Does altruism really exist?

[Entyqua]

i say a simple yes

 

[TheLastMohican]

Strictly speaking, altruism does not exist at the most basic level. Even if you do something to benefit another while harming yourself, you are choosing to do so, and therefore you must have some desire in that direction, be it for emotional fulfillment, for avoidance of some greater harm to yourself, or according to instinct.

But the concept of superficially sacrificial actions needs a word, so we call it selflessness or altruism. We all engage in it regularly on some level (often to avoid punishment that would result from ignoring a social norm), but we can reserve the word for unusual instances that deserve special explanation, like jumping on grenades.

 

[randomsomeone]

I think, in trying to prove that altruism does not exist, we risk splitting hairs to the point that they becomes meaningless. It is a word that describes a phenomenon and that phenomenon can be observed and so it has a word. I think altruism comes from an internal world view or sense of purpose, a place where we may not, in fact, be the center. Why we try to find a scrap of self-interest in a observably selfless act is beyond me. The more such an act is picked apart, the pieces of self-interest become so microscopic (or even theoretical) that they don't really matter much.

 

[AUM]

Thanks guys, for all your responses.

Basically I was a bit concerned when in my Biology class we were discussing the topic of altruism and the teacher kept insisting that there is no such thing as true altruism. As Defective Creative was saying, she (or rather the author of the textbook) believed that we have a gene that calls for "altruistic" behaviors but in reality we engage in those acts based on passing on our genes to most likely to our kin rather than a complete stranger. If we do engage in altruistic behavior with strangers, according to our instructor, there's got to be a way for us to punish the stranger when an altruistic behavior from their part is not reciprocated.

It's just awful that the most beautiful things we as human beings possess as the nature of free-giving can be rationalized in such a way that it makes it look like that we are programmed to be in a certain way.

 

[Gaze]

I think, in trying to prove that altruism does not exist, we risk splitting hairs to the point that they becomes meaningless. It is a word that describes a phenomenon and that phenomenon can be observed and so it has a word. I think altruism comes from an internal world view or sense of purpose, a place where we may not, in fact, be the center. Why we try to find a scrap of self-interest in a observably selfless act is beyond me. The more such an act is picked apart, the pieces of self-interest become so microscopic (or even theoretical) that they don't really matter much.

Agree

 

[sassafras]

Every human action or thought must and does have motivation, which on the basic level, boils down to moving away from pain and moving toward pleasure... and what 'pain' and 'pleasure' is depends on the individual and the values they uphold. If you compromise your values, then there is pain. If you act according with your values, you have pleasure.

That's my take on it, at least.

 

[Lucifer]

What about people who die to save somebody elses life. Is that altruistic to you?

 

[sassafras]

What about people who die to save somebody elses life. Is that altruistic to you?

That probably factored into that person's values somehow. They would rather die than compromise the beliefs they feel so strongly about.

But I think people are getting the wrong idea. We're socially conditioned to regard self-interest as "bad" and altruism/selflessness as "good." And as soon as you put an equal sign between something identified as "good" and and something identified as "bad" you're going to ruffle some feathers. Paradoxes don't sit well with people.

Regardless of the subconscious reasons underlying your values, I think what counts is the impact your values and the actions that result from them. I think the only thing that can have an appellation like "good" or "bad" would be any sort of result stemming from an individual's intentions.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

I understand the viewpoint, but I disagree for three reasons:

1: I disagree with the definition of self interest used here. The term as used here by default encompases anything that would cause someone to choose something, from hair to mood to morality. Self-interest here is 'anything considered positive by the individual' basically. The word becomes redundant. Self interested decision is like three sided triangle. This wouldn't be so bad if the term outside of this context still meant that. It doesn't. It implies a decision based mostly on real personal gain. Outside of this situation we would describe a decision made from self interest as a decision that leads to detectable quantifiable gains for the individual. We would not describe a stranger saving a child from drowning as self interested anywhere outside of this specific discussion. We would describe them as altruistic.

I'd argue that it's not "anything considered positive by the individual", it's "anything considered positive for the individual", as I can consider something as being positive for someone else even if it affects me negatively, and obviously that is not a matter of self-interest.

IMO your other point is simply a case of semantics, I could just make the counter-argument that the common use of the term "self-interest" outside this discussion is flawed and should be altered.

