Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
Does tomorrow exist? What about Love? kindness? Compassion? honor? Nobility?
The line though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. is what makes it vague without universal consensus. Who are "others"? Wide interpretation across different cultures is in the article.
No it's what makes it vague in that sole context. Universal consensus clearly is established in the very word and that it defines something specific which hardly could be described with another word but others, and which among many culture there's different foods and different cooking, the act of eating is still masticating with your mouth, so is altruism varied and according to different people differently but the principle, the fundamental aspect is always the same.
Why would variations of the same universal act, ever cast doubt on the act itself. I find it odd that you have lived your whole life and nobody let you pass them on the freeway or went out of their way to not oblige you and didn't do it because they were intimidated or otherwise snared by you into it. I'd say if you want to find out about altruism go to those that practice it.
People do good things voluntarily and practise as well. So, above things do exist in real life.
Just under certain context. I don't know. Anyways, it was a good discussion.