Thread: True Altruism

True Altruism is nonexistent. There's no such thing.

You can do a good dead, there's no arguing that. You can do a good dead because you like to help, enjoy helping, want to help etc. You can hate helping but still do so because you believe its the right thing. In every case you are in some way satisfying your own wants or beliefs. Whether or not that's your primary goal or not is irrelevant. It's what drives you to do those things.

Everything is completely egocentric, even 'selflessness.'

Many egoist philosophers equated egoism with selfishness, greed and evil, but I believe it was Butler who was an egoist who believed a person can be driven by the desire to do good. Given that is still their desire to do so, this eliminated Altruism but doesn't make people bad people.

I don't know if I'd fully agree with Butler, but I'll play nice.

I agree with Exo (cringe)

I believe that all acts are selfish. If you donate your last kidney to your friend, you are doing it because it will make you feel good and noble. There are no exceptions to this. No matter what you do, you are doing it to benefit yourself, mentally, emotionally, or physically.

Mostly stream of consciousnesses, probably wont remember this thread in the morning~

no-name. :]

Everything is selfish in some sense, sure. Can we add some value to altruism by saying that the most altruistic acts are performed when there is the least amount of "selfish motivation"?

I studied altruism once. But I'm not about to laundry-list it for you. It's fueled by multiple factors, and instead of arguing for and against each one, I'll just tell you that my favorite flavor of altruism is the "evolutionarily motivated" one.

Purest case: an atheist sacrifices him/herself to save a child.

Originally Posted by Exo

Everything is completely egocentric, even 'selflessness.'

Originally Posted by sloth

I agree with Exo (cringe)

I believe that all acts are selfish. If you donate your last kidney to your friend, you are doing it because it will make you feel good and noble. There are no exceptions to this. No matter what you do, you are doing it to benefit yourself, mentally, emotionally, or physically.

I don't subscribe to this view. Well, to the extreme.

I'm more along Abra's line of thought. Sure, doing "good" makes one feel good. What I believe is a leap of cynical faith is to say that whenever someone does good, they do it because it makes them feel good - that it is their true motivation, as opposed to doing something, first and foremost, because they feel it is the right thing to do.

On one hand, you have "doing good" because you believe that you are greatly helping someone in need - and feeling good as a by product.

On the other hand, you have needing to feel good about yourself, so you help someone out.

Two opposite sides of the same coin. Two different motivations.

If someone takes his favorite shirt of his back and gives it to a homeless woman with rags for clothes, that is an altruistic act. Sure, he may feel good about himself after doing it, but that is not why he did it. He did it because it was getting cold outside, and she looked like she was freezing. It is putting others before self. It doesn't mean that doing so will not give you a sense of subsequent pride.

I was also thinking of people sacrificing themselves. Take Wesley Aubrey, for example; the guy who jumped onto a seizure-victim who fell onto the subway tracks, covering him up and pushing him down so that the train rolled right over them. Is anyone honestly going to assume that this man - who, in all likelihood had never been under a subway train before, let alone with a person under him - did what he did, thinking "you know what? I'm going to feel so awesome about myself, when this is over with! Rock!" before jumping down onto the tracks in front of the oncoming train?

He did what he did because he knew that the man would have died if he didn't. The amount of clearance between his own back and the bottom of the subway train asserts that he couldn't have been 100% positive that he wouldn't be injured or killed, himself.

So, what you guys are saying is that what he did can't be considered altruistic, because he lived long enough to feel good about himself after doing it?

Well thats the whole thing about Altruism. In order for an act to be truly Altruistic, there needs to be no selfish feeling, desire or fulfillment what so ever, whether it's primary motivation or not. This includes feeling good or noble, or even not so but feeling you've done whats right or acted on your beliefs. That is why true Altruism doesn't exist.

That's not to say you can't do good and it's not right. That's not it at all. People associate egoism in a negative context, but it doesn't need to be. Altruism doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that good doesn't.

Originally Posted by sloth

I agree with Exo (cringe)

Yeah, I get that a lot.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Well thats the whole thing about Altruism. In order for an act to be truly Altruistic, there needs to be no selfish feeling, desire or fulfillment what so ever, whether it's primary motivation or not. This includes feeling good or noble, or even not so but feeling you've done whats right or acted on your beliefs. That is why true Altruism doesn't exist.

That's not to say you can't do good and it's not right. That's not it at all. People associate egoism in a negative context, but it doesn't need to be. Altruism doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that good doesn't.

