When was the last time you came across altruism while participating in traditional games?

>proving me right

Thats exactly what I said. You do "Good" things not because of altruism, but in hope of reciprocation and later gains.

Pathfinder game, lizardman character was fucking loaded with me gild then knew what do with, tosses some to street urchin kids, accidentially tally set of children street brawl to personal horror

Again,
>implying conscience doesn't exist

For example, I wouldn't torture a person on a whim, even if the situation was such that there would be precisely zero consequences for it.
Not because I don't want the tortured man to get revenge on me, but because the act is simply wrong.
Compassion and empathy is a thing, yknow.

>inb4 "you do it because you would feel good because you aren't torturing him, therefore, it's not true altruism"
"I wouldn't torture a man, because it would make me feel bad" is literally the definition of conscience. Saying the altruism doesn't exist just because feelings are involved is like saying gravity doesn't exist just because we can fly on a whim.

In any case, fuck off with your social darwinism bullshit.

Social darwinism always amuses me, given that evolutionary studies have shown that altruism is an extremely advantageous trait for a species to possess.

What's advantageous for species as a whole might be hindrance for individual.

>Compassion and empathy is a thing

No they arent. There is a utiliarian reason for them existing.

Thats why I'm saying the entire time, retard. It provides advantage so there is no such thing as 'pure' altruism. Youre always doing something because it benefits you, even if the benefit is delayed or abstracted.

A study showed some toddlers watching a man working on a small book shelf, if the man appeared to displace the books by accident, they would attempt to put them back, if he papered to displace them deliberately they'd infer he wanted the books like that and not touch them, causing people to rethink child empathy

So doing a thing for another person purely for the fact that I felt better for doing it is actually selfish?

But at that point your words lose any meaning because all actions fall under one banner. I'd rather words have meaning than not, just as a matter of utility.

> Compassion and empathy aren't a thing.
For you, maybe, Mr. Sociopath.

Do you know the age old adage of "an eye for an eye", or, if we put it in more exact terms "don't do upon others what you don't wish to be done upon yourself"?
THAT'S LITERALLY EMPATHY. And, yes, it's irrational, because sometimes doing something upon another that you wouldn't do upon yourself is actually BENEFICIAL for the person in question (see BDSM for the simplest example). BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S IRRATIONAL DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST.

It's a matter of perspective.

No? Your argument literally destroys the meaning of the words 'Selfish' and 'Altruistic'. If we accept what you're saying as true, neither of those words means anything anymore. The only 'benefit' of accepting your perspective is a loss of meaning and ability to usefully describe things. It's pointless.

You just have a pretty narrowminded definition of what is beneficial. Irrational and abstract benefits are benefits too.

Oh boy. This is an argument I sure haven't heard before.

I'm so glad we've reached this point.

Back to the actual topic:

I was playing a relatively amoral Artificer character. His main goal was to create things which had never been made before, and to outdo all those who had come before him. He was the Champion of the God of Innovation, which gave him the ability to innovate in ways that werent possible for mere mortals.

Over the course of the campaign, he bacame more and more disillusioned with the gods. One of them was being a complete douche to the point of threatening the entire world with her plans, and although the gods technically had a dentente, she had found a way around it and none of the ostensibly good gods gave a fuck.

As time went on, he realized that they were never going to change. They had claimed their place in the universe, and they held a monopoly on Divine power...

Except for the Champions, his companions.

And so he made a plan. He threw away his past, and his self, he donned a mask that could hide him from even the gods themselves, but which he could never remove, and he chose to devote himself to rebellion.

He went from TN to CG.

He was now the Lightbringer, he was going to steal fire from the gods and give it to mortal men. And if the gods had to be slain to accomplish that? So be it.

youtube.com/watch?v=PQj8xOknzKc

I asked someone what he wanted to do and he started crying.

Wait shit I thought you said autism.

Oh, pray tell, what is beneficial about moral integrity, user. I'm all ears.

And before you start about my unfortunate choice of "an eye for an eye" comparison, do remember that, yes, indeed, "an eye for an eye" is about the fear of repercussions, but "don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you" doesn't imply absolutely anything about repercussions and is purely about moral integrity and empathy.

