Altruism

[Michael]

Do you believe that altruism exists or is it a figment of someone's wishful thinking?

Please state your reasons. :)

[evanescence]

It doesn't exist. No individual does anything solely for someone else's benefit. And there is no such thing, whatsoever, as unconditional love. Every good deed people do for each other, they do it with the expectation of receiving something in return, be it praise, appreciation, acknowledgement, money, glory, fame, et cetera. When people love each other, they love for selfish reasons. It could be for security, biological incentives, or pleasure. Humans are no more capable of being altruistic than any other animal. The very definition of the word is pure fantasy.

[Michael]

It doesn't exist. No individual does anything solely for someone else's benefit. And there is no such thing, whatsoever, as unconditional love. Every good deed people do for each other, they do it with the expectation of receiving something in return, be it praise, appreciation, acknowledgement, money, glory, fame, et cetera. When people love each other, they love for selfish reasons. It could be for security, biological incentives, or pleasure. Humans are no more capable of being altruistic than any other animal. The very definition of the word is pure fantasy.

The cruise-liner just hit an iceberg - women and children into the lifeboats first.

Historical facts indicate that more than a few men are going to stand there diligently assisting the women and children into the few remaining lifeboats (and prevent other men from jumping in and swamping the lifeboats).

That sure looks like those men are altruistically sacrificing their lives there.

If they were truly concerned about their own skins, they'd overpower the others. :shrug:

I don't see any possible upside or self-benefit for some man dilegently guarding the gangplank there for the women and children as the ship goes down. But more than a few men (indeed, probably a majority) will do just that in that particular circumsance.

[evanescence]

Biological incentive.

[Michael]

Biological incentive.
For what?

Males helping women and children that are not their own?

In a situation that does NOT involve survival of the species?

Where's the biological incentive?

[Americano]

Biological incentive.

What about the men having no biological association assisting the women and children being saved? What's their motivation?

[The Drunk Girl]

What about the men having no biological association assisting the women and children being saved? What's their motivation?

I would say it depends on the man's character in this situation.

1. Living up to the expectation of being a man---men should help women and children and stay behind. This act doesn't seem too selfish on the surface, but deep down (and even if it's for their own self) they will know that they did the "right thing" and no matter what they can always say they are a "good man."

2. Saving the women and children first, in hopes of survival and gaining recognition/fame for performing such a selfless act. This act is selfish for obvious reasons.

There is always some kind of motivation, whether it be conscious, sub-conscious, or innate. If not, people would just sit around all day and do nothing

[evanescence]

I would say it depends on the man's character in this situation.

1. Living up to the expectation of being a man---men should help women and children and stay behind. This act doesn't seem too selfish on the surface, but deep down (and even if it's for their own self) they will know that they did the "right thing" and no matter what they can always say they are a "good man."

2. Saving the women and children first, in hopes of survival and gaining recognition/fame for performing such a selfless act. This act is selfish for obvious reasons.

There is always some kind of motivation, whether it be conscious, sub-conscious, or innate. If not, people would just sit around all day and do nothing

Men typically have a natural desire to protect women, and sometimes children. But you've given excellent examples. It was also peer pressure. While some men did everything they could to survive like trying to get on the life boats at the expense of women and children, most would feel compelled to stay and help since that was what's expected of men during that period of time. (I doubt so many men would stay behind now, as they did back then, for example) Doing otherwise would have won them social disapproval. Peer pressure is a very strong force, as well.

[Americano]

I would say it depends on the man's character in this situation.

1. Living up to the expectation of being a man---men should help women and children and stay behind. This act doesn't seem too selfish on the surface, but deep down (and even if it's for their own self) they will know that they did the "right thing" and no matter what they can always say they are a "good man."

Who would they say that to? We're discussing an emergency situation and they're going to be dead.

2. Saving the women and children first, in hopes of survival and gaining recognition/fame for performing such a selfless act. This act is selfish for obvious reasons.

There is always some kind of motivation, whether it be conscious, sub-conscious, or innate. If not, people would just sit around all day and do nothing

If anything I'd think women and children first would be based on inbred cultural reality of children being unable to fend for themselves and women being their natural protectors.

[Michael]

1. Living up to the expectation of being a man---men should help women and children and stay behind. This act doesn't seem too selfish on the surface, but deep down (and even if it's for their own self) they will know that they did the "right thing" and no matter what they can always say they are a "good man."
At the guy's funeral?

2. Saving the women and children first, in hopes of survival and gaining recognition/fame for performing such a selfless act. This act is selfish for obvious reasons.
I'd be really careful about spitting this argument around.

Lets just say that if it was me guarding the gangway, I'd make an exception for that particular bitch and push her over the side.

I can't imagine anything so fucking callous as that remark.

Men routinely will sacrifice themselves to save others (lots of examples avialable) and you are saying they are doing that for themselves? Or for fame?

