Denouncing the existence of altruism...

[paperleaves]

...what do you believe?






To be precise--when I refer to "altruism", I am referring to the existence of a wholly "selfless" act. I, personally, will state that this concept is impossible, because if we, as individuals, felt no desire to perform a certain act (whether the desire stems from social pressure/obligation or value of the act, etc.), we would not perform it. Otherwise,we would be performing the act against our own will, which is a form of enslavement.
I am intrigued to hear your responses to this! My decision to post this is not with the intent to offend/ provoke anyone, but rather to read with an open mind your responses. Please feel free to go in-depth in your thoughts!

Love,
paperleaves

[Virgil]

That's rather cynical. I do believe people give selflessly. I don't even think that needs an explanation.

[billl]

Paperleaves, are you suggesting that actions such as donating an organ to a stranger, or sacrificing one's life to save others, would not be fairly referred to as altruistic acts? Simply because the person did them by their own free will?

[eric.bell]

I, like paperleaves, believe that man does not - and cannot - commit to any act, without a selfish reason at its root. Man is self-serving. Both good and evil come about, because of this. I personally have never given to a charity, took a punch for someone else, or even simply let someone go ahead of me at a stop sign, without some reason of my own that has not a thing to do with selflessness. And I love giving myself over to "selflessness": for it nourishes the soul. This is truly why I give, spare, love.... I do it for myself. Others benefit, but my benefit is what it is done for. True: it may not paint a "pretty picture", but it is a sublime one. It is one that strips away the rotten facade that is selflessness and shows the truth, the beauty, of it all.

[billl]

@eric.bell OK, but what if it were to lead to your immediate death, for example? Would that be a situation where we need deny the application of the term "altruism."

I think that you might be sort of emphasizing your humility, in your rejection of the term "altruism" for a person's good deeds (and perhaps highlighting your appreciation of the nourishment of the soul that "self-less" actions brings about). I can't say for sure, of course, and I don't mean to get personal--I myself sort of feel this way, especially when making public statements about it. But, once a person who believes in altruism is offered no way to exhibit it, well, then we have to wonder why the word ever came about. This sort of thinking seems like an unnecessary condemnation of free will. It's maybe just semantics, but I think we have the freedom to put others before ourselves, and it seems useful to have a word for that sort of behavior.

Anyhow, I like the last two sentences of your post very much, but they are only really necessary if one bothers to bring the subject up at all. I think there's an interesting point to be made about people being 'altruistic' simply because they expect a reward in the afterlife, or desire admiration among witnesses, etc. That sort of thing might have its benefits, and it might be praiseworthy (or not), but there is clearly a sense in which it is not completely selfless. But if someone is really just being selfless, let's not browbeat them over it simply because the mere consideration of their case seems to put them on a trial in which the deck is stacked against free thinkers. People do altruistic things, I say: a beautiful result amidst the truth and the beauty of it all (to paraphrase you). If we are to condemn them for merely valuing the "idea of it" then we are basically condemning their appreciation of the value of their ideas, it seems to me.

[dizzydoll]

I, like paperleaves, believe that man does not - and cannot - commit to any act, without a selfish reason at its root. Man is self-serving.

It has to be, although it is not easy because we are raised to be selfless. You cannot love another until you selfishly love yourself first.. all other examples follow in this same vein.

[caesar]

Thinking about your question reminded me of what Dostoevsky has said on human virtue (I want to proceed on the assumption that Dostoevsky wouldn't have said that he didn't have 'altruism' in mind when he was talking about 'human virtue').


“...at the root of all human virtues lies the most intense egoism.”


The above quote supports your opinion that altruism is not entirely selfless, because an altruist is seeking to satisfy his ego through his altruism; and, hence, he is not altogether selfless as the dictionary meaning of word, ‘altruism’, requires. Just in passing, I would like to express my opinion that the need to satisfy one’s ego can be quite compelling and the extent to which a man can go to satisfy his ego (and its consequences) can be disastrous to himself and others. A good illustration of 'altruism being rooted in ego' is found in the confession of Katie in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". Katie (a social worker) makes a confession that she has become a hypocrite and that she no longer finds joy in altruism, because, though she started out with good intentions by being selflessly caring towards the needy, she had gradually come to expect gratitude from the people she helped and this made her despise those who managed without her help and those who did not fawn over her.