2: I disagree with the psychology. I do not believe that all decisions are made subconsciously and then rationalized. I believe that we are able to override the subconscious with our conscious minds. You cover this a little when you describe changing one's subconscious. It can be overridden on an immediate case basis as well. This is pretty much the definition of courage. When we experience fear and are driven to subconsciously run, we instead consciously decide to override that and make a stand. Likewise a person may decide to act selflessly in a situation where every impulse pushes them to run or quit. This would be an altruistic decision.

You make an excellent point here, it seems I've considerably underestimated the concious mind's ability to override the unconscious in the short term.

However, I would still not call that altruism (at least not "true" or "full" altruism) as I think you're placing too much emphasis on the self-preservation instinct at the expense of other motivating factors of self-interest. I would therefore argue that any concious override would still be based on issues of self-interest, just issues of self-interst that were not issues of self-preservation.

For example: if a soldier threw themselves on a grenade to save their comrades, the self-interest issues at work may be guilt avoidance like in earlier examples I gave, or ingrained training about the value of protecting your team-mates to ensure the success of the mission, or any other number of possible reasons, none of which would be self-preservation.

]3: Finally, I disagree with it morally. What happens when people start consistently and consciously applying this viewpoint to their lives? When you have to admit to yourself even within the behaviorist framework when your husband/wife says 'I love you' that they are only saying it because of self interest? Some people would better detect false kindness, but others would develop a deep cynicism about humanity and goodness in general. I think that the negatives outweigh the positives here.

They aren't only saying it because of self-interest, it's just that self-interest is the primary motivating factor at the unconscious level. When your spouse says "I love you", on an unconscious level it is an act of bonding, an attempt to strengthen the relationship to make it more stable, which is an act of self-interest.

I see the world through the perspective of this theory (right now anyway, and only unless someone can make a strong enough argument for a different view-point) and I don't think I have a cynical opinion of humanity and I don't see it as being a false kindness either. I see it as affirming, because it shows that even at the most basic level I am valuable to them, that I matter to them.

A response to that might be that I only matter to them in terms of what I can do for them, but that would be to concentrate solely on the most basic unconscious motivational factors and unfairly disregard the role of the concious part of our minds, because as we both suggested before the traffic between the concious and the unconscious is not all one-way.

Conclusion: I don't argue with the data. However the conclusions drawn and the weight given to the subconscious in the system are not foregone. They represent merely a philosophic viewpoint. The data can and have been interpreted in other ways. I disagree with the behaviorist viewpoint.

Quite so, it is only a theory and there are plenty of others out there that can be drawn both from this data set and from the other data sets available. I choose this viewpoint simply because I think it best fits the data that I have seen. (I wasn't aware it was considered a "behaviourist" viewpoint though, interesting).

A man who has a wife and two kids at home is driving down an empty street one night without a cell phone. He notices a house is on fire and hears a person calling for help. He rushes into the building without second thought in hopes to save the person.

Personally I don't see how someone in such a situation could be acting with self interest. To risk your own life to try and save another in a situation with no known outcome...well I just fail to see how it could be self-motivated at all. If this isn't altruistic, then I don't know what is.

His conscience? Maybe he doesn't want to live with the guilt of letting someone burn to death.

I mean, what's he going to tell his wife and kids when he gets home? "I was almost late home today 'cause I saw this house on fire and there was a woman trapped inside, luckily though I'm a soulless bastard so I just let her fry". And if he chooses to hide it from them he'll have to keep it a secret and keep it on his conscience till the day he dies.

If we do engage in altruistic behavior with strangers, according to our instructor, there's got to be a way for us to punish the stranger when an altruistic behavior from their part is not reciprocated.

Wow, I don't agree with that. What would be the point? Why would someone punish a person they're probably never going to meet again when the act of helping them has made the "helper" feel good in some way?

 

[bamf]

His conscience? Maybe he doesn't want to live with the guilt of letting someone burn to death.

I mean, what's he going to tell his wife and kids when he gets home? "I was almost late home today 'cause I saw this house on fire and there was a woman trapped inside, luckily though I'm a soulless bastard so I just let her fry". And if he chooses to hide it from them he'll have to keep it a secret and keep it on his conscience till the day he dies.

In situations like those you don't get to think like that. It's all adrenaline and action. People simply don't have the time to think.

You see someone about to cross the street into traffic and you instinctively pull them back. You don't sit there and think "hmm, I'd feel really bad if I didn't do this".

