Altruism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Altruism » Altruism

Altruism
The non-existence of altruism and the rise of the psychological egoist.

Altruism

SinisterUrge
Misanthrope

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/01/08 - 08:30 AM: Subject: Altruism	#1
Does altruism exist? Do selfless acts truely exist? I find it interesting when people say that they do considering that unconditional actions do not exist in that there are conditions within every action. All actions acted upon revolve around the self who is maker of them. But what exactly does these conditions stem from? Selfishness. So aren't we all psychological egoists then? I believe people are inherently selfish and when I have studied altruism I'm under the impression that not a single example of selflessness exists as everything is conditional.
The end justifies the means and given the relativity of existence the means can be anything. If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/01/08 - 10:25 AM:	#2
I agree that altruism is rare. So rare, in fact, that I doubt that I have witnessed it first hand. The difficulty I have with ruling out altruism altogether are acts of self-sacrifice: The soldier who willingly jumps on a grenade to save his comrades. I cannot reconcile that to a world completely free of altruism (I've tried). In a world where self-interest is the norm, altruism is a dangerous thing- it cannot be predicted.
It is what it is.

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1289

Posted 05/01/08 - 10:39 AM:	#3
SinisterUrge wrote: All actions acted upon revolve around the self who is maker of them. What is this self? How is it the source of all acts? What about reflexes,habits, accidents, twitches - all selfish? Clearly, all acts of the self are liable to be selfish, but are you sure that only the self can act?
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:04 AM:	#4
Altruism is a gift to others but gift givers can benefit from giving gifts. Altruism cannot be a duty. As soon as altruism becomes a duty it is no longer altruism. Altruism cannot be merely selfish. If altruism is merley selfish then it is no longer altruism. Altruism, in this sense, is therefore not rare at all.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 09:13 AM:	#5
By definition, altruism is exclusive of any personal gain. If the smallest amount of selfish consideration went into the act it cannot be called purely altruistic. If a person gives because they would feel guilty if they did not, this avoidance of the unpleasant emotion of guilt slightly taints the act. It is still probably moral, just not pure altruism.
It is what it is.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:16 AM:	#6
Absolutely Relative wrote: By definition, altruism is exclusive of any personal gain. If the smallest amount of selfish consideration went into the act it cannot be called purely altruistic. If a person gives because they would feel guilty if they did not, this avoidance of the unpleasant emotion of guilt slightly taints the act. It is still probably moral, just not pure altruism. Defining altruism to be exclusive of personal gain leads to absurdities. By such a definition, if being charitable makes one happy then the charity is not altruistic. Fun for arguing over beers but hardly a useful definition. If the question is does "pure altruism" exist, then the answer is almost certainly not simply because it is so hard to avoid gaining by giving. Even someone who gives up his life for those he loves may experience joy at that final moment. Note that this is not an academic question because there are many who try to police altruism in a vain attempt to stomp out any risidual traces of personal gain. But altruism not exclusive of personal gain clearly exists and in fact much that we value depends on its existence.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:42 AM:	#7
cortes wrote: If the question is does "pure altruism" exist, then the answer is almost certainly not simply because it is so hard to avoid gaining by giving. Even someone who gives up his life for those he loves may experience joy at that final moment. I imagine it to be something closer to pure terror. If you wish to define altruism and selfishness as extremes on a continuum then we can have a meaningful discussion. I was merely reverting to the dictionary definition of altruism (probably not helpful for discussion, my apologies). I would argue that human behavior is motivated more often by the selfish than the altruistic part of our being. While this may seem to be a dark view of human nature, I see it as a tribute to the achievement that is society. If I have whoozits and you have whatzits, and we trade, this is an act that we each engage in for our own gain. We deal fairly in the hopes of future fair deals. I say that altruism is dangerous because if someone starts freely distributing his extra whoozits without asking for anything in return, I'm screwed. Human behavior is selfish, and that is good.
It is what it is.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:55 AM:	#8
Absolutely Relative wrote: If you wish to define altruism and selfishness as extremes on a continuum then we can have a meaningful discussion. I was merely reverting to the dictionary definition of altruism (probably not helpful for discussion, my apologies). The dictionary doesn't define altruism as exclusive of selfishness, only as "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". So then the question becomes: what does it mean to be unselfish? Does that mean exclusive of personal gain? Or merely not putting personal gain first in ordering priorities? You see what I mean here? Absolutely Relative wrote: I would argue that human behavior is motivated more often by the selfish than the altruistic part of our being. While this may seem to be a dark view of human nature, I see it as a tribute to the achievement that is society. If I have whoozits and you have whatzits, and we trade, this is an act that we each engage in for our own gain. We deal fairly in the hopes of future fair deals. I say that altruism is dangerous because if someone starts freely distributing his extra whoozits without asking for anything in return, I'm screwed. I would argue that it is foolish to try to seperate the two, assuming you are using my more relaxed definition of altruism. The reality is that we can and do gain personally when we act altruisticly. Now you are certainly correct that altruism can be a problem. Lots of people get put out of business by others who offer cheaper products and services and free is just the extreme of that. But to claim that such is unfair is silly. Absolutely Relative wrote: Human behavior is selfish, and that is good. This can be a tautology depending on how you define selfishness. At a minimum, even the most altruistic person is doing what he thinks is right.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1289

