Does altruism exist?

[Rainman]

I've been troubled over this idea, and I know it's a common philosophical question, but I figured I'd get your opinions. Sorry if this has been posted in the past. For those of you who don't know, altruism is basically engaging in acts of selflessness, for no reward of any kind. The reason I feel that it perhaps does not exist is because does anyone REALLY do things because they care more about others than them self? I don't think so. People do things based on egoism. While they may not receive much benefit from their actions, they will always receive some, and I think they go into those situations knowing that. Even someone who donates 10 million dollars to a charity knows that he will be loved by all, so he does it. Is his motive REALLY 100% only for the hope that his donation will lead to someone elses wellbeing? I think not.

[Ahhchuu]

from the definition i dont think its possible without some kind of influence, something like how the military breaks down people to rebuild their personalitys and discipline them. i think it is possible through something like that. i personally do things that most people dont even notice, and i receive gratification from it even if the other person had not even acknowledge i did it. i dont neccesarily do it constantly or ever chance i get but i do do it when i realise the oportunity is there. if i get some kind of award for it i am greatful. i am a humble person though i think i always will be. btw i said dodo

[wasup]

Well, depends how anal you are about using the word 'selfless.' Some people, for example, give blood. Obviously, they are doing this because they think they are helping people, which they are. Sure, some of their motivation comes from feeling good about themselves... feeling good about being a good person. I would regard someone who does something for others with the side-motivation from their ego still as being "sefless." Altruism definitly exists in other animals. I've seen videos of these insects which work together so one can accomplish a goal, and all of the others die. The only reason this is anymore sefless than human acts is because of the ego motivation involved. However, I don't think insects really HAVE an ego, so this is kind of irrelevant. I mean, if someone donates 10 million to charity and goes around advertising this fact, the motivation is obvious. If someone donates without telling people, it's different. However it is obviously not an altruistic act when someone donates to charity just so people will think that person is a better person and the person will have a better reputation and/or business.

[Rainman]

Interesting take. It's hard to say. I guess I should say does "true" altruism exist. The word itself implies acting outside of the human ego, which I don't think is something humans can do. The man who donates 10 million dollars to charity, whether anonymous or not still feels good about himself when he does it. Whether that was his motive or not is likely unknown.

[Ahhchuu]

in the animal kingdom their main drive is to reproduce and their species to survive. among insects their main reproducer is a single unit, like a queen bee. they have to protect the queen and support it in order for their species to survive. in some respects this is true for humans because we do strive to survive. but it is not really among our top prioritys and i think we have grown to evolve from that. true selflessness cannot be acheived because people simply do not have the resources to do so. if you see a bum on a street and give him some change. does that mean you have to give the 20 dollar bill in your pocket to the rest of the bums after you split it at the gas station? no.. chances are you need the 20 dollars to buy some food for yourself. if there is a person that would rather starve himself than for another person i dont think it is possible for it to happen. maybe among preists or monks where they try to accomodate people in need. honestly i dont really know your question. is it that people are become more selfish these days and not really taking opportunitys to help others? if that is so, move to another city or a smaller town and live there for a few years. i am almost certain the whole world is not a load of selfish dick holes. if that is true, and the world is a load of selfish dick holes, the world needs changing.

[Ahhchuu]

sorry i thought first and 3rd posters were same people but i guess it still aplies. anyway i dont think in what rainman said: true altrusim where you dont feel good, is ever possible. you would need to be a heartless bastard. no emotion whatsoever. a complete drone to kindness and promoting anyone other than yourself's happiness.

[Rainman]

It's not a matter of being "selfish dick holes". It's not out of maliciousness that people are not selfless. It's a matter of natural instinct. It's a matter of ego. They are not bad people. I just believe that no seemingly selfless act is truly selfless. There is always a subconscious process of "I will get 'x' if i do 'y'." I do not believe that people do things truly with no thought of reward. Whatever the reward be, even something as small as just knowing they did something good, making them feel good about themselves. It's all ego-motivated. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it is so.

[Ahhchuu]

i think the question lies within the grasps of is ego controlled by subconcious or concious thought. a selfless act is not impossible and i think ive done one before. heres the story. but now by telling you this it is no longer selfless. because i never told anyone and never got anything out of it. the only thing i got was the satisfaction that i could help someone and not have to take their acknowledgment in order to help myself. that satisfaction was only apparent to me after it happened and i realised no one even noticed i did it. heres a story that sets in my mind as a selfless act i did. the school was having a blood drive and i was sitting in class after giving blood. a girl in front of me gave blood also and she fainted, hitting her head on the table and falling to the ground. as soon as i saw that i went to go get a nurse. the class was conveinently nextdoor to the gym where blood was being drawn. all the other kids first thoughts were to get the hall monitor for some reason i have no idea what they were thinking. i calmly sat back at my seat and watched as she woke up. the hall monitor showed up about a minute after the nurse. no one knew i was the one who got an actual nurse. to be honest, i think someone else stole the glory from me, and i did not care. can you tell me if that is or is not a description of selfless?

