Does pure altruism really exist?

[SteveA]

(I posted something like this on the Morals and More thread but wanted to extend the ideas here)

I believe that truely intentional acts of pure altruism are extremely rare. This doesn't mean that people don't exchange value between themselves (sometimes inequally), but that few people are ever capable of truely helping others at a pure and complete loss to themselves and their interests. Most forms of exchange that appear altruistic can be more accurately seen as social exchanges.

(Warning: Christians may want to skip this paragraph if heresy is too offensive)

Consider even the Christian example of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world. I assume he did this in order fulfill the expectations of God and be rewarded in heaven. Obviously there was a harsh sacrifice expected of him but likely if Jesus had refused to comply with this he would have faced an even harsher fate. Wouldn't it have been a greater sacrifice and purely altruistic sacrifice if he had died in the full knowledge that he would end up burning in hell forever instead?

It seems few of any religions would benefit by preaching true altruism. If a religion said that some great act of helping others would provide no benefit to the person or even rejected such views and claimed helping others is a sin and you'd end up in hell for it, then offering such assistance (especially if it was socially objectionable as well) would be truly altruistic as the person would gain nothing for this assistance.

I can't think of any religions that preach such a view though. Altruism (or truly compassion) is almost by definition the goal of religion and rewarded under Bhuddism. Christianity teaches altruism as moral and offers positive social reinforcement for it as well as perks in the afterlife. Many left wing political views, just as religions, often focus on this as a virtue and provide punishments to deter anti-altruistic actions. So even under left-wing idealogies altruism is still socially encouraged, though often through pain avoidance. So, for example, though there's no immediate benefit to altriusm under communism, at least you avoid punishment by continued compliance, so indirectly it's still beneficial to appear altruistic under communism.

It would seem an act of pure altruism would amount to knowingly commiting a sin and going to hell solely for the sake of others. Is that something that is even humanly possible? I tend to doubt it ... but still welcome contrary views.

[Rave7pt0]

Well, the question is muddled because altruism doesn't require that the helper receive no benefit, just that he not act with regard to whatever benefit may come... that's a whole new dimension of confusion.

[Sandy]

Steve. The world is filled with altruism but most would rather not discuss what they do for others. I was raised by my grandparents who instilled many ways for us to payback some of the many things that were done for us. From the bombing of Pearl Harbor, my own Pacific Coast community volunteered to keep a close watch for enemy planes and ships that might slip into our area of California and hurt us. Even as children we did a lot of work for the American Red Cross and even the Girl Scouts who used to make items for our soldier overseas.

It set a habit in all of us to keep working for others who were in some kind of trouble and many of us have continued through our senior years. Being raised in a television free environment, many of did not get into the TV habit and we tend to socialize through our charity organizations. I have stayed with the Red Cross all these years and added years of hospice work. I'm in my mid 70s and many of the people in my neighborhood are involved in many organizations who build shelters for homeless people who for reason need our help.

I believe you youngsters will grow into a desire for a retired life of altruistic actions.

These are not church affiliations although many do work hours at their local churches. Christians are too limited in their charities and we have found that at some time in one's life, help is needed no matter which God might be mentioned. I am an Atheist and will work with anyone in trouble.

I'm involved in 6 separate organizations and am on the Board of Directors of two of them.

[tinybear]

Of course it's rare. Human beings are not known for their altruism. Everybody knows that.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: SteveA Consider even the Christian example of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world. I assume he did this in order fulfill the expectations of God and be rewarded in heaven.

Steve, the only thing Jesus died for was the break of Roman authority, which he was then murdered for, he didn't die for anything. Maybe he died, then said this is for everyone's sins, but that wouldn't make sense because he was going to die anyway and didn't do it on his own.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I should think a religion with any type of heaven and hell could not support pure altruism, only because people are doing good things hoping to get into heaven and to avoid hell. Or, people do good things to be famous, for rewards, or for certain ending benefits. I've never found an example of anyone who's done a generous deed, then did not profit, was not admired, or was not benefitted in some way in the end.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Well, the question is muddled because altruism doesn't require that the helper receive no benefit, just that he not act with regard to whatever benefit may come... that's a whole new dimension of confusion.