Now perhaps it's a subconscious thing about being selfish, along the lines of what you've stated, and that's arguable, but hardly proof that the person was acting in some self-serving way.

 

[AUM]

Wow, I don't agree with that. What would be the point? Why would someone punish a person they're probably never going to meet again when the act of helping them has made the "helper" feel good in some way?

The example they gave us was with bats. Bats may give blood to other starving, unrelated bats but in return they are forced to do the same when the donor runs out of food. If the bat fails to act altruistic, then they are punished by exiling the bat from that specific community.

How does this relate to humans?

Well, apparently we do this on the same level. When we give something of value to others, we expect others to do the same for us on the same level not necessarily by the person that we originally were altruistic to.For example, let's say that I give you 10 dollars because you were hungry, well, on the same level I would expect someone to do the same for me when the time came. If everybody fails to aid me then I'll be resentful that I give and give but receive nothing when I'm in need of it, thus our altruistic behaviors would tend to decrease due to the lack of the reciprocity from other individuals.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

Now perhaps it's a subconscious thing about being selfish, along the lines of what you've stated, and that's arguable, but hardly proof that the person was acting in some self-serving way.

Who said anything about "proof"? These are just theories. Some of the things these theories are based on are proven facts, but if there were definitive proofs that these theories were completely true then this would be a very different kind of discussion.

And it's not "selfish"-ness, it's self-interest, there's a significant difference between the two.

The example they gave us was with bats. Bats may give blood to other starving, unrelated bats but in return they are forced to do the same when the donor runs out of food. If the bat fails to act altruistic, then they are punished by exiling the bat from that specific community.

How does this relate to humans?

Well, apparently we do this on the same level. When we give something of value to others, we expect others to do the same for us on the same level not necessarily by the person that we originally were altruistic to.For example, let's say that I give you 10 dollars because you were hungry, well, on the same level I would expect someone to do the same for me when the time came. If everybody fails to aid me then I'll be resentful that I give and give but receive nothing when I'm in need of it, thus our altruistic behaviors would tend to decrease due to the lack of the reciprocity from other individuals.

Ah, that makes sense actually. I can see how people would become more cynical and embittered towards the idea of helping others if that help wasn't reciprocated in some way, unless they took concious action to offset that of course.

 

[Solar Empath]

I'd argue that it's not "anything considered positive by the individual", it's "anything considered positive for the individual", as I can consider something as being positive for someone else even if it affects me negatively, and obviously that is not a matter of self-interest.

IMO your other point is simply a case of semantics, I could just make the counter-argument that the common use of the term "self-interest" outside this discussion is flawed and should be altered.

Of course it's semantics. I still disagree because everything is self interest with your definition No reason to go around and around on it though.

You make an excellent point here, it seems I've considerably underestimated the concious mind's ability to override the unconscious in the short term.

You just overlooked it.

However, I would still not call that altruism (at least not "true" or "full" altruism) as I think you're placing too much emphasis on the self-preservation instinct at the expense of other motivating factors of self-interest. I would therefore argue that any concious override would still be based on issues of self-interest, just issues of self-interst that were not issues of self-preservation.

By your definition it is indeed. That's why I disagree with the definition.

For example: if a soldier threw themselves on a grenade to save their comrades, the self-interest issues at work may be guilt avoidance like in earlier examples I gave, or ingrained training about the value of protecting your team-mates to ensure the success of the mission, or any other number of possible reasons, none of which would be self-preservation.

As above. In addition, I don't feel that sweeping such an action into the 'self-interest' pile is respectful. I do not believe you are disrespectful, only this application of the viewpoint.

They aren't only saying it because of self-interest, it's just that self-interest is the primary motivating factor at the unconscious level. When your spouse says "I love you", on an unconscious level it is an act of bonding, an attempt to strengthen the relationship to make it more stable, which is an act of self-interest.

The issue here in my opinion is the decision that self interest is the primary factor. Even using your definition, there is no reason to believe it is primary.

I see the world through the perspective of this theory (right now anyway, and only unless someone can make a strong enough argument for a different view-point) and I don't think I have a cynical opinion of humanity and I don't see it as being a false kindness either. I see it as affirming, because it shows that even at the most basic level I am valuable to them, that I matter to them.