[Cyclic13]

I don't believe it exists with humans because hidden ulterior and self-driven motives come into play, but I would say it does exist for other species..Check this out

[Xaqaria]

It happens all the time. Many times people will give anonymous donations to charity through their lawyer or another third party. Many people dedicate their lives to low profile unrewarding jobs that are beneficial to the community simply because they want to help people even though they will probably never receive any kind of recognition. If you always look for the worst in people, you will find it and nothing else. If you go through your life looking for the good in people, you can find it too. Also, I don't think ants are a very good example of an altruistic species, as it's likely that ants operate with a hive mind that thinks almost like a single organism. An ant dying to make a bridge for other ants is closer to scraping your hands to grab a cliff ledge than any selfless act of kindness.

[Ahhchuu]

volunteers go into volunteering knowing they will get some gratification. atleast some of them do, others do it because they have to.(to stay sane is one reason) donating anonymously is still get gratification also just by knowing its going to someone and helping a charity. i think selfless acts are more along the lines of helping people most likely in a public place where complete strangers are around.

[Serkat]

Of course you can go all anal about how helping people makes you feel good and how that means that in reality you're just a selfish whore putting on a facade to reach selfish goals in life blablabla. It doesn't work that way. First off, the Christian ideal of self-sacrifice is total bullshit. It's detrimental to the concept of actually helping people. The reality is: There is no value in feeling miserable. Getting nailed to a cross is not some kind of heroic act. It just means that you got nailed to a cross and that's it. Nothing great about that. You don't actually help people by feeling miserable or getting nailed to a cross. To actually help and love people, you have to love yourself, you have to embrace the right to feel happy at any given time and you have to not feel guilty about feeling happy. Christianity is an anti-self-esteem religion. People are made to feel guilty for being successful and happy. The origin is again the ideal of self-sacrifice. They actually believe that one cannot lead an ethically fulfilling life while being happy. The opposite is the case. You have to be happy and fulfilled in the first place to practice what could be called true selflessness. You cannot practice true selflessness from the basis of a self that can barely be said to exist. To the point of feeling happy by acting in an ethical manner: From a purely practical standpoint, what's the fucking problem with feeling happy? This kind of thinking is again the result of centuries of religious indoctrination. No, it's not a problem to feel happy because you helped someone. Firstly, you're making one person more happy than if you weren't, which is yourself, and secondly, it wouldn't make any sense to not feel happy when you help others. Your conscience and your self are the faculties that are used to evaluate your behavior. It tells you what's right and what's not. Why run from it? Why feel ashamed for being a human? In the Western world, because of Christianity. All this nonsensical thinking stems from the ideal of self-sacrifice that is present in many religions and ethical systems. Self-sacrifice in the way that it is usually presented, is absolutely detrimental to actual human kindness. You don't help anybody by trying to suppress happiness or pride, perfectly healthy emotions, after acting in accord with your conscience. Don't deny human nature. If you weren't happy or proud you wouldn't know what's right or wrong. Self-sacrifice is not a virtue. Altruism doesn't have anything to do with totally leaving the self out of the equation. If we act in a way that is beneficial to others, then that is altruistic. I might also add that those who concentrate and worry too much about happiness or pride in connection with ethical behavior are actually the ones with the strongest egoistical drive. Your egocentric view just goes to show that you weren't trying to help people in the first place. If you want to help people then you can do that right now. There's nothing stopping you. The same could work for celebrities, but I believe it usually doesn't. In some cases it does. That's the cases when people go anal about how there are photos of a celebrity helping out in Africa and how he's a selfish asshole because he only seeks to gain money and validation by presenting himself as an ethical person in the light of the public. Well, take the rock out of your ass. If you're that smart, go make a million bucks and sit your ass in a plane to Africa to help starving children. Then come back and tell us how egoistical that felt. However, I don't really buy it when Paris Hilton donates a six-figure value to some charity organization and smiles into the camera. I can't help but think that it's simply part of the self-concept set up by her staff. Her brain capacity was already reached when the money sum exceeded 100, so she didn't really get to think about whom she's donating to or what it means. Well, her giving away 1% is probably still better than zero.