Personally, I don't think the word was ever meant to be taken to such an extreme. I interpret it to mean someone putting aside (more immediate) self-interests to do for others (physical well-being, a priori assumptions, personal feelings, etc.). To me, it seems that "well, after you do it, you're going to feel good about yourself, so that's the underlying factor that makes what you did selfish" - even if that person gave up all of their possessions to someone who needed them more - a reliance on a technicality, than it does a true refutation of altruism.

Maybe that's just me, though. It just seems like a perversion of the term.

If that's the case, then we're simply arguing semantics.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Well thats the whole thing about Altruism. In order for an act to be truly Altruistic, there needs to be no selfish feeling, desire or fulfillment what so ever, whether it's primary motivation or not. This includes feeling good or noble, or even not so but feeling you've done whats right or acted on your beliefs. That is why true Altruism doesn't exist.

That's not to say you can't do good and it's not right. That's not it at all. People associate egoism in a negative context, but it doesn't need to be. Altruism doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that good doesn't.

Was the example Oneironaut gave not altruistic?

Feeling good or noble? Sometimes it is just this, live and let the other die, or vica versa.

Yes, in many cases one can say it was about a certain feeling about "good", but does that mean that all acts are such?

The bottom line is, all of this falls back on free will. If we have free will, as I think we do. We have our free will to do an altruistic act, do we not?

No, because as I outlined, by the definition of Altruism even if any feeling of good or fulfillment is not the primary motivation, if it is even simply something because of the act. It is not truly Altruistic. There will always be motivation and thus fulfillment, including feelings of good or acting on beliefs or what is right.

The feeling doesn't need to be the primary motivation. In Oneironaut's examples, the subjects may not even of wanted to do what they did, but did so because they believed it was right. That alone combats the definition of Altruism, which is actually an extreme term that I think has come to be used too leniently.

Is it not you making the term extreme?

The definition is:

"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"

"behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species"

Originally Posted by Exobyte

In Oneironaut's examples, the subjects may not even of wanted to do what they did, but did so because they believed it was right

Oneironaut's example fits perfectly with definition number two.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

That alone combats the definition of Altruism, which is actually an extreme term that I think has come to be used too leniently.

Again, I disagree.

I mean really. Let's look at the word Altruism, and what it means.

altruism
One entry found.

Main Entry:
al·tru·ism Listen to the pronunciation of altruism
Pronunciation:
\ˈal-trü-ˌi-zəm\
Etymology:
French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
Date:
1853

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
— al·tru·ist Listen to the pronunciation of altruist \-trü-ist\ noun
— al·tru·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of altruistic \ˌal-trü-ˈis-tik\ adjective
— al·tru·is·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of altruistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

# the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now. The key word here is "unselfish." People tend to take that as meaning "absolutely no concern for the 'self'", when it doesn't. Let's look at the meaning of the word "selfish."

selfish
One entry found.

Main Entry:
self·ish Listen to the pronunciation of selfish
Pronunciation:
\ˈsel-fish\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1640

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA> ; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>
— self&#183;ish&#183;ly adverb
— self&#183;ish&#183;ness noun

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others; "Selfish men were... ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What we see here is that the primary meaning of "selfish" is not one of having merely anything to do with the self, but having chiefly or excessively to do with the self. Logically, this does not include an act that, at great potential detriment to the self, offers some small, subsequently redeeming factor. These acts would be, by definition, altruistic.

The defense rests.

But it still does result in chief relation to the self, even if indirectly. If you act on your beliefs, it is simply that. Act on what you believe is good, its that. Help someone because you want to, same deal. In the end it all relates back to you. There's nothing wrong with any of that, and its still admirable and commendable.

My experience has made me an egoist, so I'm biased in that direction by default and never have believed in true Altruism anyway.

Every act you do, is motivated by the self. The purpose could be selfless and to do good, but its very motivation behind the act is what kills Altruism. The motivation is always the self.

e⋅go⋅ism
  /ˈigoʊˌɪzəm, ˈɛgoʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-goh-iz-uhm, eg-oh-] Show IPA
–noun
1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism ).
2. egotism or conceit.
3. Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest.

e&#183;go&#183;ism (ē'gō-ĭz'əm, ěg'ō-)
n.

1.
1. The ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest.
2. The ethical belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive for all human conduct.
2. Excessive preoccupation with one's own well-being and interests, usually accompanied by an inflated sense of self-importance.
3. Egotism; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit.

via Dictionary.com

I'm mainly referencing the bolded part of the second quote, as it has the most accurate definition of the point I'm trying to convey. I post the first one despite it's somewhat counter-intuitive nature as it is still key to the egoist philosophy in many cases.

In reference to the second, the point it conveys is that we may do seemingly selfless things but ultimately that 'redeeming factor' is what motivates the act, whether consciously or sub-consciously and in our nature.

