| A couple of thoughts for this discussion
Bias:
Either side arguing for the existence or non-existence of altruism, could be biased.
People claiming altruism doesn't exist, could just be a coping-out so they dont need to feel bad that they don't help other people, because even those that dedicate their lives to causes are actually 'acting selfishly'.
On the other hand, those arguing for altruism's existence may be arguing that direction, because they are uncomfortable with the idea of a world full of nothing but selfish individuals.
Admitedly I think I fit into the later, but I've tried to put that aside as best I can for an attempt at objective discussion, I'd encourage other people to try the same.
Where do we look?
Clearly there are out right selfish people in our society, so analyzing them might not bring us any closer to understanding.
Analyzing people who could be altruistic might lead to a better understanding.
Interpretations:
Mothers or fathers will often sacrifice of themselves to help their children. This could be genetically or environmentally wired into us.
But that begs a question of interpretation, if they are wired to do self-sacrificing acts, does that really count as altruism, since free-will is presumably not involved.
Wired would imply good feelings or bad feelings that result from obeying or not obeying the objective of the wiring.
If people are at their core machines, then altruism might be in some respect, an irrelevant concept, because for better or worse, people are just acting as they are programmed to. This would make a distinction between people acting selfishly, and people acting in their self-interest.
Silent Altruism=Actually Selfish?
Another thought I'd like to share: Many people believe giving anonymously and keeping quiet about giving, is better than 'bragging' about it.
I think just the opposite, if people were more open and talked much more about the giving they did, perhaps that would become more of a societal goal. Instead of competing over who has the hotter partner, nicer car, or bigger house, people might compete ethically, to see who can do more good for the world.
If people did talk about it more, perhaps more would feel more peer pressured into helping others.
So if this is true, that talking about altruistic acts causes more good to be done in the world - even if its completely indirectly - then it is infact a selfish desire to not be selfish, that makes people be quiet about their giving/volunteering - which causes less good to come about than could otherwise.
In a nutshell, if people wanted to really be good, they need to be willing to come across badly, and brag about it, to hopefully influence others.
Ugh, was hoping to refine this a bunch more but I gotta go pick my fiance, hopefully these contributions are useful. |