[Universal Mind]

A person never ever ever makes a decision to do something that does not satisfy him in some way. Even a person who dies for somebody else gets satisfaction from knowing that he is doing something for the other person, so it comes down to self-satisfaction. Satisfaction is the motivator of all behavior. That applies to all animals. However, I think that any act that is done for only the satisfaction of helping somebody else as a result of compassion for the other person is altruistic.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I believe it exists because, if a person is hardwired to believe that something is the "right thing to do" (having been instilled values such as empathy and unconditional love, throughout childhood, for example) then that is, likely, their superior motive. Just because they - subsequently - get the satisfaction of 'feeling they've done the right thing', after doing so, does not make the act, itself, selfish. That would be putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Many cynics simply don't see it this way.

[Rainman]

If you go through your life looking for the good in people, you can find it too. I think most of you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that it is a negative thing. I am not "looking for the worst" in people. I am not saying there is "no hope for humanity". These are all assumptions that in no way reflect what I am saying. Do not assume that this is negative, it's not. It is completely neutral. I am simply saying that no human being does things for others without benifit whether on a material or emotional level. Ahhchuu when you helped that girl, you felt good about it upon doing it. Perhaps there was an unconscious process of hoping something would happen from it. Nothing may have happened, but I suspect, and it is highly probable that you unconsciously expected something to happen, like someone to notice that you did that act of "selflessness". And again, before I hear another "oh you're so negative" comment, is has nothing to do with positive or negative. It is simply a fact. UniversalMind put it right. I believe it may be possible in other species, but certainly not in humans. Human instinct is that the self is most important, where as many other species priority and natural instinct is to act for the wellbeing of the overall population. No human act is truly selfless. And for perhaps the fifth time, I am not saying that is a bad thing. I don't want to attract anymore accusations of my "negativity". I am simply stating my opinion, and what I believe to be fact, which has nothing to do with my outlook on life.

[Xaqaria]

The question is whether people are doing these good things because they want to feel good about them, or whether they feel good about them as a side effect. Selfless does not mean that you will definitely glean no personal positive gain, but rather that your intentions are not for personal positive gain.

[Serkat]

Do not assume that this is negative, it's not. It is completely neutral. I am simply saying that no human being does things for others without benifit whether on a material or emotional level. Ahhchuu when you helped that girl, you felt good about it upon doing it. Perhaps there was an unconscious process of hoping something would happen from it. Nothing may have happened, but I suspect, and it is highly probable that you unconsciously expected something to happen, like someone to notice that you did that act of "selflessness". And again, before I hear another "oh you're so negative" comment, is has nothing to do with positive or negative. It is simply a fact. UniversalMind put it right. Most of all, I'd think that getting a positive response from acting in a positively selfless way is important for the judgment of what is right and what isn't. I believe it may be possible in other species, but certainly not in humans. Human instinct is that the self is most important, where as many other species priority and natural instinct is to act for the wellbeing of the overall population. I couldn't disagree stronger. I'd tend to think that it's the other way around. Humans are actually the most sociable species with the most developed conscience. The human is the one animal that has freedom of choice allowing him to do something just for the sake of that thing. Humans transcend themselves which is exactly what animals never do. Animals are more selfish than humans because they cannot choose between acting selfish and non-selfish. They have to obey their genes at all times. No human act is truly selfless. That's not because of evolution or psychology though, rather it's a simple logical impossibility. Without a subject (the self) there is no act. A selfless act is not an act, it's an occurrence. Humans don't occur though, they act. Selfless does not mean that you will definitely glean no personal positive gain, but rather that your intentions are not for personal positive gain. Very well put. Directly aiming at your own personal gratification is probably the safest way for a human being not to get it. Humans evolved to transcend themselves by interacting with the world and with other people.

[Neruo]

Doing good feels good. Thus, it's egoistic. Unless if you do something 'good', like self-sacrifice. That might feel bad at the time. However, knowing you do good always has a certain positive value. You are never really 'free' in your choice for doing good. (Also, often you are just conditioned by society to do the 'good' things. Most of the Nazi's didn't really like killing the jews, but it had to be done for the 'better good' or something like that.) Thus, doing good is never without a reason that can be called selfish. However, that doesn't make it less good, if you ask me. It really doesn't change anything, really.