So, tell me, what is so beneficial about not doing unto others what you don't want to be done unto you, especially when there is no fear of repercussions involved?

Considering that even wiki page mentions that it is debatable if true altruism is possible that may be the case.

If we don't care about intentions and subjective perception of actions than yes altruism and selfishness/egoism could be differentiated.

One time the owner of my FLGS gave me his old WFB Empire army, no strings attached.

People with moral integrity are trustworthy and harder to be swayed with "monetary" gains.Establishing yourself as someone with moral integrity gives you possible long term benefits in relationships with people.

Groups of people having similar morals can work together without need of constantly looking over the shoulder to check on their neighbours. It saves time and energy and allows to take on some projects that are hard to tackle alone.

For another example consider devils. Everyone knows that they are dicks and that will screw you over. But everyone also knows that they always keep their word to the letter. That's why people deal with them. Because in some cases they are ok with being screwed over as long as they get the benefit if their contract.

>Establishing yourself as someone with moral integrity gives you possible long term benefits in relationships with people.
Establishing to who? No one says anything about interacting within a society. You might as well be the last human on earth, and the golden rule would still apply.

What does this line of thought actually do? What does it accomplish? What reason is there for it to exist beyond letting selfish people feel better about themselves by asserting that everyone else is just as selfish as they are?

If there is someone onto whom I can "do" something I'm certainly not the last human. Or at least there is other creatures. And many mammals actually have similar social structures.

>If there is someone onto whom I can "do" something I'm certainly not the last human.
You are the last human on earth.
You are watching a video recording of a dude being tortured by another dude. You cringe and feel sorry for the dude.
Empathy? Empathy. Any interactions with human beings? Nope.

It actually in theory should allow sociopaths an easier integration into society. Because it allows them to think better about themselves and use such a roundabout way to understand why people around them do certain things.

I can see its merit in that sense, a useful lie.

The reaction can actually depend on a lot of factors and there may be many reasons to cringe or not to cringe. Social inertia and habits are a thing too you know.

Long periods of isolation can do strange things to people. And considering that we are on Veeky Forums there is probably a sizeable population that won't cringe and some that will laugh.

>And considering that we are on Veeky Forums there is probably a sizeable population that won't cringe and some that will laugh.
That doesn't mean shit, because you are arguing that there AREN'T people who wouldn't cringe because empathy doesn't exist, not there are also people who "won't cringe and some that will laugh." because those specific people don't feel empathy.

> there AREN'T people who wouldn't cringe because empathy doesn't exist
"There AREN'T people who WOULD cringe because empathy doesn't exist", of course. Brain-glitched there for a moment.

More like a logical bridge to clear the gap in perception.

I have found that being GM is more revarding than playing. Even the research and groundwork for the game is usually fun.

No I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that people will cringe for different reasons and not all them due to just "feeling bad for the dude". And even "feeling bad for the dude" may have a lot different flavours and reasons.

Fro example after a long period of time of social deprivation seeing how a man that you could have talked to or who even could have became your comrade dies can really shake you.

Again, just because not all people will cringe due to just "feeling bad for the dude" DOESN'T MEAN THOSE PEOPLE DON'T EXIST.

Yes it is. You wanted that good feeling. Also, there are unrealized, subconscious benefits.

You cant redefine words based on your bellyfeel, sorry.

>rant about empathy and morality

Great. How its related to altruism actually?

Except you're the person redefining them? And what's more, redefining them in a way that loses all meaning and utility. Your entire argument is fundamentally pointless, leads nowhere and is without any merit, regardless of how 'true' it might be.

And how many of them will do it just out of habit or some other egoistic impulse?

Though psychologists still didn't find out if there are people with true altruism or there is none. So it can't be said for sure that it will be 100%. There is also always a chance of mutations.

>I'm too dumb to realize true altruism doesnt exist so I will just redefine things!

Come the fuck on, cost-benefit analysis isnt exactly a new thing.