However, another quote by Dostoevsky, on virtue, gives the impression (when compared with the above quote) that though altruism is rooted in ego, it need not necessarily be so.



“... man does evil only because he does not know his real interests, and if he is enlightened and has his eyes opened to his own best and normal interests, man will cease to do evil and at once become virtuous and noble, because when he is enlightened and understands what will really benefit him he will see his own best interest in virtue, and since it is well known that no man can knowingly act against his best interests, consequently he will inevitably, so to speak, begin to do good.”



From the above quote, it seems, notwithstanding the need to satisfy one’s ego, it is in one’s own interest to be good to others. It’s a simple truth, everyone knows, that one can’t be happy if the people around him/her are unhappy. If you don’t give to the poor, they will take it from you. We can find many examples of this in history.


I dare say that Dostoevsky may not have been entirely right in claiming that “...at the root of all human virtues lies the most intense egoism”, because, in some cases, human virtue, such as, altruism, may have originated out of love or pity. But, getting back to the point of discussion, it may still be argued that this kind of altruism is born out of man’s need to love, hence, selfish. But does man, also, feel the need to feel pity? Probably he does. After all, didn’t Shakespeare say, “Pity is akin to love”?


Well, from what I have prattled so far:arf:, altruism may not entirely be devoid of selfishness, because it is rooted in man’s need to love, to pity, to satisfy his ego or to ensure his own good. But to me it is very satisfying to think (according to the second quote above by Dostoevsky) that it's in one's own interest to be good to others. In other words by being altruistic you are doing a favour to yourself

[Dodo25]

I fully agree wit the OP, and I'd like to bring in an evolutionary perspective:

Every feeling we have evolved for an evolutionary reason, this means having this feeling normally resulted, in the circumstances of our ancestors, in improved survival of their genes (reproducing and living long). One very important aspect is trust and status in a group. Generosity is a status-symbol, the strong and powerful can afford to give away some of their goods and thereby demonstrate their superiority. Trust is also important because it ensures that someone will help you when you yourself are in trouble sometime.

Then feelings like love for children obviously evolved because children have a 50% chance of carrying the same gene, hence every gene that makes a parent protect its children will likely be passed on more often than its 'lesser loving' alternative allele.

Also empathy which motivates helping others has its evolutionary reasons. In small groups (the way our ancestors tended to live), even though there was no very-close genetic relatedness, the individuals were likely to see each other again and favors could be paid back - I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.

In short, feelings evolved that make us happy when we help others (or unhappy when we don't) for the reason that these feelings would benefit gene survival.

Then humans gradually became unique in their way, we developped culture and now 'gene survival' is not important anymore. We use condoms for instance, now our brains took over the steering wheel from the genes.

But the mechanisms and feeling I was talking about are still present. And because it makes us feel good, even though the genetic benefit component doesn't apply anymore in our surroundings, we perform acts classified as 'altruistic' for selfish motives. And some of the reasons of our past still apply today, i.e. status and trust. 'Do good to seem good'.

[blazeofglory]

Altruism is a sheer ideology and it is a tower built on sand and a sweep of a tornado can demolish it into an endless stretch of sandy evenness. It is a philosophy man has created when everything was fine or when the planet was plentiful. In an evolutionary idea altruism is almost illusory. Everyone has to struggle for existence and the strongest in terms of physical strengths or wisdoms can press ahead and the weak and disabled will fall behind in the race. Therefore I never subscribe to the idea of altruism. It is a sheer fantasy

[breathtest]

I'm not sure i can offer anything new to this thread. I only want to say that i agree that altruism is 'a sheer fantasy' (as BlazeofGlory has said). Our evolutionary behaviours still exist inside us so that our task is to survive as well as we can. If helping somebody is going to help us gain in any way, even by making us feel better about ourselves, then we will do it. But it's purely for our individual gain.

As cynical as that thought is, i think the person who receives whatever help you give them will not care what reasons you had for helping them. They will just be thankful for receiving the help.