[Rainman]

Exactly. 100% what I am saying. It is always for a "reason" and that "reason" always benifits the person commiting the act in some way or another, even if only on an emotional level.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Exactly. 100% what I am saying. It is always for a "reason" and that "reason" always benifits the person commiting the act in some way or another, even if only on an emotional level. This does not contradict altruism, though. Here's a scenario: A guy is walking near a set of train tracks. He sees a young kid, that had tried to cross the tracks, with his/her foot wedged in the wood and iron. A train is coming - close enough to where the man has to second guess whether or not he has enough time to help the kid. He believes that he at least has time to offer some sort of assistance, and possibly save this kid's life, so he rushes onto the tracks, risking his own life (should he trip, get stuck himself, or any other number of possible outcomes). After a while, choosing to stay there until the last possible moment, the guy is able to pull the kid away, just as the train barrels passed them. There is no one else around and, given their being in the middle of nowhere, probably no chance of him getting any recognition for his deed - aside from a retelling of his heroism to people he doesn't even know, at some other place in time. Do you: A) not think such a feat is possible for a human being to commit to, without their main reason being "to feel good about themselves" for being a "hero?" B) believe that humans, as a rule, would say "fuck that, I'm not risking my life to save someone I don't know" and walk away? or C) Believe that there is a chance that the man's belief that he could save the kid propelled him to try, with the main reasoning being that this was someone's child, and he honestly felt that, if it was within his power to stop that child's death, he should do whatever he could to prevent it?

[R.D.735]

It is a given that the only actions a person does that are relevant to the idea of selflessness are those that the person chooses to do. If a person chooses to do something, then he *wants* to do it. Therefore, he is fulfilling his own interest and satisfying his own desire. In conclusion, any person's actions will fulfill their own goals, regardless of any other person's interests. What is in question is whether there exists a person who chooses to help another person in order to help that person. This would be analogous to "I eat food to eat food" or "I recycle in order to recycle" or "I help people for no reason" The easy question is: Does there exist a person who acts, in any manner, only to fulfill a desire to act in that manner? Obviously not. Every desire for action must be wedded to a desire for the consequences of that action, unless the action is unconscious/impulsive and irrelevant to the discussion.

[Rainman]

Very good analogy, Oneironaut. You've always got good arguments. However, there is a flaw. Let's look at your options: A) not think such a feat is possible for a human being to commit to, without their main reason being "to feel good about themselves" for being a "hero?" No I do not think that it is their main reason, but it is a reason. I'll explain later. B) believe that humans, as a rule, would say "fuck that, I'm not risking my life to save someone I don't know" and walk away? Clearly not. That would be an absurd thing to believe in most cases. or C) Believe that there is a chance that the man's belief that he could save the kid propelled him to try, with the main reasoning being that this was someone's child, and he honestly felt that, if it was within his power to stop that child's death, he should do whatever he could to prevent it? Ahh. You've hit something. Let's take an even closer look. he should do whatever he could to prevent it? He SHOULD. But why should he? Why should he save this child if it is within his power? Because, (drum roll please), he will feel shitty for the rest of his life if he does not. It sounds inhumane, but it is not ultimately because of his human instinct that he saves the child. It is difficult to say that if a similar scenario occured in the state of nature whether or not a stranger would save another stranger, because in the state of nature, there would be no society telling us that that is a horrible thing. But in the context of our current reality, this man at the very least subconsciously knows that he will feel horrible and regret that day for the rest of his life, and probably knows that on a pre-conscious or even conscious level. So he acts. He acts because he has what we have come to call a "conscience" which is the "source" of our "morals". You see, without that, in my opinion, it is highly improbable that he would choose to save the child unless it was his own, or someone close to him, regardless of the fact that it is a child. It is hard to see past "morals" when society affects the average human mind so deeply, but if you remove society, they man would not act at all. That is not to say that the man 'only' acts because of his own gains, but he is certainly aware, even if only on an unconscious level, that he will benefit from saving the child, so he does. He knows the child will benefit of course, and while that may mean a lot to him, you must ask yourself why. It is because of this "conscience" which more often than not, conflicts with the ID of the human psyche. We go out of the way to do things that do not fall under the category of things the ID considers as needs. The wellbeing of a complete stranger is not under the category of ID needs, and therefore we would not normally do it in the absence of a society. That would lead you to say that if it's not a need, it is an act of selflessness. No, because the ego finds a balance between super-ego and ID. If the priorities of the ID interfere with social "morals" then the ego finds a balance, and will usually find a way to make us do things that fall under both. Since "not saving a child" is also not under the needs of the ID, the ego will choose to save the child, because it's the "moral" thing to do. So you see it's not a matter of knowing he will receive anything. It's knowing that he will NOT have to live with regret and sadness by saving the child.

[Universal Mind]

The question is whether people are doing these good things because they want to feel good about them, or whether they feel good about them as a side effect. Selfless does not mean that you will definitely glean no personal positive gain, but rather that your intentions are not for personal positive gain. All behavior is driven by the attainment of self-satisfaction. It is not just a side effect. If it were not a calculated effect, the behavior would not happen. Because, (drum roll please), he will feel shitty for the rest of his life if he does not. That is an enormous motivator.

