Is Altruism an Illusion?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Muckraker It doesn't benefit the dead person but it benefits the person dying at the instant they die, which means that this last act that caused them to die was not an altruistic one.

That doesn't answer my question.

Your first statement was

Of course there is. Martyrdom? Infamy? Ancestry

What selfish benefit occurs the instant a person dies?
Surely not the idea that they may be famous for their action.
And honestly you would have a hard time pushing the idea that the last thought going through a persons mind as they jump in front of a bus to push a stranger out of the way is "Gee, I am going to famous for this, totally worth it."

[Walrus]

Quote by: Objectivist Would a single person be able to take control of all the food and all the water? No.

In my original post which was intended to demonstrate that selfishness is not intrinsically altruistic, I said “a society”, not “society” as an encompassing concept. In order for my example to work then obviously that person would have to be in a position of power within that society for them to accomplish that act. (It’s a very small society and he totes an AK47).

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: Fangrim I disagree. I would say that selfishness is intrinsically altruistic, in that all gain benefit from an individual performing a selfish act, even if that benefit is simply an "invisible hand" factor. As individuals help themselves, they help society.

Explain to me how robbing a bank is altruistic.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Walrus In my original post which was intended to demonstrate that selfishness is not intrinsically altruistic, I said “a society”, not “society” as an encompassing concept. In order for my example to work then obviously that person would have to be in a position of power within that society for them to accomplish that act. (It’s a very small society and he totes an AK47).

Okay. I thought you were referring to society on a much larger scale, like the USA for instance.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I have to ask, where did you get this interpretation of the altruism? Specifically the bit "that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake". That definitely sounds like a Rand thing.

A moral code that embraces altruism as the highest moral ideal, is embracing the idea that the selfless is morally good while the selfish is morally bad. The highest moral duty of an altruist is self-sacrifice.

If the highest moral duty of man is to live for others and to sacrifice yourself for the benefit for others... then man doesn't have a moral right to exist for his own sake. If one follows altruism, the only duty a man has is to sacrifice for others and to exist for others.

And it is a "Rand thing". It's called Objectivist ethics and it is derived from the idea that every man is an end in himself and shouldn't be used as the means of others. It's an ethical code that upholds man not as a sacrificial animal, not as a slave to others—but a free and independent entity that lives for the sake of himself, not for the sake of others.

[SoylentGreen]

Objectivist A moral code that embraces altruism as the highest moral ideal, is embracing the idea that the selfless is morally good while the selfish is morally bad. The highest moral duty of an altruist is self-sacrifice.

Thank you, that explains how Rand interprets the word altruism but still you do not explain where she got that particular interpretation from.
At a guess it would seem she is using the original meaning to the word that Comte gave to it, Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.
But as the link I gave says

Many considered his ethical system - in which the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others - rather extreme, so meaning 1 (1. Loving others as oneself) evolved.

Altruists choose to align their well-being with others - so they are happy when others thrive, sad when others are suffering. Essential in establishing strong relationships, most societies acknowledge the importance of altruism within the family. By motivating cooperation rather than conflict, it promotes harmony within communities of any size.

Note the word "choose" as opposed to Rand's view that it is imposed.

I think the second definition " Loving others as oneself", is a better interpretation of the word that doesn't conflict with Rand's Objectivist ethics.

[Morality Games]

What selfish benefit occurs the instant a person dies?

If they were selfless, following through with their character until the end. Aka, being consistant with themselves -- or, if they were not in the habit of selfless actions, redeeming themselves with a final act of humanity. Either way, the person is trying to "get an advantage" for themselves You need to think of 'benefit' in a less narrow sense. Dying is, after all, a being's final expression, and not a bad opportunity to accomplish something significant.

Additionally, while people are egotistical, they can only act with reference to what is perceptible to them and whatever nonconscious forces are influencing them, so a person who experiences an impulse to throw themselves in front of a bus is just going along with what they are feeling at the time -- maybe they did the best possible thing for themselves by ending their existence, maybe they did not. What's to one's advantage is uncertain (for all we know, the human condition could be so irresolvably absurd we would all be better off if we ceased existing at once -- based on the constitution of our nature and an at least somewhat positive experience of the human condition, we typically don't think that, but it's possible we are misguided.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I think the second definition "Loving others as oneself", is a better interpretation of the word that doesn't conflict with Rand's Objectivist ethics.

