Are people really altruistic?

[iamnobody]

Forgive me if this has has already been discussed.
My view of altruism means that there can be NO benefit to the person offering help. Now since feeling good about yourself for a kind act is, in itself, a benefit, I don't think it can truly be called altruism. So that would mean an act is only altruistic if you can not feel good about it.
For instance giving to charity, even anonymously, makes one feel good and therefore is not altruism. Helping a stranger cover up a heinous crime is doing something good for that person (keeping them out of prison) but is not something one could feel good about, so that would be truly altruistic.
Of course this is not something anyone would do. So the question remains. Are people really altruistic or, as I suspect, do people have to have some personal gain for any act?

[BookBeauty]

I think most people are greedy, and will always look for personal gain, or be motivated by something. I also think that most people do not think this about themselves, or are simply unaware of it.

As for helping a stranger cover up a 'heinous' crime, would it not be better for that person, and the world at large, for them to be in jail?

Acting upon rightness does not necessarily mean feeling good about it. I wouldn't feel good about putting someone in jail, but if it would be necessary, I would do it for that purpose. Is that altruism?

[Darcy88]

I read a fascinating book about evolutionary psychology which offered an interesting perspective on the roots of altruistic behaviour. In accordance with the selfish gene theory, its not the individual but rather the individual's genes which are the true selectors in evolution. In our original hunter-gatherer state we were often surrounded by our kin. Risking your own life, or merely helping others out, would likely result in a positive benefit not only for the other person but for your own genes are well. Thus a streak of altruism developed that has carried on into our present civilization where we find ourselves amongst non-relatives who we still like to help out.

[iamnobody]

I read a fascinating book about evolutionary psychology which offered an interesting perspective on the roots of altruistic behaviour. In accordance with the selfish gene theory, its not the individual but rather the individual's genes which are the true selectors in evolution. In our original hunter-gatherer state we were often surrounded by our kin. Risking your own life, or merely helping others out, would likely result in a positive benefit not only for the other person but for your own genes are well. Thus a streak of altruism developed that has carried on into our present civilization where we find ourselves amongst non-relatives who we still like to help out.

An altruistic act, by definition, is one that has no benefit to the self. I maintain that these are NOT altruistic acts.

[iamnobody]

I think most people are greedy, and will always look for personal gain, or be motivated by something. I also think that most people do not think this about themselves, or are simply unaware of it.

As for helping a stranger cover up a 'heinous' crime, would it not be better for that person, and the world at large, for them to be in jail?

Acting upon rightness does not necessarily mean feeling good about it. I wouldn't feel good about putting someone in jail, but if it would be necessary, I would do it for that purpose. Is that altruism?

There is a benefit to the self involved with putting someone in jail. You're stopping them from possibly commiting a crime against you. Not altruism.

[Darcy88]

An altruistic act, by definition, is one that has no benefit to the self. I maintain that these are NOT altruistic acts.

Those acts don't benefit the self. They benefit the genes of the self. Big difference.

[iamnobody]

How is that different?

[Paulclem]

Your definition of altruism is very narrow, and does it matter that there is an element of self involved in it? Altruism is good for society, and developing it may take a person to an ideal state of doing it for its own sake. Removing the self from how one acts first may be impossible.

[Darcy88]

How is that different?

Do you define one's self to extend beyond one's individual person? I don't.

[stlukesguild]

An altruistic act, by definition, is one that has no benefit to the self.

Altruism:

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others

2. the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others

3. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

Your definition of Altruism is grossly limited. An individual may engage in an act altruistically... without concern for himself or herself... and the results may vary. For example. In time of warfare a soldier may rush into the fray against enemy fire in order to attempt to rescue a wounded soldier. He may be wounded or killed himself... or he may succeed in his rescue attempt against the odds and be awarded a medal for bravery and recognition as a hero. Regardless of the result, the impulse of putting another's needs before one's makes the act altruistic.

The individual who gives to charity... excepting he or she who gives with a specific intention of using such as a means of avoiding a greater tax burden... engages in an altruistic act.

Self-preservation and self-interest are among the strongest biological drives... and yet there are endless examples of the individual overcoming these and placing the interests of others above his or her own benefit, safety, or even life. How many parents will sacrifice themselves for their own child? How often in combat has an individual soldier jumped in front of the sword or bullet or fallen upon the grenade to protect another. How many have jumped into the raging river or the roaring flames to save another? How many firemen lost there lives on September 11, 2001 in an attempt to rescue absolute strangers?