[Katy North]

I do agree with the OP that altruism in its pure form doesn't really exist. However, from personal experience, I know that if I dwell on the fact, I become overly cynical and don't like myself too much. Much of my so called altruism stems from a deep rooted desire for people to like and respect me. If you over think it, one wonders every time you smile at a stranger or say "excuse me", what is the real reason I am doing this or saying that? When someone compliments your generosity when giving to a charity, do you inwardly preen or feel self important? :shocked: I've found that if I think about it too much I can actually feel guilty...

So I choose to not think about it too much and prance generously and optimistically throughout the daisy fields oblivious to it all... :banana:

[dizzydoll]

However there comes a time when I feel everyone should attempt to learn to give more than they take, not for ulterior motives but rather just for the simple joy it provides our soul [or provides our mind for some of my friends]. Yes you. lol.

We take a lot more than we realize already. There is that fine line with ego, a little balance can do no harm.

[eric.bell]

Generosity is a status-symbol, the strong and powerful can afford to give away some of their goods and thereby demonstrate their superiority.

I apologize for wavering from the topic at hand, but, Dodo25 - although I think that altruistic acts such as charity are done out of a need to feel superior, as well as for other feelings one gets by helping another - "the haves" in life are generally not the ones that give to charity: it is "the have nots" that give and give, until it hurts. In this country, though I do not recall the exact statistic, the working-class, as well as the middle-class, is the class that gives something like 70 (something) percent of all money that is given to charities. Not to say that what "the haves" give is not worthwhile.

Americans give of themselves; selfish as their reasons may be, they give. And the last two words of that last sentence are of the most import.

[Katy North]

This is true eric... at the grocery store I work out we sold $1 donations to charity, and for the most part it was the people who were on food stamps who were scraping around in their pockets for their last dollar to give... the way many people gave made me proud to be a human being.

[Nietzsche]

There is always some sort of motivation for the self. I think it's important to remember there is a difference between Selfish and Self-Interest as well. It's in the self interest of a mother to take care of her child. That is a GOOD thing that it is in her interest, otherwise if the mother were purely selfish, the child might not get taken care of. A selfish mother on the other hand wouldn't be much of a mother. If you are familiar with the concept of the Selfish Gene at all, I think it does a good bit of explaining some morals we have. As well, you can see in nature, this being played out.

Basically, we are vessels for our genes. We exist to pass on our genes via reproduction. To do that we must survive. To survive, we must look out for ourselves. To look out for ourselves, we must do things in our own self interest. However, we are also wired to do things for others. Why might this be? To help them survive as well.

In the wild you can observe reciprocal altruism in apes, and in the wild you can see animals protecting their young at the risk of their own life, for example, when a mother bear races to the rescue of her cubs when humans ( which could be hunters ) are around. Altruism and self-interest are completely natural and exist for a reason. Whether you choose to believe this is a moral consciousness built into us by God , or the product of evolution, is up to you.

But altruism does exist. It's explained by the concept of the Selfish Gene. Perhaps your definition of altruism of the " existence of a wholly "selfless" act " does not exist, but reciprocal altruism does and altruism that promotes survival of other people does.

I think it's a good thing that when you do something "altruistic" you get a good feeling about it. It's enticement to do other nice things. I had nothing to gain personally when I helped an old lady carry a heavy box other than neutralizing seeing the sight of an elderly woman struggle, and the feeling of helping her. So yes, I did have something to gain by that in a sense that I had the feeling of doing a good thing. But would anyone do anything good if it were not for that feeling? Immanuel Kant would say no. His categorical imperative reduced morals to absolute duties and he said no action with any benefit, even spiritual, is moral. By his definition I don't think there is any moral act. Certainly no altruism.




On another note, here's something from part 57 of Nietzsche's book Human, All Too Human, that might interest you.


Morality as the self-division of man.— A good author whose heart is really in his subject wishes that someone would come and annihilate him by presenting the same subject with greater clarity and resolving all the questions contained in it. The girl in love wishes that she might prove the devoted faithfulness of her love through her lover’s faithlessness. The soldier wishes that he might fall on the battlefield for his victorious fatherland, for in the victory of his fatherland his greatest desire is also victorious. The mother gives the child what she takes from herself: sleep, the best food, in some instances even her health, her wealth.