A response to that might be that I only matter to them in terms of what I can do for them, but that would be to concentrate solely on the most basic unconscious motivational factors and unfairly disregard the role of the concious part of our minds, because as we both suggested before the traffic between the concious and the unconscious is not all one-way.

I know you do, and I'm sure you deal well with it. However I still believe that the viewpoint has/would have an overall negative impact on society simply because of the effect of translating it into another 'pop psychology'. I submit the 'pop evolution' effect as a comparison.

Quite so, it is only a theory and there are plenty of others out there that can be drawn both from this data set and from the other data sets available. I choose this viewpoint simply because I think it best fits the data that I have seen. (I wasn't aware it was considered a "behaviourist" viewpoint though, interesting).

It's a part of that philosophical family. And I appreciate your admission of the potential validity of other views. I accept that one can find 'self-interest' in every action using your definition: I simply don't think it's significant enough to claim it as the primary motivation of all action.

 

[Solar Empath]

The example they gave us was with bats. Bats may give blood to other starving, unrelated bats but in return they are forced to do the same when the donor runs out of food. If the bat fails to act altruistic, then they are punished by exiling the bat from that specific community.

How does this relate to humans?

Well, apparently we do this on the same level. When we give something of value to others, we expect others to do the same for us on the same level not necessarily by the person that we originally were altruistic to.For example, let's say that I give you 10 dollars because you were hungry, well, on the same level I would expect someone to do the same for me when the time came. If everybody fails to aid me then I'll be resentful that I give and give but receive nothing when I'm in need of it, thus our altruistic behaviors would tend to decrease due to the lack of the reciprocity from other individuals.

Reciprocal Altruism.

I actually feel this kind of resentment sometimes for this very reason.

 

[Morgain]

I believe that althruism is overrated. Most of the times people mean by althruism "doing the right thing, helping others and denying that same help to yourself, forgething yourself". I can't see what good can come from that? Helping others is not always "the right thing". Sometimes you have to let them sit in there own sh*t and let them work it out for themselves. And "wanting to be selfless, or trying to be selfless" is also selfish, it comes from yourself.

I believe you can be really authentic when you get in contact with yourself and the deeper nature inside of you. Than you are in touch with the underlying stream of energy that life is. And than you do what "you have to do", not because society demands it, but because "life makes you to". (I don't know if this comes out right? :becky. And than I think you act selfless, because than you follow what life (or intuition) asks you to do, and not what your sel asks

 

[DefectiveCreative]

However I still believe that the viewpoint has/would have an overall negative impact on society simply because of the effect of translating it into another 'pop psychology'. I submit the 'pop evolution' effect as a comparison.

I have a bit of a problem with this. Aren't you essentially arguing here that mankind shouldn't have bothered looking into evolution (or any potentially complex idea about humanity) because the general public has a tendency to dumb them down into sound-bites and consequently misunderstand and misapply them?

The truth (if that's what this theory is) is the truth, whether the public understands it or not shouldn't affect our efforts to uncover it, that's a different issue and one that IMO should be dealt with through other means (like better education).

Otherwise though that was an interesting post and a really interesting discussion. You may be right that the self-interest factor is not the primary motivation in apparently "selfless" acts, perhaps there is a more complex web of both concious and unconscious interactions at work. It's something I'll have to think about.

 

[Solar Empath]

I have a bit of a problem with this. Aren't you essentially arguing here that mankind shouldn't have bothered looking into evolution (or any potentially complex idea about humanity) because the general public has a tendency to dumb them down into sound-bites and consequently misunderstand and misapply them?

The truth (if that's what this theory is) is the truth, whether the public understands it or not shouldn't affect our efforts to uncover it, that's a different issue and one that IMO should be dealt with through other means (like better education).

Otherwise though that was an interesting post and a really interesting discussion. You may be right that the self-interest factor is not the primary motivation in apparently "selfless" acts, perhaps there is a more complex web of both concious and unconscious interactions at work. It's something I'll have to think about.

If it is in fact 'truth' then yes, it should be studied. Pop evolution doesn't invalidate scientific evolution. However since I have reservations about the 'truth' of the self-interest viewpoint we are discussing here, I view it differently.

 

[randomsomeone]

Perhaps altruism and heroism might be differentiated. One would be a more formal/deliberate act in which some form of self interest (even enlightened self-interest) might apply. The other, more spontaneous in which survival-mode/protection overrides kicks in. I generally think of altruism as a more formal, deliberate expression.