Now, for the sake of argument, assuming all the above is true, is this really an epistemic paradox?

Religion is full of paradoxes like that one. Where good behavior can cause suffering and bad behavior cause happiness. Take murder for example, if good people go to heaven when they die and heaven is infinitely better than earth would it not be ethical to go around killing good people even if you go to hell?

I would dare to ask, why do you need to suffer to achieve salvation? Is living in this world not suffering enough? Salvation is just a choice, to be saved, or to deny your savior. I would say that the only true suffering going on is living in a sinful world, not dying to get out of it. This is what my belief states. Also, no, I don't believe your argument is not a paradox

It's not my argument. And I don't think you need to suffer to achieve salvation. yet it depends on definitions...How does one define salvation? and "suffering"? I have my own definitions.
How do you define "sin"?

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

Sounds like psychopath logic. You attack some innocent person, subject them to horrible pain and suffering, and tell them, "It's for your own good. This is the only way you'll achieve Nirvana. You'll thank me later."

I'm not buying it.

There is a very commonly believed form of this nonsensical mode of thought called the broken windows theory. In this theory, a broken window stimulates economic activity because you have to call the glazier to replace the window. He can use the money to buy shoes, and the shoemaker uses the money to buy bread, etc. In this way, a broken window is a huge economic stimulus to the neighborhood.

The fallacy is that the owner of the window is out the cost of replacing the window. Absent the broken window, the owner could use that money to do something actually productive, and still have his window.

You'll hear this a lot in the coming days, as moron reporters tell you that hurricanes Harvey and Irma are an economic stimulus because of the construction boom to follow. That's nonsense. Absent the hurricanes, the money could be used to build new things without having to destroy the old things.

Else why not nuke New York City to stimulate the economy? You see how wrong that is.

Also, no, I don't believe your argument is not a paradox — Anonymys

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.

I would say that sin can be stated as anything facing against divine law, and that suffering is relative to your opinion on the state of suffering that you are in. ie some people would consider being kidnapped terrible, some enjoy being kidnapped (something along the lines of Stockholm syndrome). So, in summary, I would state that suffering is relative to the sufferer.

Understood. 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. Maybe to be safe, just make everyone suffer equally, including yourself.

I do have one remark about proposition 9 in your scenario: 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?

Interesting point on economy. I agree with you that a good economic system is one that results in a net benefit to its society, where real demands are satisfied by exchange of products and services. Playing devil's advocate, maybe what the reporters meant is that since the hurricanes are going to destroy things anyways, we might as well look on the bright side and believe that the economy will not only satisfy the new demands (ie rebuilding things) but might also perhaps result in even greater benefits in the end. [It could also be that I don't know what I'm talking about.]

Exactly how I formulated it! Yet, trying to put this into some "standard type form" (like Meno's paradox etc etc) is kind of weird.
I want to get it into a "standard form paradox" in order to dispel it.

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

Exactly how I thought! Yet, trying to put this into some "standard type form" (like Meno's paradox etc etc) is kind of weird.
I want to get it into a "standard form paradox" in order to dispel it


I

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

That's an excellent point. I guess one could say "salvation is the *greatest* good", yet there is still other goods. But, I agree with your implicit statement that it is a flawed notion. In the argument it seems that the only *good* is release from suffering. The only response then is that altruistic conduct provides negligible decrease, whilst salvation provides ultimate release. But I see all sorts of problems here too.

So, in summary, I would state that suffering is relative to the sufferer. — Anonymys

Agreed 100% ! well stated.

Sounds like psychopath logic — fishfry

I see what you are saying. I guess in this argument, though, that intentionally inflicting suffering (in order to "help" another") is precluded due to it being an evil or something of the like. But, it seems that your scenario does follow from the argument presented. It hinges on how one defines "evil", again.

How does Christianity avoid the paradox? — jancanc

There is no paradox. It is not inconsistent to feel joy from doing good. I would say that it is more so that there is confusion. In our worldly system of economics, it is common to believe that it is normal to charge others for our love. If we do not demand payment, then we will starve or freeze or in some way die horribly. But that is not a fact. It is only a belief. We believe it so much that it is normal to talk about "earning a living" as though someone who does not work for money has not earned the right to live.

We are taught this core principle from birth; we see it everywhere and are constantly exposed to it even if it is only the sight of our parents making transactions. All those popular TV shows people watch on TV? They exist for the sole purpose of attracting people to the advertising which plays on that network. It's the same for radio and the internet, and cable.

Very few people in the world work in jobs which they'd do even if they didn't get paid, but that's only because they've been taught to take whatever job which pays rather than doing what will make them the most productive.

It's very easy for any human raised in our materialistic, fearful society, to become cynical, believing that there is no motivation which is not based on some kind of payment, but altruism is real. It is not a paradox. It is not a contradiction. It is enlightenment.

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

Depends on what you mean by "believe". Most professing christians today have been taught that "Jesus did it all on the cross" and so if they "confess with their mouth" that "Jesus is Lord" then they've got it all fixed up.

That's not what Jesus taught at all. In fact, he pointedly asked his so-called followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? He talked about judging one's self first before judging others. He talked about taking the lower seat. He talked about working for love instead of money and the things money can buy. He said it was necessary to forsake familial attachments, reputation, personal ownership, and even life itself for the sake of promoting goodness.

He said we should not talk about our fasting, or our charity giving, and that we should not make our prayers a public spectacle. He said we should keep those things a secret. He said that IF a miraculous healing happens, we should not advertise it. He said we should beware leaders who wear fancy clothes and that we should not use flattery for one another like, "Sir", "Mr", or "father", because we're all brothers and sisters. He said real leaders will be those who serve and his real followers would be known by their love for others.

Nearly everything Jesus taught has been replaced by superficial Christianity posing as the genuine article for the sake of respectability, health, and wealth. And then non-Christians come along and make these abuses into a convenient target to excuse their own problems; "See, I'm not a bad person because I'm not religious like those people". Many professing Christians themselves barely know what Jesus taught, let alone obey him.

But real sincerity won't be satisfied with easy targets. Probably one of the most inspiring thoughts I've ever read on appreciation of truth comes from Socrates trying to persuade Crito on why he does not want to be rescued from his death sentence. Crito worries that others will think bad of him for not rescuing his friend from death, and after some elaboration, Socrates concludes with, "Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. "

This is how it is with the teachings of Jesus.

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

Let's see. Well, it's not an epistemic paradox because epistemic paradoxes deal with what we know and can know. And it's not paradox at all, since there is nothing self-contradictory in it. It may be unfortunate that altruism won't achieve the goals you set for it, but that doesn't make it paradoxical.

So, is what you've written even true? Depends on whether or not I believe your premises.

[P1] Not all people can achieve salvation.
[P2] Most people who can reach salvation require suffering (in order to reach salvation).
[P3] Altruistic conduct removes suffering.

Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful.

You have provided no justification for P1 or P2. They don't seem self-evidently true to me. I will grant P3 for the purposes of discussion. I'll also grant your unstated premise that salvation is more important than alleviating suffering. Thus, the statement "altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful" is not supported.

epistemic paradoxes deal with what we know and can know — T Clark

The paradox supposedly there relates to the fact that we cannot "know" when altruism will be helpful or not since we cannot "know" if a person will reach salvation or not. But I agree with you, it doesn't seem like a paradox.