Are all these really selfless states, however? Are these acts of morality miracles because they are, to use Schopenhauer’s phrase, “impossible and yet real"? Isn’t it clear that, in all these cases, man is loving something of himself, a thought, a longing, an offspring, more than something else of himself; that he is thus dividing up his being and sacrificing one part for the other? Is it something essentially different when a pigheaded man says, “I would rather be shot at once than move an inch to get out of that man's

The inclination towards something (a wish, a drive, a longing) is present in all the above-mentioned cases; to yield to it, with all its consequences, is in any case not “selfless." In morality, man treats himself not as an individuum, but as a dividuum. [Terms of Scholastic philosophy: individuum: that which cannot be divided without destroying its essence, dividuum: that which is composite and lacks an individual essence.]

anyway, I know you've been reading Objectivist philosophy from the correspondence we have. I've read my fair share of Ayn Rand and have a few of her books -- I agree that people need to be respected and allowed to pursue their interests. I like that she respects man's rights to existence for his own sake in her philosophy. However, there are too many points of disagreements, or we agree for the wrong reasons, for me to say I am an objectivist.

Anyway, here are some readings for you to check out. I suggest you save this list somewhere , and for others to check these out as well.

Human, All too Human by Friedrich Nietzsche. if you don't read the entire thing, Read Division 2 [the history of moral sentiments] and Division 8 [ A Glance at the State ]. (specifically aphorism 473 addresses Socialism).

On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche

Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennet.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Specifically,the first half called "Of Man" which covers chapters 1-16 will be of interest to ethics and concerning the natural state of mankind.

The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.


Objectivist literature by Ayn Rand and Peikoff for sure is a captivating and thought provoking read, however, it's such a closed system that there is very little wiggle room for original ideas. Despite it's praise for individualism it seems to have a very tight definition of an individual displayed in various Characters in her novels, such as John Galt or Howard Roark. It seems to me that it's like "stand up and repeat after me : I am an individual ".

There is no objective moral standard. Not by Rand's standards, and not by Kant's. They are based in our emotions. It's , at least by my measure, based in our emotions as a result of our "selfish genes". We have morality to 1 ) Make living in a society tolerable and safe 2 ) to maintain our social relationships (the Ethics of Care ). and 3 ) To promote the survival of our genes. However, it is by rational thought that we decide what morals should be accepted by society as part of the metaphorical social contract. These are more or less the same in most modern cultures, no murder, no stealing, etc. Notice, these also all infringe on the individual. My point is, I agree that pure altruism doesn't really exist and can be explained in one way or another, and I agree to an extent with a variety of Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism ( more so with psychological egoism ), but I don't think there's an objective standard of morality set in stone by a deity. It can be rationally thought out, but that doesn't make it objective because it's still based on the feelings (which are subjective ) of maintaining order, social relationships, and to protect yourself.

[OrphanPip]

I agree with Nietzsche in large part, but you should be careful of applying tautologies to Dawkins' idea of the Selfish Gene. The only reason there is an apparent push for reproductive success is because of selective pressure shaping it that way, not because we exist specifically for that purpose. Where our evolutionary history is most important to this topic is when we factor in Kin-selection and the fact that early proto-human populations were very small. In small populations, a gene has a very good chance of being found in most of the individuals. Thus, there is a selective pressure to promote the survival of other members of the society. What the Neo-Darwinist gene-centric view gives us is a perspective of evolution that is not as individualistic as Social Darwinist would make it out to be. Evolutionarily there is more adaptive benefit to sacrificing yourself to save three related individuals than it is to keep on living. So, it makes perfect sense for us to be selfless in the sense of promoting our own physical or reproductive welfare. However, how this kind of altruistic behavior comes about is through complex psychological mechanisms, i.e. emotions. In a sense, because of the way we understand our psychology, Psychological Egoism is mostly true by definition.

[billl]

In a sense, because of the way we understand our psychology, Psychological Egoism is mostly true by definition.

Pip, I'm not sure if you are arguing in favor of or in opposition to Psychological Egoism here. At the end of my previous post (post#4) I was arguing that the position taken by Psychological Egoism is a circular argument (rather than true by definition).