[Oneironaut Zero]

He acts because he has what we have come to call a "conscience" which is the "source" of our "morals". You see, without that, in my opinion, it is highly improbable that he would choose to save the child unless it was his own, or someone close to him, regardless of the fact that it is a child. It is hard to see past "morals" when society affects the average human mind so deeply, but if you remove society, they man would not act at all. This may very well be true... ...BUT, we must remember that society (and our response to it) is a fundamental part of human nature (which is why it's even a factor in this conversation). We cannot simply remove the influence of society from the equation, because society's influence is very much a part of what makes us us. If a person acts (even subconsciously) because of an impulse implanted upon him by society, is it, truly, a choice...or simply an affect of conditioning? The only way to make the argument [that he's doing it egotistically] stick is if you place humans in the same category as animals - in that they act on pure animalistic(sp) instinct. This isn't the case for humans, I believe. Impressions and values given to us by other humans play just as much a role in our behavior as the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" concept, which (I feel) is why we are susceptible to 'brainwash.' I think (as far as the example given) it really comes down to the debatable argument of "did he do this because he was hardwired to believe it was the right thing to do," or "did he do it because he'd feel shitty if he didn't do it?" (though I agree that the latter can be a very strong motivator.) In the case of those that act upon impulse, and commit to these acts of 'heroism,' as a reflex, rather than a calculated decision (which happens - at least in my opinion - often) I don't think we can justly take the extra step in assuming that there was any ulterior motive behind it, rather than that they did it because they felt (and were conditioned to believe) it was the right thing to do. Sure, they will probably feel shitty if they stood by and did nothing, but, I believe, that is often a secondary motive (if even apparent, at all) at the time of the 'heroic' act. It's easy to disregard the reasoning behind an impulse as "selfish." It is just as easy to explain it away as such, but I believe that there is more to it than that. Have you ("you" meaning "anyone") ever watched two children playing? Have you ever seen one child - barely old enough to stand, and, most probably, not old enough to understand the concept of "achieving self-satisfaction through the happiness of others" - share their toys? Have you ever seen a child be knee-deep in the gratification of playing with a toy (or sucking on a pacifier) and suddenly give up that toy/pacifier to someone else? I have - numerous times. Is this a byproduct of the infant (as the case often is) feeling better about his/herself, by giving another their toy/pacifier, or them wanting to share the happiness that they receive from that toy/pacifier, by passing it on to another? If it is the former (and proven as such) then that presents a much deeper case for the non-existence of altruism. If, however, the child simply wished to spread their own enjoyment of the item to another - at the expense of having to be without that which makes them happy, even for a limited time - then, I would figure, the concept of altruism has a very strong base.

[Rainman]

Very good points indeed. Hmm... Impressions and values given to us by other humans play just as much a role in our behavior as the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" concept, which (I feel) is why we are susceptible to 'brainwash.' EXACTLY. Social morals do play just as much a role in our behaviour! That is why we commit acts that people would deem as selfless, but really aren't. The thing that makes them selfless (and in most cases makes them exist at all) is the fact that we have LEARNED that they are the "right thing to do" ethically, a characteristic of the function of the super-ego. It becomes a necesity to adhere to social morals for our [emotional] wellbeing, so the unconscious process (ego) tells us "ok, do this" unless it directly interfere's with the requirements of the ID, as the ID is priority. Example: (i'll use the train analogy again.) If the train was too close for the man to save the child without severly harming or killing himself, on impulse, he would not act, because by instinct, a humans priority above all things is their own wellbeing. In the event that he has enough time to save the child, he will likely act because he knows that it is the "right thing to do", which it is only such because of society, which you mentioned is now a part of human behaviour (and you are quite right). It is the right thing to do, therefore it becomes necessary to do it, because adhering to social morals is necessary for the wellbeing of the individual. As for the child, that is a very interesting take. It will sound really anal of me, but it also depends on the age/development of the child. A slightly more mentally developed child (usually age 3 and up) has developed the process of an ID and an ego, and is developing a super-ego, and therefore can determine if it is "nice" or the "right thing to do" to share their toys, and acts on that instinct. However, a child less subconsciously developed would not have those things, and therefore would not know what it was doing by offering their toys to another person. Most children under the age of 2 or 3 are not capable of being aware of the self. They have only an ID, which is the base of human instinct. Needs. They are not aware of their own existence, so I guess technically that is an example of altruism taken literally An act of selflessness. One who is not aware of itself who commits an act of kindness, would technically have to be considered selfless by definition, I suppose. Well done.