Is Altruism an Illusion?

[Michael Raizer]

Is altruism a tangible manifestation, or is it merely an illusion masking man's innate selfishness?

[nerdvincent]

Nietzsche would agree with the 2nd option: altruism is hypocrisy, pity is sadism...

[Walrus]

I would say that altruism is intrinsically selfish, in that one gains benefit from performing an altruistic act, even if that benefit is simply a feel good factor or a momentary release from guilt.

[SoylentGreen]

And what feel good factor do you get if you sacrifice your life for another?

Altruism does happen within the animal kingdom:

# Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

The problem of altruism is intimately connected with questions about the level at which natural selection acts. If selection acts exclusively at the individual level, favouring some individual organisms over others, then altruism cannot evolve, for behaving altruistically is disadvantageous for the individual organism itself, by definition. However, it is possible that altruism may be advantageous at the group level. A group containing lots of altruists, each ready to subordinate their own selfish interests for the greater good of the group, may well have a survival advantage over a group composed mainly or exclusively of selfish organisms. A process of between-group selection may thus allow the altruistic behaviour to evolve. Within each group, altruists will be at a selective disadvantage relative to their selfish colleagues, but the fitness of the group as a whole will be enhanced by the presence of altruists. Groups composed only or mainly of selfish organisms go extinct, leaving behind groups containing altruists. In the example of the Vervet monkeys, a group containing a high proportion of alarm-calling monkeys will have a survival advantage over a group containing a lower proportion. So conceivably, the alarm-calling behaviour may evolve by between-group selection, even though within each group, individual selection favours monkeys that do not give alarm calls.

Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So will you argue that animals have feel good feelings or suffer from guilt?

[Chaossaber314]

If altruism is done with selfish intentions, then it isn't truly altruistic.

The bulk of altruistic acts are not performed with the time necessary to calculate such intent. You pull over to help someone stranded on the side of the road. You pick up a $20 bill that someone just dropped and return it to them etc. Most of these decisions are made spur of the moment impulsively. Ergo, there is no time to give yourself a selfish reason for doing most altruistic acts.

However, there are examples of people doing things for selfish reasons or people doing good things because it will make them feel good. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I argue this isn't altruism at all negating the point.

[Walrus]

Quote by: SoylentGreen And what feel good factor do you get if you sacrifice your life for another? Altruism does happen within the animal kingdom: Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) So will you argue that animals have feel good feelings or suffer from guilt?

Yes, there isn’t a lot of benefit to be gained if you’re dead. I think the benefit should be seen as potential rather than after the fact for it needs to inspire the act in order for it to take place.

Although I was thinking in human terms, what may be seen as altruism certainly does take place within other species, particularly those with complex social structures where the survival of the whole is more important than the survival of the individual.

[Walrus]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 If altruism is done with selfish intentions, then it isn't truly altruistic. The bulk of altruistic acts are not performed with the time necessary to calculate such intent. You pull over to help someone stranded on the side of the road. You pick up a $20 bill that someone just dropped and return it to them etc. Most of these decisions are made spur of the moment impulsively. Ergo, there is no time to give yourself a selfish reason for doing most altruistic acts. However, there are examples of people doing things for selfish reasons or people doing good things because it will make them feel good. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I argue this isn't altruism at all negating the point.

I agree with your first point, I don’t think true altruism exists, certainly not in human terms, what we see as altruism probably stems from reciprocal altruism. However, in answer to the examples you gave; I would say that if altruism is intrinsically selfish, then it probably doesn’t require a time in which to calculate intent.

[Michael Raizer]

Altruism occurs when the individual does not need any reimbursement or validation from the outcome of his actions. Maslow would call this self-actualization.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Michael Raizer Is altruism a tangible manifestation, or is it merely an illusion masking man's innate selfishness?

What?

Selfishness is the illusion, not altruism.

Any action that an individual takes to help himself is really, when all is said and done, only taken because of some altruistic intent.

Selfishness is an illusion masking man's innate altruism.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Walrus I would say that altruism is intrinsically selfish, in that one gains benefit from performing an altruistic act, even if that benefit is simply a feel good factor or a momentary release from guilt.

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.

[Walrus]

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.

I am not sure that self interest can be taken as an absolute benefit to society. If for example there are limited resources essential for a society’s survival and one person selfishly keeps those recourses solely for their own use, then surly that would be detrimental to that society?

[Morality Games]

I find the problem in debates about egoism and altruism usually has something to do with language, mind, and actuality. Here, people are being led astray by false impressions of language to think memories and insincts can be substituted for emotions like expectation.