I don't mean to leave out important parts of your post that are needed to understand your overall point--but I want to look at this particular part, within that context, and type a bit more about it.


Evolutionarily there is more adaptive benefit to sacrificing yourself to save three related individuals than it is to keep on living. So, it makes perfect sense for us to be selfless in the sense of promoting our own physical or reproductive welfare.

What this seems to mean, to me, is that altruism can exist. Altruisim in the sense that an individual sacrificing their own life for the benefit of 3 others would be doing it for the benefit of genes within other people (if we want to be reductive). In this extreme example, his/her self would indeed be sacrificed. Only some (perhaps even incomplete) portion of his/her genes would survive, genes that can only be said to represent his/her self when in the arrangement he/she carries in each cell of his/her body. (In particular, consider the cases in which such an individual has no children.)

There is a benefit, but this adaptive benefit is to the species or group. To me, to describe the action of self-sacrifice in this extreme example as being 'selfish' only makes sense when we reduce the analysis to something like 'it is selfish to have free will' or 'it is selfish to choose to be self-less' or 'it is selfish to value your kin/tribe/etc. over yourself'.

And I think there can be other altruistic acts that are less extreme (anonymous acts, and even public acts) that might be selfish, or might not be selfish. The humility of such altruistic acts comes under suspicion once we start considering the more selfish possibilities, and how such false humility is pretty unfortunate indeed. It is more satisfying and tidy to rule out all cases, I think. But I think the actual situation is a mixture.

[OrphanPip]

The problem is in the semantics and how we want to define altruism or selfishness.

Because of the way we have evolved we perform actions that aren't in our individual reproductive interest, but what compels us to do these actions could be considered in psychological terms to be in our interest.

Edit: Altruism in the biological sense definitely exists though.

[billl]

OK, I definitely agree about semantics ultimately being the issue. I think that "the way we define it in psychological terms" can sometimes be reduced to "free will = selfish by definition" or "having and acting on unselfish values = selfish" though. It is an interesting point, but I think that "denouncing altruism" is a bit strong, when we keep this in mind.

[Dodo25]

I too agree with Nietzsche, good post and great reading list!

[billl]

The problem is in the semantics and how we want to define altruism or selfishness.

Because of the way we have evolved we perform actions that aren't in our individual reproductive interest, but what compels us to do these actions could be considered in psychological terms to be in our interest.

Edit: Altruism in the biological sense definitely exists though.

Sorry to return to the same point again, but just to lay out my reasoning once more, now that semantics is under suspicion as the main culprit.
I think it is important to differentiate between these cases:


selfless/generous actions that are consciously or unconsciously done in order to (selfishly) gain prestige among others, to encourage reciprocation, etc.


selfless/generous acts that are ultimately selfish simply because they are the result of our free will (free will as defined by anyone, including Dennett).

I think that Case One probably deserves a bit of denouncing. Case Two, however, is in another class entirely, I think.

And I wonder if it would really be fair to put "performing selfless acts in order to make one feel better about oneself," with the examples I've given in the first case (assuming that these latest sorts of selfless acts weren't also an attempt to gain prestige, reciprocation, etc.). I think that this type of example would (often, anyhow) be a situation where the 'altruism' vanishes only on account of the person's (selfish?) decision to act so as to satisfy their valuing of selflessness. Perhaps some portion, perhaps all, of these examples, could be considered instances of Case Two.
To be sure, such selflessness would not necessarily be admirable--in some cases it could even become unbalanced, even pathological. And in such instances, calling it "altruism" seems a bit wrong. But those unhealthy examples needn't be considered a refutation of the others.

Anyhow, regarding the convenience/utility of the semantics, it seems best to me to consider Case One to be a matter of false (or, at least, compromised) altruism, definitely deserving of some denouncing--and Case Two to be an example of actual altruism.

[Lote-Tree]

I was watching a Wild Life programme.

In it they had a group of chimpanzees in a jungle as a social group.

These group of chimps have mastered the use of using stones to break open nuts.

Now to break open a nut you need an hammer and an anvil.

One chimpanzee in this particular group of chimpanzees managed to find a hammer but was unable to locate the anvil stone.

