The Altruist, the Egoist, and the Egoist's Neighbor

[Samadhi23]

Nerdologist

Fermionic

Altruistic is not synonymous with desire-less.

I realize they aren't necessarily synonymous, but these altruists are "true" or pure altruists. They fully accept the doctrine that one ought to only be concerned with others' well-being.

One extra note on this specifically, since it is largely a different perspective than my initial response.

I would propose that there is no true morality outside of dynamic morality. As such, any time that anything is taken as absolute - even altruism - then it is effectively "being made an idol of" in the old terminology. In more psychological terms, by adding the rigidity of stating "this is the one and only true moral code," you are implying that the code cannot be improved upon - thereby making a claim of extreme arrogance, that the you of that moment is so morally correct that you can't be wrong. Now this isn't to say that there aren't those that fully accept moral codes on a much more rational, dynamic, and realistic basis. Of course there are. But the ones that would specifically attempt to follow the route of true/pure altruism as you are describing could - even from the limited viewpoint perspective - be considered unduly arrogant and therefore morally incorrect on those grounds.

This can be easily demonstrated with the modern example of the harassing evangelical of a certain variety. Their arrogance of perspective trumps their attempts to instill moral value in others. Although they think they are being altruistic, their dedication to a static ideal blinds them to direct observation of the effects they are actually having on the subject of the moment.

[Nerdologist]

Lucky~9~Lives

Nerdologist

Lucky~9~Lives

Nerdologist

Fermionic

Altruistic is not synonymous with desire-less.

I realize they aren't necessarily synonymous, but these altruists are "true" or pure altruists. They fully accept the doctrine that one ought to only be concerned with others' well-being.

Which are not what the people you described in the OP are - they are servants, not altruists; basically, altruists are obligated to give others what they need, not what they want.

Well-being is the condition of being "comfortable, healthy, or happy." Comfort and happiness are not typically defined as needs.

See bold; as long as a person is healthy, their well-being is met, and an altruist is not obligated to cater to their every whim.

Perhaps the definition I quoted isn't quite accurate, because I'm not persuaded that health, comfort, or happiness can constitute well-being on their own; they work in conjunction. Do you think everyone who is healthy is in a state of well-being?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Nerdologist

Perhaps the definition I quoted isn't quite accurate, because I'm not persuaded that health, comfort, or happiness can constitute well-being on their own; they work in conjunction. Do you think everyone who is healthy is in a state of well-being?

Broadly speaking, yes.