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:05 AM:	#9
Absolutely Relative wrote: If I have whoozits and you have whatzits, and we trade, this is an act that we each engage in for our own gain. We deal fairly in the hopes of future fair deals. I say that altruism is dangerous because if someone starts freely distributing his extra whoozits without asking for anything in return, I'm screwed. Human behavior is selfish, and that is good. Free philosophy forums. Get your free wisdom here at no cost in whoozits or whatzits. No obligation, no smoke, no mirrors. Can I just point out that thinking about one's self-interest all the time is boring and stupid. Not every act is calculated or premeditated, thank goodness.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:16 AM:	#10
I totally agree with cortes. Cost reward modelling theories instigate that the idea of selfless acts cannot be true. Reducing of tension or personal reward from the rest of society is widely accepted as "altruistic acts". However there are situations ie A family member in a burning building in which you act in passion for your family, however it is a reducing of tension in itself. I see absolutely Relative is a believer of Game Theory. However there is a believing in terms of social psychology that by giving or being co-operative can arouse suspicion in competitive environments as the co-operative member does not conform to the societal norm of panic, etc. Thibaut and Kelley inspired Exchange Theory Psychologists are an almost deadly accurate description of this if any are interested!

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:18 AM:	#11
I remain unconvinced of your interpretation of the definition of altruism, but it is the one we are using for the purposes of common language, so I will accept it as given. I did not say that altruism was unfair. My argument was that fairness does not imply altruism, because it can be used to build a good reputation in my selfish-society model. The thing that I dislike about the philanthropist is that he is taking away my means of living through his action. This is a potentially mortal threat which can lead to the disintegration of society. I'm fairly certain the altruist has the best intentions, but I still don't like him. Selfish people are predictable, they will always act in their own best interest. If the society does not provide for their good, they will leave. A society that provides for the good of its members is one that achieves its purpose. Game Theory saved the world at least once (Cuban Missile Crisis), it can't be all bad. Edited by Absolutely Relative on 05/02/08 - 11:49 AM. Reason: treats are good, threats are bad
It is what it is.

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:45 AM:	#12
interesting Absolutely..., I feel that the research conducted into this area is reductionist. I act upon society in a moralistic way but with good intentions (well most of the time) and again postmodernistic views of psychological research instigate that there are individual differences within society. Therefore altruism may not exist for some people (by conforming to this paradigm) BUT it MAY do for others as the theoretical concept is not fact, it maybe representative but not fact

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:44 PM:	#13
If you have a means to develop a model for a [world] society consisting of 6 billion complex individuals without resorting to reductionism please share. Are you certain that a significant number of individuals act in an altruistic manner, or is that simply an illusion their mind has built for them? If the society stopped supporting an individual, how many would go on supporting the society? Would you? Much as I'd like to think I would, I'd probably fend for myself. I'd argue that they build this facade of themselves as altruistic because they equate selfishness with immorality. To break free from this false (in my belief) understanding and to realize that we can have a civil society with [mostly] selfish individual behavior frees us from this illusion. It allows us to function without mistaking self-preservation for immorality.
It is what it is.