[iamnobody]

Altruism: unselfish concern for the needs and well-being of other people.

It occurs to me that maybe people use the word as simply a synonym for "good", in which case....nevermind.

Stlukes, I agree that those instances of sacrifice may be altruistic, in the narrow sense, but not giving to charity.
Doing something because it makes us feel good is not unselfish.
I'm not suggesting that the selfish aspect makes the act any less kind. I think there is a level a care that wouldn't be there if the act were not selfish. If I don't care about you at all, you can have no effect on how I feel about myself. The fact that we do feel good about ourselves when we do good for others, while not altruistic, I feel has a much deeper meaning.

[smerdyakov]

It's a cynical question. Of course there are altruistic people in the world.

[BookBeauty]

Your definition of Altruism is grossly limited. An individual may engage in an act altruistically... without concern for himself or herself... and the results may vary.

:iagree:

[YesNo]

I don't see altruism as something that must not benefit one's self in order for it to be altruistic.

Let's say one develops a greater sense of compassion toward others. This provides an altruistic intention toward others which also provides emotional benefits to oneself. Altruism, from this perspective, should benefit oneself as well as others since we are all part of the whole.

[Alexander III]

I like what the earl of rochester has to say:


"But a meek, humble man of honest sense,
Who, preaching peace, does practice continence;
Whose pious life's a proof he does believe
Mysterious truths, which no man can conceive.
If upon the earth there dwell such GOd-like men,
I'll here recant my paradox to them,
Adore those shrines of virtue, homage pay,
And, with the rabble world, their laws obey.
If such there be, yet grant me this at least:
Man differs more from man, than man from beast."

[Buh4Bee]

Man is not beast, that is why we are civilized and have compassion for one another.

Yes, people are altruistic. I think of all the people who helped out the 911 victims. Many people gave up their lives and helped because they saw they extreme level of suffering.

[JuniperWoolf]

Man is not beast, that is why we are civilized and have compassion for one another.

Some animals are like that, for example ants are civilized (as in they form civilizations) and elephants have compassion for one another. There are more examples, so that's not what makes us special.

I've heard several convincing arguments for what makes humans different. One is that while other animals have the ability to learn from others of their species, we're the only ones who have not only the ability but also the desire to consciously teach others of our species. No other animals have that, usually un-learned animals observe learned animals and that's how they advance, but the learned animals could care less that they're teaching, they're just going about their day getting bugs from a log with sticks or something. So yeah, it's really been argued that teaching is our species' ace in the hole, it's what allows us to be compassionate and civilized in the first place.

Oh yeah, as for the question of whether or not we're altruistic: I don't know. I guess you could say that people who are "just doing their job," like search and rescue workers, are sort of being altruistic. They aren't acting because doing so makes them feel good and they're not thinking about whether or not their actions are benefitting them, they're not thinking about anything: this is just what they do. That's altruism in a way, thoughtless beneficence.

[BookBeauty]

We are also able to choose. Animals don't really seem to have a choice beyond fight or flight, unless they are taught in a domesticated environment. :)

[YesNo]

Forgive me if this has has already been discussed.
My view of altruism means that there can be NO benefit to the person offering help. Now since feeling good about yourself for a kind act is, in itself, a benefit, I don't think it can truly be called altruism. So that would mean an act is only altruistic if you can not feel good about it.
For instance giving to charity, even anonymously, makes one feel good and therefore is not altruism. Helping a stranger cover up a heinous crime is doing something good for that person (keeping them out of prison) but is not something one could feel good about, so that would be truly altruistic.
Of course this is not something anyone would do. So the question remains. Are people really altruistic or, as I suspect, do people have to have some personal gain for any act?
As others mentioned, this definition of altruism is too limited. Here is my take on it.

The person performing the altruistic act should benefit as well. More generally, altruism would be an act that benefits the whole which would include the person performing it even if that person dies in the process.

Consider a family that experiences a lot of fighting, verbal and physical abuse, within it. This should hit home faster than theorizing about rescue efforts which few of us have to engage in, but we all have to live with the members of our families and it doesn't involve the extreme case of one member dying for the group.