Is that all altruism means? What does "Loving others as oneself" entail?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Objectivist Is that all altruism means? What does "Loving others as oneself" entail?

Well in simple terms I would go with the term already given.

Altruists choose to align their well-being with others - so they are happy when others thrive, sad when others are suffering. Essential in establishing strong relationships, most societies acknowledge the importance of altruism within the family. By motivating cooperation rather than conflict, it promotes harmony within communities of any size.

I think the key words there are "choose to align their well-being with others", and "motivating cooperation".

I think Rand gives an extreme view of altruism.
But without the altruism as defined above a society would be unable to cooperate or exist.

[Morality Games]

I think Rand gives an extreme view of altruism.

Ayn Rand was not concerned with accurately portrarying the logical form of her rival's positions, nor capable of doing so with the knowledge she thought sufficient for the task. She was more like a rogue literary critic writing a scathing interpretation of the content of a novel based on a commentary than a philosopher considering logical and linguistic dilemmas from a scientific-humanitarian background.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games Ayn Rand was not concerned with accurately portrarying the logical form of her rival's positions, nor capable of doing so with the knowledge she thought sufficient for the task. She was more like a rogue literary critic writing a scathing interpretation of the content of a novel based on a commentary than a philosopher considering logical and linguistic dilemmas from a scientific-humanitarian background.

Any actual examples MG or just more speculations?

Ayn Rand formulated her opinion on altruism with selflessness as the highest moral virtue. To "live for others" is only a part of selflessness... the other part is to repudiate and give up your values for the values and lives of other people... to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Objectivist Any actual examples MG or just more speculations? Ayn Rand formulated her opinion on altruism with selflessness as the highest moral virtue. To "live for others" is only a part of selflessness... the other part is to repudiate and give up your values for the values and lives of other people... to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one.

If people willingly accept the conditions of altruism because it benefits them, Ayn Rand's philosophy is put in a difficult position. It can be argued a properly altruistic life is a fine existence. I am not particularily altruist, but nor am I without empathy.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality Games I am not particularily altruist, but nor am I without empathy.

Well said.

Objectivist the other part is to repudiate and give up your values for the values and lives of other people... to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one.

This is an extreme view of altruism. The only ones I have heard to hold to this view are themselves believers in an extreme view, commonly called Theism.

Personally I don't believe the theists have made a very good case for their own brand of morality (ie. be good or go to hell).

Ok, so Rand is good for arguing around a bad spiritual argument.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games If people willingly accept the conditions of altruism because it benefits them, Ayn Rand's philosophy is put in a difficult position. It can be argued a properly altruistic life is a fine existence.

Not really. Even if people didn't accept any definition of altruism that Ayn Rand maintained, the philosophy would still stand. The ethics isn't defined negatively, i.e. the ethics isn't defined by critiquing and refuting the irrationality of other moral systems. The philosophy would still make the case that every man is an end in himself, not the means of others.

I am not particularily altruist, but nor am I without empathy.

A rational egoist is not altruistic and he does have empathy. Have you ever read any of Ayn Rand's fiction? To say that Rand, or me, or any other Objectivist doesn't have emotions and doesn't identify with the emotions of other people is absurd.

[SoylentGreen]

Objectivist The philosophy would still make the case that every man is an end in himself, not the means of others.

Rand attempts to remove what she perceives of as a restriction to her philosophy, that altruism has value. This she has failed to do.

To say that Rand, or me, or any other Objectivist doesn't have emotions and doesn't identify with the emotions of other people is absurd.

Absolutely agree, and that is the flaw in Rand's definition of altruism.

I read in an article the other day that altruistic behaviiour can be observed in the human being as early as 18 months old, childrens have the tendency to help others, and that surly doesn't indicate their need for approval or ego-boosters of some sort. It has also been reported that altruism stems from an area in the brain called the posterior superior temporal sulcus. So I believe that Altruistic behaviour is innate.

[Captain Cardio]

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.