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:54 PM:	#14
This is what Marx argued about, Primitive Rebellion, society is rebelled against if society condemns. As long as people are obtaining a good deal from society in which they can live they will conform. For instance criminals rebel and most rebel in the first place because of thier own needs not being obtained...by the providance of the system (jobs, benefits, housing, etc.) As you said you fend for yourself, why would you commit an altruistic act if you were against society? There is obviously some ideology of personal gains. As for the model, that is the definition of WISHFUL THINKING my friend! Fair enough you can incorporate representativeness towards a target population, for instance ambulance paramedics who are aged 40-50 may commit altruistic acts as it is in their occupational nature to save people. However you cant apply this theoretical concept towards the WHOLE world. There is a difference between representativeness and reductionism. Representativeness aims to explain behaviours of a target population in theoretical terms, whilst reductionism tends to generalise behaviours into measureable forms (which quantitative research tries to do). But really can you ask someone how depressed they are on a scale of 1-10? It is at bias towards subjective thought and medically,etc one may feel totally depressed, etc but not be in the same league as another.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:14 PM:	#15
Per your first three paragraphs, we now seem to have reached some type of agreement, how disappointing. Though I would make the exception and argue that 40-50 year old paramedics generally save people's lives because it is a dopamine high that is better than sex. I will also grant the 4th paragraph on review.
It is what it is.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:19 PM:	#16
Absolutely Relative wrote: I remain unconvinced of your interpretation of the definition of altruism, but it is the one we are using for the purposes of common language, so I will accept it as given. Ok, but who is here to defend the "hard" interpretation? I know that such people exist who espouse hard altruism devoid of any personal benefit. I find my interpretation much more practical. Absolutely Relative wrote: I did not say that altruism was unfair. My argument was that fairness does not imply altruism, because it can be used to build a good reputation in my selfish-society model. I'm not a fan of "fairness" and "justice" so you won't have to work hard to convince me that these terms lead to problems. (See my "Moral Freedom" thread in Politics and Law.) Absolutely Relative wrote: The thing that I dislike about the philanthropist is that he is taking away my means of living through his action. This is a potentially mortal threat which can lead to the disintegration of society. I'm fairly certain the altruist has the best intentions, but I still don't like him. But this is not unique to philanthropists. It is common in any free enterprise society. Every new technology, every new business method, every new business model, puts people out of work. Some societies try to control this and end up crushing innovation. Personally, I'm a big fan of creative destruction and I've been on both the giving and receiving end of it. One of the most interesting examples today is "open source software" and "freemium" business models. The internet itself is putting newspapers out of business. So why pick out philanthropists for unique criticism here? Absolutely Relative wrote: Selfish people are predictable, they will always act in their own best interest. If the society does not provide for their good, they will leave. A society that provides for the good of its members is one that achieves its purpose. I'm not sure why you place such a premium on predictability. Live in the Soviet Union was predictable; it had a clear concept of national purpose and organized society to predictably progress toward those objectives.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 169