I gave a random guy £100 so he could buy food at Tesco. When he tried to pay me back when I met him a few years later I told him to give it to someone in the same situation or Doctors Without Borders.

I gained nothing from that.

No he is not. Altruism just refers to multiple different things.

There is ethical/moral doctrine that definitely exists. But there is also an altruistic behaviour that psychologists study and for now can't find out if it truly altruistic or actually all of this actions are rooted in some kind of deeper reasons that benefit the actor in some way.

So you're ignoring the statement that the entire argument is pointless? You know, the one you can't refute because it's all totally without value?

I can get out of it at least 3 long term benefits. They will have pretty low chances of succeeding but I doubt you were starving at the time so the cost of £100 was not that big for you.

Excuses excuses, concede and swallow my semen.

Will you feel good ?

I'm ignoring your statement because its dumb and not an arguement.

>Tfw only run Cyberpunk games

Considering the things that Tesco tries to pass for "food", your act might actually be considered evil.

For those unfamiliar with ways of Tesco, think a combination of Walmart and Chinkshit retailer.

Asking why the point you're arguing so vehemently actually matters is pretty relevant, I think. And you can't answer.

For all your furor and focus, for all your anger about the idea of altruism and trying to define everything as forms of selfishness... You can't give a single reason why it matters. What difference it makes, why anything would change even if it was true.

Given all that? I think your argument can be pretty easily dismissed as entirely pointless navelgazing, and the rest of us can just get on with life knowing that selflessness and altruism are moral virtues to aspire to.

You gained the good feelings and the ability to brag about it on a tibetan handwaving forum.

I actually had a good character in a CP2020 game that would have hit altruist definition. He was a cop in Rio. At character creation I pumped his luck up to 8. And I constantly wanted to have 10. Or better 20.

That seems to be a poor cost-benefit value.
Surely there are better options. Unless you argue that potential benefit lost doesn't count as an actual drawback, and that particular argument is a bit hypocritical in itself.

>knowing that selflessness and altruism are moral virtues to aspire to.
I so want to quote Iskander from Fate/Zero at you.

too much of good thing can really transform into a horror pretty fast.

Most people are shit at math and probabilities. You are just the posterchild.

Basically anything taken to extreme can be horrifying. Selfishness isn't some vile sin either, it's importance to have a balance in life of caring for yourself and caring for others. It's just trying to redefine everything in the terms of one thing is kinda dumb.

>That seems to be a poor cost-benefit value.

It is to me. But that moron went with it so it was worth it for him.

>muh morality
>literally quoting anime

fucking hell, thats some cringe

That depends - how long can you suppress gag reflex?

Not him, but you need a better choice of quotes.
Like for example, Stanislaw Lem and the short story Altruizin out of his The Cyberiad compilation.

So you think he intentinally gave the guy money with intent for the guy to pay it back someday, one way or another, subconsciously expecting that the probability of the guy paying back the money in some way would be more than the guy fucking off and going on with his life?
That's some mental acrobatics you got there, friendo.

>fucking hell, thats some cringe
Well you don't want to even read wiki. I thought anime would be pretty close to needed level. Considering that you get it straight away I was right.

Actually, I'll just leave this here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad#Stories_involving_the_search_for_happiness_and_ideal_society

>So you think he intentinally gave the guy money with intent for the guy to pay it back someday
No of course not. While it is a possible outcome as we have seen it still not the one he was going for at the time. Probably. Though most people don't spend time to ponder such things beyond a subconscious impulse.

Possible long term benefits that he touched with his brain are running pretty far actually as we can see with his mentioning of Doctors Without Borders. Up to the hope of betterment for the whole society. Especially considering that he brandishes the "do unto others" part.

...

I can tell it from here how mad you are, quoting anime and getting upset about people ridiculing you.

Ok.

Nah. No reason to be worried. Throwing insults and shitting on each other while doing the same fucking thing is pretty normal behaviour.

I knew an autistic guy once who thought altruism was impossible. The key to making him admit that he was wrong was to tell him that feelings don't actually hold any value, only money does. You can't be selfish if you're only gaining something that's objectively worthless.