He went over to another chimpanzee who had an anvil and extended his hands and amazingly the other chimpanzee gave it to him!

[Nietzsche]

Sorry to return to the same point again, but just to lay out my reasoning once more, now that semantics is under suspicion as the main culprit.
I think it is important to differentiate between these cases:


selfless/generous actions that are consciously or unconsciously done in order to (selfishly) gain prestige among others, to encourage reciprocation, etc.


selfless/generous acts that are ultimately selfish simply because they are the result of our free will (free will as defined by anyone, including Dennett).

I think that Case One probably deserves a bit of denouncing. Case Two, however, is in another class entirely, I think.

And I wonder if it would really be fair to put "performing selfless acts in order to make one feel better about oneself," with the examples I've given in the first case (assuming that these latest sorts of selfless acts weren't also an attempt to gain prestige, reciprocation, etc.). I think that this type of example would (often, anyhow) be a situation where the 'altruism' vanishes only on account of the person's (selfish?) decision to act so as to satisfy their valuing of selflessness. Perhaps some portion, perhaps all, of these examples, could be considered instances of Case Two.
To be sure, such selflessness would not necessarily be admirable--in some cases it could even become unbalanced, even pathological. And in such instances, calling it "altruism" seems a bit wrong. But those unhealthy examples needn't be considered a refutation of the others.

Anyhow, regarding the convenience/utility of the semantics, it seems best to me to consider Case One to be a matter of false (or, at least, compromised) altruism, definitely deserving of some denouncing--and Case Two to be an example of actual altruism.


I agree, the semantics here are the cause of a lot of this. Philosophy would be much easier if the same words meant the same thing to everyone.

Also, for those who read Objectivist literature, as I know the OP is.. What you described in your post is Psychological Egoism. Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement are Ethical Egoists. Psychological Egoism maintains people are naturally selfish (and what is meant by selfish varies from person to person) and Ethical Egoism , is a system of ethics that maintains that you should be selfish ( again, different things are meant by different people ).

[Virgil]

Navy SEAL jumps on grenade to save others
By Thomas Watkins

Last update: October 13, 2006 - 2:32 PM
CORONADO, Calif. — A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.

"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
[Snip]

Read the rest here: http://www.startribune.com/nation/11611941.html.

End of argument.

[The Comedian]

One of the issues we need to bring up here (I think bill did in a way) is causation. To me there is a big difference between (1) doing something to feel better about one's self and (2) doing something selfless and feeling better as a consequence of the action. The difference is pretty simple: intention.

Altruism seems to rule out the first instance but does not rule out the second. Only cynicism rules out the second.

Let me give you an example of number two: I come home from 9 hours at work. I've picked up the kids done a few errands and made dinner. I'm tired as hell. The ONLY thing I want to do is lay on the couch and read. But my kids want me to play with them. (And make no mistake: I do not want to do this at all). But I do play with them because, despite every impulse in my mind and body, I feel that I have to. I don't have fun playing with them and while I'm doing so I'm always thinking "please let this be over". (But I pretend that I'm having fun, which is itself a strain and not a joy or benefit in anyway). And, only later in the day, upon reflection and do I feel the slightest sense of satisfaction for having done so.

Here my "benefit" come only as an unintended consequence of the action. I did not (I promise) play with my kids then in order to feel better either long or short term about myself.

[Virgil]

One of the issues we need to bring up here (I think bill did in a way) is causation. To me there is a big difference between (1) doing something to feel better about one's self and (2) doing something selfless and feeling better as a consequence of the action. The difference is pretty simple: intention.

Altruism seems to rule out the first instance but does not rule out the second. Only cynicism rules out the second.


Quite right. And even if one feels better, does that out weigh the expense? The $100 donation to the Hatian earthquake theorectically made me feel good for five minutes. I could have felt even better buying a $20 bottle of wine and drank it over the course of a couple of days. Or I could have used that money to buy one of those top bottles of scotch I enjoy. That $100 could have made me feel a whole lot better if I had been selfish.

God, I hate cynicism.

[BienvenuJDC]

I concur with Virgil (not about the wine or the scotch though). One can define a word in such a way to make their proposition true. It seems that if you want your proposition or argument to be sure, you can surely set the stage to make it that way.