That's disgusting. I'm one of those type guys would sacrifice myself without thinking twice - but now I will think twice!

The thought of being accused of selfishness in one's sacrifice makes the sacrifice entirely hollow and not worth making.

I knew the world was an ugly place, but I never imagined it really was this ugly when women are going to accuse males who sacrifice their lives to help them are just doing for themselves.

I'm so mind-blown by this crap that I will just have to avoid this topic. This is really horrifying to me.

[The Drunk Girl]

First off, looks like I have stepped in a big pile of dog shit!

Who would they say that to? We're discussing an emergency situation and they're going to be dead.

At the guy's funeral?

How many times have you been to a funeral and you hear, "he/she was one of the nicest/most giving/sweetest people you could have known"? That is a form of recognition, right?

I'm not saying people are always expecting it, but at least the person knows when they are doing something good or nice, they are doing something good or nice. It doesn't matter if it is going to (immediately) benefit them or not, because they are alright with just performing a good deed. That is a reward in itself knowing you helped someone.

Americano: what you and your wife do around Christmas is great and I have told you that before. Both of you do this out of the goodness of your hearts and expect nothing in return. Your motivation is because you want to do something good and be a good person. Your reward is seeing all the happy faces and how happy you have made people. There is nothing wrong with that at all




Men routinely will sacrifice themselves to save others (lots of examples avialable) and you are saying they are doing that for themselves? Or for fame?

The thought of being accused of selfishness in one's sacrifice makes the sacrifice entirely hollow and not worth making.Some men or women...yes, I do believe that. Everyone is different and some of those people have fucked up motivations. And, I agree when the motivation is like that, then no the sacrifice shouldn't be worth making, but some people do it.

That's disgusting. I'm one of those type guys would sacrifice myself without thinking twice - but now I will think twice!I knew the world was an ugly place, but I never imagined it really was this ugly when women are going to accuse males who sacrifice their lives to help them are just doing for themselves.Sorry to make you feel like you would want to think twice. However you have to look that you are taking what one woman has said and made a generalization that all women feel like this (and I believe what I have stated was misinterpreted).

[Michael]

It is not personal.

I am horrified at the accusation that every captain who considered it his duty to go down with the ship (which is what happens when the Captain is last one on the sinking ship seeking to make sure that everyone else got off safely) was just acting selfishingly. Indeed, WW2 naval data shows that captains more often than not, did go down with the ship.

Likewise with those who stand by to ensure that women and children can get to safety first (fire, disasters, floods, sinking ships, etc). Often as not, those men die for their effort.

Pissing on that kind of sacrifice and calling it "selfish" is just too much for me accept.

[Margot]

I'm inclined to agree with Americano here:




If anything I'd think women and children first would be based on inbred cultural reality of children being unable to fend for themselves and women being their natural protectors.



However, it also seems to be an example of biological altruism:

In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce.

Source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/)

Sure, I think altruism exists, I just don't think it is consciously altruistic.

[evanescence]

At the guy's funeral?


I'd be really careful about spitting this argument around.

Lets just say that if it was me guarding the gangway, I'd make an exception for that particular bitch and push her over the side.

I can't imagine anything so fucking callous as that remark.

Men routinely will sacrifice themselves to save others (lots of examples avialable) and you are saying they are doing that for themselves? Or for fame?

That's disgusting. I'm one of those type guys would sacrifice myself without thinking twice - but now I will think twice!

The thought of being accused of selfishness in one's sacrifice makes the sacrifice entirely hollow and not worth making.

I knew the world was an ugly place, but I never imagined it really was this ugly when women are going to accuse males who sacrifice their lives to help them are just doing for themselves.

I'm so mind-blown by this crap that I will just have to avoid this topic. This is really horrifying to me.

Maybe you're the exception.

:shrug:

[evanescence]

Also, peer pressure is cultural.

[Americano]

I'm inclined to agree with Americano here:





However, it also seems to be an example of biological altruism:



Source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/)

Sure, I think altruism exists, I just don't think it is consciously altruistic.

We could use a dictionary definition, the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others, which I do believe is a very conscious condition in some humans. In my experience sadly far fewer than those who consider all acts of unselfish concern for others suspect to a point of denial.

As a volunteer assisting the disadvantaged I'm in contact with a variety of people, all ages, most volunteering without consideration of motive, which makes me biased on statements totally excluding altruism. I also know people who wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone else, much less face death so another might live, but over time I've found many of those individuals tend to harbor bitterness from unpleasant personal and professional experiences which taint their opinions and actions.

[evanescence]

As a volunteer assisting the disadvantaged I'm in contact with a variety of people, all ages, most volunteering without consideration of motive, which makes me biased on statements totally excluding altruism.

