Is altruism still altruism when it is forced?

[Vessol]

Unlike perhaps some people, I think altruism is a good virtue when it done entirely voluntarily.

However, part of the argument socialists use is that taking away the wealth from people to provide for others is a good thing.

By forcing altruism, you're eliminating the whole idea of altruism which is

"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"

You can not force someone to be unselfish, infact the common reason the wealth distributionists use is that people are too selfish, so the government has to be the ones to force unselfishness.

How can you even call it altruism when it is forced on to you?

[noxagol]

Correct. You see the flaw in the socialist's argument.

[Kludge]

It could be altruism on the part of the government, but not on the part of the citizens if they do not wish to be moral.

[Elwar]

There was a study done on happiness, asking several questions to determine different things that make people's lives "happy".

They found that across the board, everyone who gives to someone else is happier. I guess people enjoy helping others.

The government actually makes people less happy by stepping in and spreading the wealth themselves. Politicians are basically saying that their own happiness is worth more than the happiness of those that they represent.

[Carole]

Is altruism still altruism when it is forced?


No. :)

[MsDoodahs]

No.

[Fozz]

Hell no, when altruism becomes forced, it becomes theft.

[sevin]

Forced altruism is an oxymoron.

[Vessol]

I asked a statist this and he stated that it's part of the "social contract".

[Theocrat]

Altruism can be anything anyone wants, if everyone is allowed to define moral goodness on their own. Given the mores which our central government has chosen for itself and the people, who can blame them for being altruistic in a socialist demeanor?