[Nietzsche]

Quite right. And even if one feels better, does that out weigh the expense? The $100 donation to the Hatian earthquake theorectically made me feel good for five minutes. I could have felt even better buying a $20 bottle of wine and drank it over the course of a couple of days. Or I could have used that money to buy one of those top bottles of scotch I enjoy. That $100 could have made me feel a whole lot better if I had been selfish.

God, I hate cynicism.


Psychological Egoism isn't necessarily cynical, all people have a tendency to act selfish and do things that make them happy, even when its for other people. However, people also seem to be capable of doing courageous things for little to no personal gain. Whether or not there is personal gain or not is irrelevant I think. People do things to help other people. This is observable in humans and in animals. Just be glad people are not just selfish ( in the negative sense of the word ). Some people are more selfish than others. Some are more altruistic than others. As long as the person who's very giving doesn't mind giving up stuff, it's not a problem whether or not they are doing it to feel good or not. It has a positive result. I guess, getting into that, you would get into the Consequentialism vs Deonotological argument but i'm much more of a consequentialist as far as how I judge actions ( though for certain things such as how a person got killed , i'd take into account their intentions as to whether it was an accident, planned out, spontaneous, etc ).

Anyway, I do think altruism is somewhat limited. I don't think we can count on people to always do the right thing, hence the social contract. Again, as my reading list recommended earlier, I recommend Thomas Hobbes's book the Leviathan. People sometimes are needed to be made to give up ( hence taxes ) what they normally would not, but, as long as it's on a reasonable level, and not some outrageous Stalinist society, I don't think it's a huge deal. Best to keep taxes low of course, but that's getting into economics and politics and I'll try to stay on topic.

Altruism exists in a limited, perhaps not purely altruistic form, but again people do nice things all the time. They are not purely selfish nor are they purely giving. It depends on the person, really.

[blazeofglory]

Altruism will exist when everything is as expected but in an extreme situation altruism vanishes.

Selfishness outlives altruism ultimately. While radicalizing this view I do not mean altruism never happens. It does but when it comes a critical moment, man becomes selfish rather than altruistic in point of fact

[billl]

I disagree Blaze. Well, you might be generally right, but there are plenty of examples of altruism in extreme circumstances. It might be the case that most instances occur according to instinct or training, but they still occur. People covering explosives with their bodies to protect others, people jumping into freezing waters to save those that they see struggling, etc.

[TheFifthElement]

Hi paper :) I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't think there is such a thing as true 'altruism'. I think acts of perceived altruism tend to fall into two categories, they're either motivated by a 'selfish' motive, such as it makes someone feel good about themself or perhaps all the alternatives are worse; or they are acts of instinct and the idea of a conscious 'selflessness', by definition, goes out of the window.

So you have people who give money to charity, but by giving money to charity it gives them a sense of self worth and so it is selfish.

You have a person who jumps into the river to save a drowning child. This could be either instinctive, which negates conscious selflessness, or because they find the thought of standing by and doing nothing abhorent, so it is selfish. Because the alternative means they will lose their sense of self worth.

And I think you can break down all apparently altruistic acts in this way.

My question to you, paperleaves, is this: does it matter? If someone does something nice for someone else, and it makes them feel good about themselves, it may be selfishly motivated but it's still a good thing.

And I wonder if that should be actively encouraged? Instead of encouraging people to be altruistic, to put aside the self, it would seem better to encourage people to find pleasure in doing nice things for other people. So instead of it being automatically bad to be selfish, instead people should be encouraged to be selfish when that selfishness arises out of making someone else happy.

Like this, on Wednesday I went for lunch with my friend. When she'd placed her order she went to find a table for us to sit at and whilst she was away I bought some chocolate to give to her. So when I joined her at the table I sneaked her the chocolate and it made her happy. And it made me happy too, because she was happy and because I'd made her happy she was more likely to remain my friend and that's what I want. So it was selfish, at heart, but still good. I don't have a problem with thinking of it as selfish.