If there wasn't a personal benefit for them to volunteer, they wouldn't. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be something as simple as getting a "good feeling" from doing "the right thing". If there wasn't a positive personal benefit, people wouldn't do anything to help others.


I also know people who wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone else, much less face death so another might live, but over time I've found many of those individuals tend to harbor bitterness from unpleasant personal and professional experiences which taint their opinions and actions.

And the opposite is also true. Those who have good will towards others often have better experiences to back that up.

[Americano]

If there wasn't a personal benefit for them to volunteer, they wouldn't. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be something as simple as getting a "good feeling" from doing "the right thing". If there wasn't a positive personal benefit, people wouldn't do anything to help others.

That doesn't seem to be the prevailing atmosphere. Most who are not affiliated with a belief system, like myself, can not describe why they volunteer.

And the opposite is also true. Those who have good will towards others often have better experiences to back that up.

[Michael]

If there wasn't a personal benefit for them to volunteer, they wouldn't. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be something as simple as getting a "good feeling" from doing "the right thing". If there wasn't a positive personal benefit, people wouldn't do anything to help others.
Where's the "good feeling" come from when one dies in the process?

Where's the personal benefit to dying to save others who are not your bloodkin?

I'm absolutely horrified that so many people here are subscribing to Ayn Rand's philosophy that selfishness is a virtue. I can't imagine anything more horrible that accusing someone who engages in noble sacrifice of a self-serving motive. That is so ugly is beyond words. Only in America I hope.

Selfishness is never admirable. It is the cancer that is killing society.

[evanescence]

Where's the "good feeling" come from when one dies in the process?

In that response to Americano, I was referring to volunteering, not dying for someone.

Where's the personal benefit to dying to save others who are not your bloodkin?

In an earlier post, I mentioned peer pressure and cultural imperatives. People will often follow the lead of others at any cost. It would have been culturally unacceptable and even shameful for men to save themselves at the expense of women and children. Plenty of people die rather than be shamed.

I'm absolutely horrified that so many people here are subscribing to Ayn Rand's philosophy that selfishness is a virtue. I can't imagine anything more horrible that accusing someone who engages in noble sacrifice of a self-serving motive. That is so ugly is beyond words. Only in America I hope.

Selfishness is never admirable. It is the cancer that is killing society.

i agree. I never once said that selfishness is admirable. I hate it, in fact. I just don't have a high opinion of humanity.

[evanescence]

That doesn't seem to be the prevailing atmosphere. Most who are not affiliated with a belief system, like myself, can not describe why they volunteer.

You get something out of it, guaranteed. That is not to lessen what you do..it's just to say, well..you benefit somehow. I suppose it's different for everyone.

[Michael]

So what are we going to do about the massive outbreak of assholes selfishly donating to help Haiti?

Shouldn't we pass a law to ban this type of ugly self-serving behavior?

I just tore up my donation check just to make sure I wasn't going to contribute to this selfishness (and I always refuse tax receipts for my donations - moot point now because I don't see how I can possibly do that anymore now).

And then there is this forum - what am I going to do about that? I feel terrible now knowing that everyone here just thinks that I created this forum (and pay $750 per year to run it) to selfishly flatter my own ego. I don't think I can deal with knowing that's how everyone feels. If people think that low of me, why should I continue to do this and feed these accusations?

[The Drunk Guy]

Two men walk into a room at the same time, but through different doors. On a table in the middle of the room sits a basket filled with fruit. One man asks the other, "What do you see on the table?"

"I see a basket filled with fruit."

"Huh, I see a bunch of fruit in a basket."

:shrug:

I don't think anyone said anything about frowning upon altruistic acts because of deep, subliminal motives. From what I have read, all arguments here still support kindness and giving.

Personally, I agree with Margot. Giving and sacrifice are instinctual. Neither selfless now selfish. It just is. And I'm thankful for it and the chance to give myself.

[evanescence]

So what are we going to do about the massive outbreak of assholes selfishly donating to help Haiti?

Shouldn't we pass a law to ban this type of ugly self-serving behavior?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. No one, certainly not me, believes that people should quit doing good things for others. If that's what you got from reading this thread, well.. :shrug:

I just tore up my donation check just to make sure I wasn't going to contribute to this selfishness (and I always refuse tax receipts for my donations - moot point now because I don't see how I can possibly do that anymore now).

Like I said, it's good when people help others. In fact, I hate selfishness. I just lack the faith that others seem to have in humanity. It could be that I'm jaded and bitter. :)

And then there is this forum - what am I going to do about that? I feel terrible now knowing that everyone here just thinks that I created this forum (and pay $750 per year to run it) to selfishly flatter my own ego. I don't think I can deal with knowing that's how everyone feels. If people think that low of me, why should I continue to do this and feed these accusations?

Why would you feel this way? I really don't get it.