And that is where the fine line is drawn. People seem to ignore our subtle influences in life, the things that made us who we are today and motivate us to do good deeds. Our morals, values and beliefs that compel us to want to act in an Altruistic or Selfless way because we feel its the right thing to do.

Even if the purpose isn't self-fulfillment, the motivation is as we're entirely motivated by our character, or our ego. (Ego in the character sense, not the "take the roof off the house so Jimmy can fit it in because he just made his first home run" sense)

But this is not about the definition of egoism. It is about the definition of Altruism.

Someone doing a selfish act has nothing but (or little but) the self in mind. It is an intentional direction of benefit to the self, regardless of others. This is all explained in the definition.

I agree with you that there is some degree of self-awareness in all that we do. There is some degree of self-interest in all that we do. But "self-interest" is a very broad term. All that a person is or owns denotes "self-interest." A truly selfish person is nothing but "me me me, mine mine mine." Everything is about them, and all other people are insignificant. Altruism, on the other hand, is about letting go of self-interests (not necessarily all, but a personally significant portion) for the benefit of others.

One can spin it anyway they want, but that is the meaning of the word, and it does exist.





*Moved to Philosophy, btw.*

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But this is not about the definition of egoism. It is about the definition of Altruism.

Egoism is entirely relevant to the debate. In a discussion of Altruism, Egoism has its place. It's like Yin and Yang or Black and White.

To ignore Egoism is to ignore a pivotal argument against Altruism.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I agree with you that there is some degree of self-awareness in all that we do. There is some degree of self-interest in all that we do. But "self-interest" is a very broad term. All that a person is or owns denotes "self-interest." A truly selfish person is nothing but "me me me, mine mine mine." Everything is about them, and all other people are insignificant. Altruism, on the other hand, is about letting go of self-interests (not necessarily all, but a personally significant portion) for the benefit of others.

This is where the problem lies and Egoism shows its place. We look at only the direct and obvious, like a person saying "I'm not going to try and move them from that on coming train. I don't want to get hurt!", and ignore the subtle, such as our influences, morals, values and motivations which are based on those things. An example being "I'm am going to move that person from that train, because I believe its the right thing to do/I want to do so because its the right thing to do." Both cases are centered on the self. One is negative, one is positive. Which is a point I've raised that I feel is being ignored.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

*Moved to Philosophy, btw.*

Good idear.

EDIT: Gone to work, I'll be back.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

[COLOR=Blue]

This is where the problem lies and Egoism shows its place. We look at only the direct and obvious, like a person saying "I'm not going to try and move them from that on coming train. I don't want to get hurt!", and ignore the subtle, such as our influences, morals, values and motivations which are based on those things. An example being "I'm am going to move that person from that train, because I believe its the right thing to do/I want to do so because its the right thing to do." Both cases are centered on the self. One is negative, one is positive. Which is a point I've raised that I feel is being ignored.

I'm not ignoring it (though I suppose I haven't touched on it).

I completely understand what you are saying. Even our morals are brought about because of self. I know that. Everything we do is because that is what we believe, what motivates us. You're saying that there is no escaping motivation of 'self', because that is what we are built upon. I'm not disputing that.

Going further, though, there is a difference between value of self, and value of other people. Cognizance of the needs and values of others is an extension from that initial cognizance of self. It is important that you do not ignore this fact. People don't only 'do for others' because it makes them feel good. They (most often) do for others because they are genuinely aware of plight of other people. They are empathic. They are not merely "looking out for number 1." It is this that altruism is concerned with, not the absolution that "self" is a concept that no living creature could ever truly be without.

A selfish person ignores the plight of others. They look out only for the self. Anyone outside of their own skin has no high value. An altruistic person (though working off of their own belief systems and morals) helps other people because they are cognizant of the "other." They hold value to the "other", and are willing to give up some degree of personal possession or sacrifice so that the "other" may receive some benefit.

has parenting never driven parents insane?

I really hate the argument that doing good things is selfish. this is an absolute argument. and there are no absolutes. sure doing good might make you feel good in the process, but that is ignoring WHY the person doing good is doing good to begin with. and they are doing it, and have chosen to do so, not for them self, but for another

its better to say that you do good things FOR OTHER PEOPLE, and by doing so you also benefit your self. but to say that you do good things for others only for yourself, that's a lie.

selfishness is an act you do only for yourself

As a preliminary aside, most of the abstract benefits presumably accrued by the altruist are ultimately reducible to good feelings (although obviously there is little need to reduce concrete benefits such as monetary gain to the level of feelings). For example, helping someone due to a sense of obligation to do so (whether by societal standards, personal morals, or whatever) is related to good feelings in that neglecting to help would be violating those standards, which would result in negative feelings -- so helping would be a type of 'negative reinforcement' in that it removes the negative feelings associated with violating societal/moral standards.