[billl]

Just to highlight once again how this is really just semantics:

1. Consciously doing something good in order to feel good might only be selfish in the sense that it is a fulfillment of our desire to be altruistic. And if we really want to call such a thing selfish, then in what case could the word "altruism" have any meaning? What is it meant to refer to? So, I would say that it should refer to selfless acts, in particular those that do not result even in an increase in esteem, or promote reciprocation, etc. An anonymous donation would be one of many examples that might apply. Also, a few posts back in this thread, the Comedian gave an interesting example (that addresses some important nuances) in which he played with his children when he was dead tired. There is also the case of a person who feels that the alternative would be too horrible to consider (in particular, situations where no one else would realize their failure to act 'altruistically'), and therefore feels absolutely compelled by their values to take action. At a certain point, we have to recognize that simply having free will and a particular (often altruistic) value system isn't necessarily grounds for automatically ruling out altruism in all conscious cases. One could do so, but Why? It is simply an option arising from the self-referential nature of how we 'have' a self that we might 'choose' to sacrifice it.

2. Why should instinctive acts be automatically denied the adjective "altruistic." If somebody instinctively jumps in freezing water to save some children, and another (even better swimmer) doesn't, are we really supposed to step back and say, "Well, he didn't even think about it, so I guess it wasn't altruistic of him. May he rest in peace..." Whether the instinct is genetic, or the result of one's habitual and conscious commitment to certain values, or the result of conscious training--I don't see why the word 'altruism' should automatically be considered some sort of category error.


I prefer to keep it such that the word "altruism" simply applies to selfless and generous acts in which the mere fact that the individual has an 'altruistic' value system, and that they fulfill their desire to comply with it, would be the only sense in which it might be thought "selfish."

I think it is interesting to consider how our free will (generally) sets us apart, and makes us responsible for actions, and that we should not be mere tools of others. In the typical case, when we are generous, we choose to be generous, of course.

And I think it is also worth pointing out how acts of "altruism" might sometimes be connected to some ulterior motives (especially socially, or in regards to providing advantage to our relatives, etc.), and that such actions can in some cases even be downright manipulative to the point of being in no way altruistic at all.

However, I don't think we need to become too hard on the word, or on ourselves, because of all of that. It is useful to be able to wonder if some public act of generosity is altruistic or not--rather than throw the very notion out the window. It is convenient (to say the least) to remember those who give up their life for the sake of others (be it after consciously thinking, or be it according to their instinct) as having acted altruistically. There are many subtleties and special cases, but I don't think it makes sense to call an act of altruism "selfish" simply because a person with altruistic values chooses to act according to them, or to deny the altruism of those who sacrifice themselves without even stopping to think about it.

[Lote-Tree]

Selfishness outlives altruism ultimately.


Not it does not.

If it did human society would not have evolved.

[eric.bell]

Not it does not.

If it did human society would not have evolved.

And how is this so, Lote-Tree?

[BasDirks]

Wholly selfless is logically problematic for the assumptions that underlie it. To conceive of
selfless is to oppose it to selfishness. Now this conception of self surely lies in action or intention, as the use of the word selflessness implies (unless we are spellbound by words as spirit etc), that is to say, self is thought as a constituent or basis of action or intention. What would selflessness look like if above conception of self is to be maintained, besides non-action? Selflessness sounds a bit like magic, as if we want think "self" into non-existence. The delicate "saintly" emotions one feels by performing what is called an altruistic deed often justify the deed, but sometimes does require above magic-trick.

[blazeofglory]

Wholly selfless is logically problematic for the assumptions that underlie it. To conceive of
selfless is to oppose it to selfishness. Now this conception of self surely lies in action or intention, as the use of the word selflessness implies (unless we are spellbound by words as spirit etc), that is to say, self is thought as a constituent or basis of action or intention. What would selflessness look like if above conception of self is to be maintained, besides non-action? Selflessness sounds a bit like magic, as if we want think "self" into non-existence. The delicate "saintly" emotions one feels by performing what is called an altruistic deed often justify the deed, but sometimes does require above magic-trick.

No one can be perfectly altruistic, for in nature we will have to beef up our position and selflessly we cannot do this at all, since for survival will have to be aggressive and if we become noble we will empty ourselves of what is essential to survival and as a result we will be extinctive . Therefore altruism is a word that remains confined in books, poetry but not in real life