[SMadsen]

Where's the "good feeling" come from when one dies in the process?

Where's the personal benefit to dying to save others who are not your bloodkin?

I'm absolutely horrified that so many people here are subscribing to Ayn Rand's philosophy that selfishness is a virtue. I can't imagine anything more horrible that accusing someone who engages in noble sacrifice of a self-serving motive. That is so ugly is beyond words. Only in America I hope.

Selfishness is never admirable. It is the cancer that is killing society.
Selfishness as a biological concept is a much broader concept than the cheating games that we normally define as selfishness.
　
Imagine a Namibian desert plain during mating season of the Oryx antilope. They have a fierce set of weaponry extruding from the skull; long, slender and very sharp horns, capable of inflicting serious damage. Yet, they have very strict rules for using the weaponry among themselves.

Think what a young buck could do if it out of nowhere charged the flanks of the dominant male. It could put him out for good, thereby taking over the entire harem and be the proud progenitor to all calfs the following year.

Yet, it doesn't. It adheres to the strict rules of rivalry. If it must engage in physical combat then that's also strictly regulated.

Is it a type of altruism when the young buck backs off without a fight and lets the dominant male spread his genes? Surely it's not any kind of selfish behavior because with that kind of weaponry it could easily try to put him out, thereby getting a chance to spread his own genes in a winner takes all scenario.

Not really. There are more reasons why this is purely selfish behavior. There's a chance that it'll hurt itself trying. That's pure self-preservation. But, more importantly, there is a chance that once it becomes the dominant male itself, if the rules are ignored, it will itself be the target of sneak attacks. This is basically selfishness (if the young buck made presedence it wouldn't last long itself) but it's also extremely beneficial to all. The social structures would simply fall apart if it became standard behavior.

So in a biological sense, selfishness is not always ugly. It's merely functional.

[Americano]

You get something out of it, guaranteed. That is not to lessen what you do..it's just to say, well..you benefit somehow. I suppose it's different for everyone.

That's the argument put forth by volunteers who follow belief systems at community services where I volunteer (we have few viable charities here that aren't church sponsored). I initially asked if it's something they'd pursue outside their church and it does make them think.

I don't really care, but religious types in my volunteer circumstance seem to initiate such exchanges by eventually asking me, since I'm not a church member or working off a criminal conviction with community service, why I'm a volunteer. Tough crowd, circular arguments beginning and ending on faith. I quickly tired of that conversation and if asked (infrequent now as any congregation loves gossip and word got around at lighting speed) I smile, shrug my shoulders and find something else to do.

I'm sure I could spend $3-400/hr weekly for a few years, or more, and get a professional opinion as to why I volunteer for society. But, since that factor, in my opinion, wouldn't add to or take from my mind, it doesn't interest me.

Interesting subject.

[Zarquon]

So what are we going to do about the massive outbreak of assholes selfishly donating to help Haiti?


It appears that you presumed evanescence was arguing from a Randian standpoint when he wasn't and jumped to conclusions(logical but contextually unjustified); as to my own opinion, I believe altruism certainly exists, but is not entirely as 'selfless' as it is made out to be. I think most morality operates on rules of thumb/instinct which are applied even when they are not contextually valid, like sacrificing yourself to save strangers with certain risk to self and no prospect of reward (as it is in general understood to be right and is peer enforced, and in a normal context likely to confer positive reputation and foster relationships) and so one does it anyway even if it is 'irrational' from a self POV in context.
This stems from the time we lived in closely-knit tribes where everyone was family and desire to save others was firmly implanted in us due to cooperation being mutually beneficial.The Moral Zeitgeist in a sense appears to have been continually moving from benefits for a few/limited in-group to benefits for most/almost everyone is in the in-group.
My knowledge, of course, is fairly limited, so I probably will revise this in light of new information.

[Daktoria]

Do you believe that altruism exists or is it a figment of someone's wishful thinking?

Please state your reasons. :)

Not sure if this can be proven one way or another since goodness (if it exists) would be an objective value but people are subjective. What a person views as good could be a manifestation of that person's tastes or imagination.

We have to believe in this though else because otherwise our minds can only view the world as total anarchy via power struggle such that chaos consumes everything and nothing really matters except enjoying physical experience a la hedonism.

[evanescence]

That's the argument put forth by volunteers who follow belief systems at community services where I volunteer (we have few viable charities here that aren't church sponsored). I initially asked if it's something they'd pursue outside their church and it does make them think.

I don't really care, but religious types in my volunteer circumstance seem to initiate such exchanges by eventually asking me, since I'm not a church member or working off a criminal conviction with community service, why I'm a volunteer. Tough crowd, circular arguments beginning and ending on faith. I quickly tired of that conversation and if asked (infrequent now as any congregation loves gossip and word got around at lighting speed) I smile, shrug my shoulders and find something else to do.