The members who are fighting are engaging in selfish acts no matter how righteous they think their position is. There are winners and losers in these fights and they are usually individuals who win at the expense of some other member of the family. From the perspective of these selfish fighters an altruistic alternative would be to let the other members of the family win implying they would lose even if they fully believe that their position is right. So they don't take this alternative and feel justified in fighting. After the participants get tired of fighting the hostility lingers and the family grows apart even if physically they remain together.

However, in a real altruistic alternative, there are no losers. There are only winners. The real altruistic alternative would be not to fight. At all. This benefits all members of the family although the people who feel tempted to engage in abuse, even if the abuse appears to them to be righteous, would have to control themselves and feel a little pain perhaps for the good of all. Ultimately, everyone benefits, even those who had to consciously generate new habits of self-control which should also improve their overall health.

[Alexander III]

I think what really seprates man from beast, is our ability to be irational.

[Darcy88]

I don't know if I'd separate man from beast. I think man is just a beast with an unusually large cerebrum that has lead to a high complexity of culture and behavior.

About altruism....I don't see how there's any benefit to oneself in the act of leaping upon a grenade. You could possibly stretch the meaning of selfishness to include even this act, but you'd be standing not on a house but on a tower of cards.

[KCurtis]

Some animals are like that, for example ants are civilized (as in they form civilizations) and elephants have compassion for one another. There are more examples, so that's not what makes us special.

I've heard several convincing arguments for what makes humans different. One is that while other animals have the ability to learn from others of their species, we're the only ones who have not only the ability but also the desire to consciously teach others of our species. No other animals have that, usually un-learned animals observe learned animals and that's how they advance, but the learned animals could care less that they're teaching, they're just going about their day getting bugs from a log with sticks or something. So yeah, it's really been argued that teaching is our species' ace in the hole, it's what allows us to be compassionate and civilized in the first place.
.

But animal parents teach their young- you could say this is instinctual. Animals (most, not including reptiles) teach their young survival skills. I guess you could say this is also the difference. Humans want to teach more than just that, while animals don't "want" they just do it.

[Delta40]

So would you say helping a stranger in need of medical help then walking away, remaining anonymous and keeping that act to yourself is not altruistic?

[JuniperWoolf]

About altruism....I don't see how there's any benefit to oneself in the act of leaping upon a grenade. You could possibly stretch the meaning of selfishness to include even this act, but you'd be standing not on a house but on a tower of cards.

Yeah, it's hard to argue that an impulsive act of goodness, especially if that act winds up getting you killed, is anything but altruistic. Any reaction for the good of other people who don't share your DNA which occurs without thought is altruism.


So would you say helping a stranger in need of medical help then walking away, remaining anonymous and keeping that act to yourself is not altruistic?

If you feel good about it afterwards then that is considered your payoff.

[billl]

If you feel good about it afterwards then that is considered your payoff.

At this point, though, only someone who disapproves of altruism has any chance of being altruistic themself (by accident? by compulsion? Nah... those don't make any sense.). I don't think it's enough to take away the "altruistic" tag, but it's not a big deal, I guess, if people have other ideas about how the word should be used, or a good reason to do away with it.

[JuniperWoolf]

At this point, though, only someone who disapproves of altruism has any chance of being altruistic themself (by accident? by compulsion? Nah... those don't make any sense.). I don't think it's enough to take away the "altruistic" tag, but it's not a big deal, I guess, if people have other ideas about how the word should be used, or a good reason to do away with it.

That's it, it's all about fitting terms - the definition of the word itself is almost impossible to accomplish or imagine happening in reality. Altruism means a completely selfless act, something in which the person preforming the act reaps absolutely no benefit, right? So how could an act be considered completely without benefit if the person feels good about it afterwards, or if they assuage guilt (the guilt they would feel if they did nothing)? The only way that I can think of which would mean that you gain absolutely no benefit is if you act on impulse (meaning you're not acting out of guilt or to make yourself feel good) and then die in doing so (so that you aren't around to be a hero, that's a reward/benefit which would make your act, by definition, not altruism).