I will quote a refined version of something I once wrote on this topic:

The notion egoism and altruism must be at odds is the only illusion in the matter. Although many versions of both ideas fail at particular points, in abstract form, many of their features reflect humanity's collective experience well enough that they can be considered functional descriptions of actualities. Rather than being placed in either-or, one-must-be-right-and-the-other-must-be-wrong positions, the two ideas ought to be synthesized to the point they embody a duality of ideas which contributes positively to an effective understanding of the state of things. 'Egoism' is true in so far as it points out the aim of beings is to, in a very broad and variable sense, seek their own advantage, and 'altruism' is true in so far as it points out, in a more narrow sense, that it is possible for beings to contribute positively to other's experiences without expectations of receiving anything in return. The ideas are reconcilable since, whether because of nonconscious memories or instincts, a being can exist in a manner where they do not expect positive experiences and yet still acquire positive experiences, at least in part, because they did not expect them. Just because this reinforces the probability they will continue behaving that way does not necessarily mean they are expecting something in return. In this particular instance, 'advantage' refers to positive emotional experiences. To clarify, 'expectation' cannot be realistically feigned to exist in a state other than an immediate conscious experience. Unthought about memories and instincts relating to prior circumstances cannot be substituted for the emotion of expectation. The illusion that such substitutions are realistic derives from certain applications of language, which, while workable in a specific context, become dysfunctional when applied to other situations. A statement like, "I expected you would help me fix my boat," emerges in reaction to the speaker's memory of an emotion they experienced at an earlier point. A false impression is created in some listener's minds when they associate this emotion too closely with the memory the speaker is using as a reference to the fact he once felt a certain way. These listeners wrongly think 'emotion' and 'memory' here refer to the same objective. However, the features and consequent applications of emotion and memory are too different for them to be considered the same thing, so confusing 'expectation' and the 'memory of expectation' for equivalents is hallucinatory.

So, from these three paragraphs, it should be clear how misunderstandings of what language means in relation to the mind and the rest of the world have led to faulty conceptions of egoism and altruism.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Walrus I am not sure that self interest can be taken as an absolute benefit to society. If for example there are limited resources essential for a society’s survival and one person selfishly keeps those recourses solely for their own use, then surly that would be detrimental to that society?

If a resource was truly that limited, then society would not find it essential for its survival.

[Objectivist]

Is man properly altruistic? Altruism is the idea that the highest moral duty of man is to sacrifice himself to other men. The basic premise is that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake, that he's only moral if he lives for the sake of others.

Altruism dictates that the self is the standard of evil and that the selfless is the standard of good. In other words, any action done for the benefit of others is good; any action done for the benefit of yourself is evil.

Existentially, altruism is an allusion. One cannot breath for another, one cannot eat for another, one cannot think for another, one cannot live for another. Any action that you do that is essential to your survival is, fundamentally, selfish or egoistic.

Yet selfishness and egoism—living for yourself, has been declared evil by almost every single religion and belief structure known to man. Why? Because it is only through a code of altruism that one man can control and enslave another man to himself. If people believe that it is proper to live only for the sake of another man, they will be complacent when someone forces them to sustain the tribe, the group, the collective, the proletariat, the society, etc. through their own work and sacrifices.

If on the other hand, a person believes that it is proper for man to live only for himself and not for the sake of another man... you see the opposite. You see a group of men that live not through force and coercion, but peace and trade.

The basic result of holding altruism as an actual, attainable virtue is unearned guilt. Men cannot live for other men, so why try? When you do try you just end up suffering and your are miserable. This is why Christianity claims that men are doomed to suffer on earth: because men are unable to live up to altruism's moral code. Don't question the code though... doubt the man. This is the reason why humanity has suffered through so much.

Note: The middle ages was the dominant age of altruism. The formation of the USA and of the immense economic prosperity capitalism brought to the world was the product of the Enlightenment, when philosophers upheld reason and upheld the idea that every man is an end in himself.

[Walrus]

Quote by: Objectivist If a resource was truly that limited, then society would not find it essential for its survival.

Food and water are essential for survival; at times of drought and famine those recourses will probably become limited.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Walrus Food and water are essential for survival; at times of drought and famine those recourses will probably become limited.

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

[SoylentGreen]

Objectivist Altruism is the idea that the highest moral duty of man is to sacrifice himself to other men. The basic premise is that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake, that he's only moral if he lives for the sake of others.

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.

altruism 1. Loving others as oneself. 2. Behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. 3. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others [Italian: altrui others] French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word altruisme (with meaning 3) in 1851, and two years later it entered the English language as altruism. 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 evolved. Now universal in evolutionary theory, meaning 2 was coined by scientists exploring how unselfish behaviour could have evolved. It is applied not only to people (psychological altruism), but also to animals and even plants.

Altruism - What Is It?

I would think Comte would disagree with your interpretation.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Walrus Yes, there isn’t a lot of benefit to be gained if you’re dead.

Of course there is. Martyrdom? Infamy? Ancestry? Isn't Dahmer now an immortal, at least in the realm of humans?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Muckraker Of course there is. Martyrdom? Infamy? Ancestry? Isn't Dahmer now an immortal, at least in the realm of humans?

And that benefits the dead person who has no idea he is now famous.
In what way exactly

[Muckraker]

Quote by: SoylentGreen And that benefits the dead person who has no idea he is now famous. In what way exactly

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.