I'm sure I could spend $3-400/hr weekly for a few years, or more, and get a professional opinion as to why I volunteer for society. But, since that factor, in my opinion, wouldn't add to or take from my mind, it doesn't interest me.

Interesting subject.

I'm certainly not religious, but I do believe that there is a reason behind every person's action, and if that reason didn't have some kind of personal connection, the individual wouldn't act in such a manner. It just seems that volunteering would give people at least personal satisfaction which is a valid reason to volunteer. For example, if volunteering was never pleasurable and people were never grateful, would you still volunteer?

[Americano]

I'm certainly not religious, but I do believe that there is a reason behind every person's action, and if that reason didn't have some kind of personal connection, the individual wouldn't act in such a manner. It just seems that volunteering would give people at least personal satisfaction which is a valid reason to volunteer. For example, if volunteering was never pleasurable and people were never grateful, would you still volunteer?

You've circled back to conscious motivation as reasoning for every person's actions with no exceptions. That hasn't been my experience in life, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Volunteering is both pleasurable and a hardship with expressed gratitude and screaming ingratitude. I view all reactions to my volunteer efforts by disadvantaged individuals as a condition of their circumstances and never take them in a personal manner.

A steady diet of unpleasant volunteering and ingratitude could be dispensing emergency rations to packs of starving people placing blame for their perceived lack of control on, in their minds, a failed system of government (quite common in charity work). They tend to vent their frustrations at whomever happens to be in front of them representing a demographic they either envy with hatred or despise. If capable and the personal danger level acceptable, yes, I'd continue volunteering.

[evanescence]

You've circled back to conscious motivation as reasoning for every person's actions with no exceptions. That hasn't been my experience in life, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Volunteering is both pleasurable and a hardship with expressed gratitude and screaming ingratitude. I view all reactions to my volunteer efforts by disadvantaged individuals as a condition of their circumstances and never take them in a personal manner.

A steady diet of unpleasant volunteering and ingratitude could be dispensing emergency rations to packs of starving people placing blame for their perceived lack of control on, in their minds, a failed system of government (quite common in charity work). They tend to vent their frustrations at whomever happens to be in front of them representing a demographic they either envy with hatred or despise. If capable and the personal danger level acceptable, yes, I'd continue volunteering.

Do you mind me asking why it is you volunteer then? I could be wrong on this issue. In fact, I hope that I am.

[Michael]

I could be wrong on this issue. In fact, I hope that I am.
You ought to hope that you are wrong.

The world is an ugly place. Asserting that altruism doesn't exist just makes the world a whole lot uglier.

Just knowing that some people actually agree with you is enough for me to think twice before I ever do any kindness for any stranger ever again.

[evanescence]

You ought to hope that you are wrong.

The world is an ugly place. Asserting that altruism doesn't exist just makes the world a whole lot uglier.

Absolutely.

Just knowing that some people actually agree with you is enough for me to think twice before I ever do any kindness for any stranger ever again.

I rarely do anyone a kindness, but it's more of a lack of trust than anything. I wish things were different, but when ever I have reached out to others, I've gotten screwed over.. so having faith in other people is hard for me. If someone does something nice for me, I usually just question their motives. Sad, I know.

[Americano]

Do you mind me asking why it is you volunteer then? I could be wrong on this issue. In fact, I hope that I am.

I became involved long ago filling in at a friend's request when another volunteer didn't show. It stayed with me.

[SMadsen]

You ought to hope that you are wrong.

The world is an ugly place. Asserting that altruism doesn't exist just makes the world a whole lot uglier.

Just knowing that some people actually agree with you is enough for me to think twice before I ever do any kindness for any stranger ever again.
Oh, altruism exists allright but the actual reasons for it may not correspond exactly to what we perceive it to be (or, perhaps, need it to be). It doesn't change status quo, though. However deep we dig for the roots of our own behavior and what we find, the social layers, such as ethics and morality, still guard the values and consequences of social interaction. We can't perform below those layers. It's what makes it function socially, regardless of the basic reason (which is what I tried to say earlier with the antilope analogy that apparently fell completely through :D )

[Americano]

Oh, altruism exists allright but the actual reasons for it may not correspond exactly to what we perceive it to be (or, perhaps, need it to be). It doesn't change status quo, though. However deep we dig for the roots of our own behavior and what we find, the social layers, such as ethics and morality, still guard the values and consequences of social interaction. We can't perform below those layers. It's what makes it function socially, regardless of the basic reason (which is what I tried to say earlier with the antilope analogy that apparently fell completely through :D )

Come to the US for a different scenario. We have many citizens without ethics and morality, including what seems at times much of our leadership.
I personally enjoyed the antelope analogy. It was explained to me as a young man (but not in your polished and eloquent manner) when old men were teaching me how to hunt elk.