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:43 PM:	#17
Life in the Soviet Union was not predictable. Many people lived in constant fear of being randomly picked up by the secret police. It had a clear concept of national purpose in theory, but not in practice. In practice the only states that are predictable are democracies, because their political process is by nature transparent. I only argue in favor of fairness as a means to an end (more trade), you misread my meaning. People with something to gain in putting people out of work generally follow predictable actions, their motives are clear. The philanthropist has no clear motive, and no binding reason to continue to fill the need she has created. She is destabilizing. I desire a predictable society because I want to have a reasonable expectation that that society will provide for my needs and not collapse in the next 10 years.
It is what it is.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:55 PM:	#18
Absolutely Relative wrote: Life in the Soviet Union was not predictable. Many people lived in constant fear of being randomly picked up by the secret police. It had a clear concept of national purpose in theory, but not in practice. In practice the only states that are predictable are democracies, because their political process is by nature transparent. It's pretty well known that socialism is more predictable than capitalism. The people who feared the secret police were usually those who usually those who had trouble adjusting to being told how to live. For most people in the Soviet Union, life was drearily predictable. Absolutely Relative wrote: People with something to gain in putting people out of work generally follow predictable actions, their motives are clear. The philanthropist has no clear motive, and no binding reason to continue to fill the need she has created. She is destabilizing. I desire a predictable society because I want to have a reasonable expectation that that society will provide for my needs and not collapse in the next 10 years. I prefer life more an the anarchic side. I like being pleasantly surprised. I've lived in countries that pride themselves on orderliness and they are very boring places to live. I agree that a philanthropic society is probably less predictable than an egoistic society but since I don't value predictabiliy, that's fine with me.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:40 PM:	#19
The thread seems to have digressed somewhat. Referring back to the main topic on whether altruism is possible, a couple of points to note: 1. Most importantly, self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest just recognises that the self has interests; selfishness prioritises the interests of the self over that of others, usually (but not necessarily) to a significant degree. Defining altruism as non-selfish allows for an element of self-interest, since one can prioritise the welfare of others or simply allow equality of priority between all including oneself. If, on the other hand, you insist that "pure altruism" must rule out self-interest altogether, then that would be the strong thesis you are looking for. Either way, using the terms interchangeably is quite misleading. 2. The idea that an action can be interpreted in terms of self-interest or even selfishness does not mean that the action is motivated by such. I may potentially have something to gain from an action, but sure what decides the difference is my actual motivation for such, not my possible motivation. Unless one wants to say that motivation is not what determines it (which seems odd), I would have to be said to be necessarily sub- or unconsciously always motivated by self-interest or selfishness; this claim, however, seems to beg the question against the possibility of altruism, if one is trying to argue for psychological egoism.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:56 PM:	#20
Well put on both points. But I think there is more than confusion at work here. Many people regard selfishness, even self-interest, to be immoral. (See the recent debates about Rawls in Politics and Law.) So if altruism is good and self-interest is bad then only "pure altruism" ("hard" altruism) will do. But if you accept the "virtue of selfishness" then there is no need to expunge altruism of self-interest to purify altruism. Then "soft" altruism is ok. One way to look at this is to think about the juxtaposition of short-term certainty and long-term uncertainty. Quite often people make choices that incur certain short-term costs with the expectation of possible long-term benefits. This is probably the most common form of altruism. The long-term considerations may only be vaguely present but if they are removed, the behavior will change. The best example of this is acts of kindness among friends or even charity to "make the world a better place".
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/04/08 - 03:21 AM:	#21
That claim seems to run counter to the major theories of normative ethics, though. Both Kantian and utilitarian ethics, for example, are quite careful to state explicitly that the importance of the self in moral consideration is not only no more, but also no less than that of others. The idea of self-interest without selfishness is just that: that the self just counts as another individual amongst the whole population of equals. If anything, it seems that selflessness (valuing the self less than individual others) would be considered immoral in some ways rather than moral. I would have thought that the more common view is that selfishness would be forbidden or close to being so in moral terms, while selflessness is at most supererogatory rather than obligatory. (At this point, though, I have yet to read the thread you refer to.)
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/04/08 - 08:47 AM:	#22
klorius wrote: That claim seems to run counter to the major theories of normative ethics, though. Both Kantian and utilitarian ethics, for example, are quite careful to state explicitly that the importance of the self in moral consideration is not only no more, but also no less than that of others. The idea of self-interest without selfishness is just that: that the self just counts as another individual amongst the whole population of equals. If anything, it seems that selflessness (valuing the self less than individual others) would be considered immoral in some ways rather than moral. You are correct that this is the predominant theory of normative ethics. Two things to note, though: 1) I hae no qualms whatsoever about disagreeing with Kant et alia on this point. I relish it. (See my thread in General Philosophy "Philosophy of Conquistadorianism".) 2) "Common sense" says self-centeredness is a-ok to one degree or another. For the most part the major theories take the positions they do in argument with the way that most people view the world. Kant wants people to stop being self-centered and selfish. All I'm doing is pointing out that disbelief in altruism is caused by the rejection of self-interest and selfishness, by the demand for "hard" altruism. If you don't reject the morality of self-interest and selfishness, then you can easily believe in altruism. It is easy to spot "soft" altruism in the real world. klorius wrote: I would have thought that the more common view is that selfishness would be forbidden or close to being so in moral terms, while selflessness is at most supererogatory rather than obligatory. (At this point, though, I have yet to read the thread you refer to.) You don't need to read the thread, your above comments show that you know exactly what I'm referring to.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.