[Revolte]

It's arbitrary (in terms of from person to person). I don't think there is any set universal truth for any trait of any man or women. Not long ago my life was in serious danger and the people "close" to me opted to, rather bluntly, not help me out at all and had no emotional willingness to prevent me from any further battery (weather it be from myself or further third party activities). While I don't find happiness in anything other then selflessly helping people. Personal experiences aside close observation and situational study suggests the same for other individuals.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think that the argument is set up to fail. If the argument is set with such an absolute definition, then there isn't even any point in discussing it. The original poster has created the immovable object for an unstoppable force.

[billl]

The only way that I can think of which would mean that you gain absolutely no benefit is if you act on impulse and then die in doing so.

In such a case, though, it would be unfair perhaps to say that the same person doing some other unheralded good deed would be disqualified from altruism simply because they survived the effort, I think. (Even if they knew they'd survive while acting on the impulse, to be a little more clear.)

The word has been around for a while, and I think it is useful.

If, for example, I am excusing myself from the company of an elderly woman, in order to see some basketball game on TV at home, and she asks me when the game starts, and I say I don't know exactly, and then she--because of her desire to "help me", and her strong desire to make use of her weakening memory and her ability to get things straight--decides to look for the newspaper, and then try to read the schedule for programming, but the newspaper is all over the place, it's hard to tell if it's the right day's edition, and then her eyesight is so bad, she can't read it, etc.... If, in that instance I hang around and let her "help" me, then I am, I think, sort of doing my duty. No one but me might realize it at that moment, but that's how I think people ought to be. She's a nice lady, a friend! I'm stuck there! That's not altruism, but it isn't exactly easy.

On the other hand, I think we'd be moving across the spectrum towards "altruism" if I saw some used piece of tissue lying outside her little trash can. I could leave it for her family members, or for the maid in the morning. But it's easy to pick up, and she won't be (later that night) possibly obsessed with picking it up herself later if I pick it up now (unbeknownst to anyone else). At the end of this, I'll feel "good", I suppose. And I won't be dead. But I think it's worth having this sense of "altruism" to separate me at the moment from me in the other example, when walking away (from TV schedule advice) would have perhaps caused offense--or, much more obviously, from some hypothetical (perhaps tired or stressed) me who would've left the tissue on the floor, for her or others to find later.

I understand the idea that people might do something nice in order to feel "superior", to put it in the least flattering way... And I know that altruism is a term and a notion that can be abused.

For example, I have, in the past, felt that the layman's sense of "karma" was a good reason to do altruistic things, or that I might expect some sort of good luck, etc. for "secretly" doing good. That sort of "altruism" is fine, I think, actually. But it wouldn't be above some contempt or criticism, I don't think, when we really get down to the motivations (if we care about those).

Now, though, I pretty strongly believe that if there is some sort of machinery or an entity watching over me/us and deciding my post-life future, or my luck or whatever based on my private decisions about what to do and how nice I am, then that's pretty insulting, and it's expecting a lot less than what humans are capable of. I know such an entity or system might have the best of intentions, but I am, I think, completely an enemy of it. (To tone this down a little, I'm disappointed at the idea of it coming into play.) It's a useful story for children, and for adults who are habitually fearful and low-minded or whatever, but I pick up that tissue not for karma, but because it'd make the day just a little better for that woman or for others in that house.

Yes, I can "brag" about it now--but that was never part of the plan. And, honestly, the things I haven't done, well, believe me... It's of course crazy to say that picking up a tissue is some badge of my amazing altruistic character--there are better examples than me, definitely.

And they deserve the word. It's useful. There can be a useful distinction. Those people are more altruistic than me. (Well, with some "superior-minded" exceptions, I expect.)

Sure, when we get down to it, they all, even the best of them, have their own idea about what's good, and they satisfy that sense by acting accordingly. It probably feels good. But I don't think it's right to wag fingers and say they are being less than altruistic simply because they are exercising free will... Other people might choose actions that are much more obviously classified as non-altruistic, after all (and feel good as well, maybe even better?).

[Patrick_Bateman]

The one bit of Joey (from Friends) wisdom that is actually true


"There are no self-less good deeds"

[YesNo]

The one bit of Joey (from Friends) wisdom that is actually true


"There are no self-less good deeds"
I agree with Joey.

I don't see how it is possible for a good deed to be good and not benefit the doer as well. It would then be a bad deed for the doer. I don't think that a self-benefiting good deed makes the good deed any less altruistic or good. Why should it?

[ralfyman]

Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.