[evanescence]

I became involved long ago filling in at a friend's request when another volunteer didn't show. It stayed with me.

Why? .

[Americano]

Why? .

I've already said I have no intent of engaging a pro to find out why as self-analysis is a mostly fruitless endeavor. That's why psychiatrists engage other psychiatrists to maintain their professional balance.

[Zarquon]

self-analysis is a mostly fruitless endeavor
I take exception to that statement.

[Donkey]

I think that the origin of pushing altruism as just another form of selfishness is ideologically motivated. In order to rationalize selfish behaviour, you have to make sure that everything that everybody else is doing is just as selfish, so if you are called out on it you can circle around and accuse others of doing the same.

Someone operating under such a mentality will always find a "benefit" for a seemingly selfless act. Someone who gives his seat in a life boat to the woman or child... well his benefit is obvious: he doesn't have to go living his life knowing that someone else drowned when it could have been him. Because that totally makes up for dying. :rolleyes:

I think the counter to this nonsense is to apply the brakes, and say, wait a minute, is that really a benefit in the same sense as, say, extra profits because you are exploiting a dozen workers by paying them super low wages? Hell no.

[Americano]

I take exception to that statement.

Then I accept your trained analytical abilities or meditation techniques, such as the case may be. I do believe in self-assessment but that has little to do with unwinding layers and layers of cultural influence in the correct sequence to ascertain behavioral traits.

[evanescence]

I've already said I have no intent of engaging a pro to find out why as self-analysis is a mostly fruitless endeavor. That's why psychiatrists engage other psychiatrists to maintain their professional balance.

Self analysis is the key to personal growth, imo.

I think that the origin of pushing altruism as just another form of selfishness is ideologically motivated. In order to rationalize selfish behaviour, you have to make sure that everything that everybody else is doing is just as selfish, so if you are called out on it you can circle around and accuse others of doing the same.

What about people who volunteer, and yet do not believe in altruism.

Someone operating under such a mentality will always find a "benefit" for a seemingly selfless act. Someone who gives his seat in a life boat to the woman or child... well his benefit is obvious: he doesn't have to go living his life knowing that someone else drowned when it could have been him. Because that totally makes up for dying. :rolleyes:

I think the counter to this nonsense is to apply the brakes, and say, wait a minute, is that really a benefit in the same sense as, say, extra profits because you are exploiting a dozen workers by paying them super low wages? Hell no.

A rather simple explanation..

Finding a benefit for an action is natural. If there is no benefit, than the action would be pointless. The personal benefit could be something as simple as not having to feel guilt.

[Michael]

What about people who volunteer, and yet do not believe in altruism.
They aren't really volunteers. They are on their own mission.

I'd say that they are the ones you need to keep your eye on because who knows what ego-driven bullshit they are up to there.

Fact is, they are just using the charity for thier own purposes and that's not admirable or desirable.

[Americano]

They aren't really volunteers. They are on their own mission.

I'd say that they are the ones you need to keep your eye on because who knows what ego-driven bullshit they are up to there.

Fact is, they are just using the charity for thier own purposes and that's not admirable or desirable.

Very common in charity work. Hustlers are present in every part of society.

A strange factor at the soup kitchen (and other charities) is a solid majority of our cash donations coming from anonymous donors who have no desire to be publicly recognized. Many private trusts also donate to charities with no publicity while business contributors consider donations as advertising opportunities.

[evanescence]

They aren't really volunteers. They are on their own mission.

I'd say that they are the ones you need to keep your eye on because who knows what ego-driven bullshit they are up to there.

Fact is, they are just using the charity for thier own purposes and that's not admirable or desirable.

I don't believe in altruism, meaning that I believe that when someone does something, they do it for some personal benefit, acknowledged or unacknowledged. However, I have donated anonymously. What do you make of that?

[Michael]

I don't believe in altruism, meaning that I believe that when someone does something, they do it for some personal benefit, acknowledged or unacknowledged. However, I have donated anonymously. What do you make of that?
It would appear that you are confused. :shrug:

Your opinions of your actions do not apparently match up with your actions. That is not a flaw of altruism. ;)

[drgoodtrips]

I think that, on a trivial level and discounting people who are insane, we can say that any action is taken because of some perceived benefit on the part of the actor. I'd imagine that an easy distinction between altruistic acts is where the perceived benefit is not a benefit for the actor, but for someone else.

However, this is subject to reducto ad absurdum since one might say "well, perhaps the altruistic actor takes pleasure in other people benefiting from his actions." In this fashion, we can trivially claim that all actions are inherently 'selfish'. But, so what? This seems like the philosophical equivalent of "what if this universe is just, like, a grain of sand in some huge universe?!?"

Let's say that I go out and buy a Christmas gift for someone, spending $50 and knowing that they won't get me anything (now or ever). This is a generally altruistic act. I pay $50 plus the time associated with shopping for the actual gift. I receiving $0 and 0 time in return.