Anyway, I think a pivotal question in this debate is whether the altruist had the intention of gaining some benefit (however subtle or abstract it may be) from performing the altruistic act.

Some would say -- and I think this is essentially Exobyte's view -- that, for example, the simple good feelings experienced by the altruist after the fact render the act not "truly" altruistic, since the altruist is getting at least something out of it personally. My view is that that unless the altruist was conscious of the fact that he/she would feel good about it afterwords while making the decision, then the benefits are purely incidental and have no bearing on whether or not the act was motivated by "true" altruism. In essence, altruism is in the intentions motivating the act rather than the outcome/consequences of the act.

However, this view hardly leaves the matter cut and dry, as it's still debatable whether the altruist was aware on some deeper, less conscious level that he/she would receive some sort of personal benefit (such as good feelings) from the act, and furthermore if he/she did, whether an unconscious expectation should factor into whether or not the act was "truly" altruistic. These are questions that I can't really answer.

Originally Posted by Abra

Purest case: an atheist sacrifices him/herself to save a child.

I disagree. an atheist doesn't believe in afterlife. in their mind, they will simply not exist anymore. non-existence would be a wonderful thing, complete freedom from suffering...so they're getting something out of it. I think it depends on whether or not they fear death, and how much. for example, I think a purer case of altruism would be if someone who believed they were going to the fiercest, most terrible hell imaginable, were to give up their life for someone else. doesn't that make sense?

as far as whether or not altruism exists, I think it does and doesn't, simultaneously. it exists in the minds of some people, that is, for the people who truely believe it, it is real, and for people who don't believe it, it is not real.

what kind of philosophical stance is that? what is it called?

great reply DuB. that is really thinking things through. and THOSE are the questions, aren't they? I love it when people give things a thorough explaination down to the last detail, to where I don't feel like everything said is too vague and only going in circles :\

Originally Posted by DuB

However, this view hardly leaves the matter cut and dry, as it's still debatable whether the altruist was aware on some deeper, less conscious level that he/she would receive some sort of personal benefit (such as good feelings) from the act, and furthermore if he/she did, whether an unconscious expectation should factor into whether or not the act was "truly" altruistic. These are questions that I can't really answer.

Are those questions answerable by anyone? How exactly does one go about measuring expectations that they are supposedly unaware of? That view point considered leaves the entire argument for true altruism at a dead end (at least currently). What is there that philosophers have universally been able to agree on? Anything at all?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

People don't only 'do for others' because it makes them feel good. They (most often) do for others because they are genuinely aware of plight of other people. They are empathic.

Yes, but it's not enough to say people are "genuinely aware of plight of other people." To understand this as it pertains to pure altruism, you need to understand what makes them genuinely aware of it, what makes them empathic. If a person is aware of the plight of other people because of guilt, their actions are motivated entirely by their own self-interest. At this level the whole concept of social conditioning comes into play, and to truly get anywhere in this kind of debate we would need to look at the kind of values that have become inseparable from the western world in terms of the plight of other people.

I don't think terms like "selfish" are practical in a discussion like this. There's more to it than either being selfish or not selfish. It's not that black and white, which brings me to my next point.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

[/color]On one hand, you have "doing good" because you believe that you are greatly helping someone in need - and feeling good as a by product.

On the other hand, you have needing to feel good about yourself, so you help someone out.

Two opposite sides of the same coin. Two different motivations.

I think it's a mistake to separate these two ideas so certainly. Actually, I believe they are mutually inclusive in this discussion; this isn't such a black and white issue.

As a gut reaction, I have to agree with ExoByte's point of view. I'm not sure true altruism is possible, whatever semantic twist is put on the word. I think this because I don't believe the idea of altruism is explicitly tied to ambivalent terms like selfishness or selflessness, but operates on a more complex, subconscious level; a level which is perhaps more interested in the self as a nexus of connectivity to others.

I'm not so certain about that though - just some food for though...

Originally Posted by Invader

Are those questions answerable by anyone? How exactly does one go about measuring expectations that they are supposedly unaware of? That view point considered leaves the entire argument for true altruism at a dead end (at least currently). What is there that philosophers have universally been able to agree on? Anything at all?

That's philosophy for ya . Its currency is in questions that don't have an object answer. It perhaps would have been more clear for me to say that I don't have well-expressed views regarding those questions.

"one cannot destroy the ego with the ego."