Now, you might say that I'm doing this because I'm obligated to by the procedures of Christmas, if I have a certain amount of means. You might say that I selfishly enjoy the feeling of someone 'owing me one'. You might say that I selfishly do it to make the recipient feel guilty for not getting me anything. You might say that I just really enjoy Christmas and Christmas shopping. And, so on and so forth. But, here is the "so what"? Even assuming all of those things are true, the reality of the altruistic act is not altered. I give up something and gain nothing (tangible).

Now, the reality is that I have none of those motivations. Or, perhaps I do, subconsciously or vestigially or something. However, in terms of my own thinking and a cost benefit analysis, none of that is worth $50 to me. If you said, "for $50 you can have the satisfaction of having done someone a monetary favor," I would say, "no, thanks." (and, in fact, that's the stuff that Amway scams are made of) Likewise with the guilt motivation or the motivation of being out shopping or anything else. None of those things is worth $50.

What is worth $50 to me is doing something nice for people that I care about. And, debating that becomes paradoxical. The only way that becomes laden with ulterior motives is if the very spirit of generosity is, by definition, selfish. Then we might as well say that altruistic is a true synonym for selfish. If we do that, how then do I distinguish between giving someone a $50 Christmas gift because it makes me happy to see that person happy and me giving someone a $50 Christmas gift so that I can guilt that person into reciprocity and cash in on an investment? Surely there is an inherent distinction that has to be made between these activities.

[evanescence]

I think that, on a trivial level and discounting people who are insane, we can say that any action is taken because of some perceived benefit on the part of the actor. I'd imagine that an easy distinction between altruistic acts is where the perceived benefit is not a benefit for the actor, but for someone else.

However, this is subject to reducto ad absurdum since one might say "well, perhaps the altruistic actor takes pleasure in other people benefiting from his actions." In this fashion, we can trivially claim that all actions are inherently 'selfish'. But, so what? This seems like the philosophical equivalent of "what if this universe is just, like, a grain of sand in some huge universe?!?"

Let's say that I go out and buy a Christmas gift for someone, spending $50 and knowing that they won't get me anything (now or ever). This is a generally altruistic act. I pay $50 plus the time associated with shopping for the actual gift. I receiving $0 and 0 time in return.

Now, you might say that I'm doing this because I'm obligated to by the procedures of Christmas, if I have a certain amount of means. You might say that I selfishly enjoy the feeling of someone 'owing me one'. You might say that I selfishly do it to make the recipient feel guilty for not getting me anything. You might say that I just really enjoy Christmas and Christmas shopping. And, so on and so forth. But, here is the "so what"? Even assuming all of those things are true, the reality of the altruistic act is not altered. I give up something and gain nothing (tangible).

Now, the reality is that I have none of those motivations. Or, perhaps I do, subconsciously or vestigially or something. However, in terms of my own thinking and a cost benefit analysis, none of that is worth $50 to me. If you said, "for $50 you can have the satisfaction of having done someone a monetary favor," I would say, "no, thanks." (and, in fact, that's the stuff that Amway scams are made of) Likewise with the guilt motivation or the motivation of being out shopping or anything else. None of those things is worth $50.

What is worth $50 to me is doing something nice for people that I care about. And, debating that becomes paradoxical. The only way that becomes laden with ulterior motives is if the very spirit of generosity is, by definition, selfish. Then we might as well say that altruistic is a true synonym for selfish. If we do that, how then do I distinguish between giving someone a $50 Christmas gift because it makes me happy to see that person happy and me giving someone a $50 Christmas gift so that I can guilt that person into reciprocity and cash in on an investment? Surely there is an inherent distinction that has to be made between these activities.

Yes, and that's the benefit. :) It doesn't say anything bad about the individual. And yes, motivation is important.

[evanescence]

It would appear that you are confused. :shrug:

Your opinions of your actions do not apparently match up with your actions. That is not a flaw of altruism. ;)

How so? Personally benefiting from an action isn't a bad thing. I benefit by helping other people in many ways..can you think of some?

[Michael]

How the Men Reacted as the Titanic and Lusitania Went Under

Records from two nearly 100-year-old shipwrecks, the Titanic and the Lusitania, have given researchers new insight into human selfishness — and altruism.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02ships.html)

Indeed. The Titanic supplies statistical proof of the existence of altruism.

Most interesting is the time element that was raised in this study. Apparently altruism isn't something inate or instinctual - it is a product of conscious choice (exactly as I have argued all along).

[Non Sequitur]

Do you believe that altruism exists or is it a figment of someone's wishful thinking?

Please state your reasons. :)

I'm torn on this one, but my answer eventually ends up being yes. Mostly for theological reasons. Also, it seems wrong to say that the people traditionally identified as saints in Christian history were acting in a selfish manner.

[Michael]

I'm torn on this one, but my answer eventually ends up being yes. Mostly for theological reasons. Also, it seems wrong to say that the people traditionally identified as saints in Christian history were acting in a selfish manner.

Yes, some of the early Christian martyrs are very good examples of altruism.

There isn't anything remotely 'self-serving' about a willingness to undergo torture/death at the hands of moral monsters for the specific and stated benefit of others.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, some of the early Christian martyrs are very good examples of altruism.

There isn't anything remotely 'self-serving' about a willingness to undergo torture/death at the hands of moral monsters for the specific and stated benefit of others.

or, more recently, it's hard for me to imagine Mother Teressa wandering around the slums of India just for vain glory.

[Michael]

or, more recently, it's hard for me to imagine Mother Teressa wandering around the slums of India just for vain glory.

Modern era is much harder to judge. The attraction of the media spotlight is a powerful one that cannot be overlooked.

Older pre-20th century examples eliminate that possibility and thus are cleaner examples.

[Donkey]

Modern era is much harder to judge. The attraction of the media spotlight is a powerful one that cannot be overlooked.

Older pre-20th century examples eliminate that possibility and thus are cleaner examples.
I would say that the vast majority of altruists never get the media spotlight, nor do they necessarily want it (I will happily exclude myself from the latter :rolleyes:), but do it anyway. The few that do get it? Good for them, and good for altruism.

[Michael]

I would say that the vast majority of altruists never get the media spotlight, nor do they necessarily want it (I will happily exclude myself from the latter :rolleyes:), but do it anyway. The few that do get it? Good for them, and good for altruism.
This is probably true, but the presence of any media spotlight contaminates all examples as it cannot be rationally or logically ruled out at all.

[Donkey]

This is probably true, but the presence of any media spotlight contaminates all examples as it cannot be rationally or logically ruled out at all.
Fair enough.

But the pragmatist in me will say.... "so what?"

:)

[Michael]

Fair enough.

But the pragmatist in me will say.... "so what?"

:)
So what? It matters in a discussion with people who want to assert that altruism doesn't exist.

[SMadsen]

Yes, some of the early Christian martyrs are very good examples of altruism.

There isn't anything remotely 'self-serving' about a willingness to undergo torture/death at the hands of moral monsters for the specific and stated benefit of others.
Religious martyrship always makes for the purest examples of selfishness.
There is nothing but a selfish motive behind a willingness to undergo torture and death for the sake of religious beliefs.

[Zarquon]

Religious martyrship always makes for the purest examples of selfishness.
There is nothing but a selfish motive behind a willingness to undergo torture and death for the sake of religious beliefs.

or for the sake of protecting the in-group and out of hope of reward after death.

[SMadsen]

So what? It matters in a discussion with people who want to assert that altruism doesn't exist.
Michael, I don't think anyone asserts that altruism doesn't exist. They're just disagreeing with you about the basic motivation of altruistic behavior.

IOW, even if it can be argued that altruism is motivated by selfishness, it's still altruism.

[SMadsen]

or for the sake of protecting the in-group and out of hope of reward after death.
Yes.

About the in-group, though, it's rather fluid in size, depending on the subject of application. When talking about religious motivation, the in-group can actually be the out-group. In Christianity, for example, this is the role the martyrdom of Jesus plays.

[Non Sequitur]

Religious martyrship always makes for the purest examples of selfishness.
There is nothing but a selfish motive behind a willingness to undergo torture and death for the sake of religious beliefs.


or for the sake of protecting the in-group and out of hope of reward after death.

You guys are mistaking the order of events though. The action of martyrdom does not earn the reward. No action earns salvation. Polycarp (martyred in 155) doesn't refuse to recant his belief because he is afraid his salvation is at stake and wants to be sure of it, but refuses to recant because he is confident in his salvation already (at least according to his writings). You don't buy salvation with martyrdom. Martyrdom is a sign of your salvation is already present.

[Donkey]

Religious martyrship always makes for the purest examples of selfishness.
There is nothing but a selfish motive behind a willingness to undergo torture and death for the sake of religious beliefs.

Oh I don't think that's true. At least not universally. Maybe in the case of modern Muslim suicide bombers and the like, but I think you're mistaking the motivation of a lot of people who have died for their cause.

(And I think now would be a good time to delineate between those who die for their cause and those who kill.)

[Zarquon]

Oh I don't think that's true. At least not universally. Maybe in the case of modern Muslim suicide bombers and the like, but I think you're mistaking the motivation of a lot of people who have died for their cause.

(And I think now would be a good time to delineate between those who die for their cause and those who kill.)
Certainly we may distinguish between self-sacrifice and righteous slaughter, but that distinction is rather subjective, except through some sort of pragmatic framework and speculating about motives.