But altruism is, by definition, something selfless. So it is acting for the sake of others with no concern for yourself.

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

I did already state that there are actions people commonly do that are referred to as altruistic but I believe this is largely illusionary, at least from the point of view of the person performing the actions. The help given to others is generally not selfless but is truly part of an exchange but that one end is more tangible while the other is more emotional or socially rewarding. Usually the work to condition that person to enjoy being altruistic was already done prior by society, but the person is still motivated by their emotions and satisfaction, just as they would be for doing other things that people wouldn't view as altruistic.

I think it's important to recognize this because it confuses the issue when people assume altruism still exists even if those being altruistic aren't compensated. In other words, altruism is incorrectly seen as a one way transaction and because of this, altruism becomes devalued and rare. Yes, maybe some purely altruistic actions occur (it's not impossible), but they seem rare.

Quote by: Sandy Steve. The world is filled with altruism but most would rather not discuss what they do for others. I was raised by my grandparents who instilled many ways for us to payback some of the many things that were done for us. From the bombing of Pearl Harbor, my own Pacific Coast community volunteered to keep a close watch for enemy planes and ships that might slip into our area of California and hurt us. Even as children we did a lot of work for the American Red Cross and even the Girl Scouts who used to make items for our soldier overseas.

Yes, these would commonly be considered altruistic by most people but what made these possible? Your grandparents likely were instilled with patriotism and were taught to be proud to help others like this, so they offered to do this for their own personal satisfaction in doing something noble. But consider that under a different set of social morals, they might have preferred the satisfaction of running away and believing they were safer elsewhere.

Regarding something like Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, children seem unlikely to try to sign up so they can make things for soldiers overseas. Instead, to put it under a miscroscope, they attend because of pressures placed upon them by their parents and encourage or discouragement by the leaders when a child assists in things or doesn't.

[quote]It set a habit in all of us to keep working for others who were in some kind of trouble and many of us have continued through our senior years.[quote]

Yes, but doesn't this require some realistic expectation that you truly might be helped in the future or at least a lot of social compensation or a strong internal source of satisfaction for doing this etc., if you're unlikely to ever see any of this assistance returned?

Being raised in a television free environment, many of did not get into the TV habit and we tend to socialize through our charity organizations. I have stayed with the Red Cross all these years and added years of hospice work. I'm in my mid 70s and many of the people in my neighborhood are involved in many organizations who build shelters for homeless people who for reason need our help.

That is very nice and I agree that it would be great to see people able to do this more but I believe that modern trends tend to place the value of these services on a declining track. As usual, I'm specifically referring to government policies.

Consider that many people who receive welfare (whether it be corporate or social) often view this as a right, and often think little about repaying this favor.

When government social assistance first came into play in the U.S., many people even mailed the checks back and wouldn't accept them or felt guity in taking these resources. There was a greater spirit of charity at that time, and people preferred to give instead of take. Now a good number of the people feel receiving such assistance is a right and something that justifies using laws forcefully against others in order to acquire, and in some cases without even hardly a thank you in exchange.

I believe you youngsters will grow into a desire for a retired life of altruistic actions.

I believe that might be the case. It does seem altruism tends to grow as you get older ... especially if you have children

These are not church affiliations although many do work hours at their local churches. Christians are too limited in their charities and we have found that at some time in one's life, help is needed no matter which God might be mentioned. I am an Atheist and will work with anyone in trouble. I'm involved in 6 separate organizations and am on the Board of Directors of two of them.

Well, again congratulations and I can't find any fault to doing this. Truly it would be nice to see more people able and willing to do this but it seems that the trend in many current social view aren't likely to assist this until the value of these are more fully appreciated and respected.

For example, you do these because of the personal satisfaction you receive for these actions. But how did you learn to be satisfied doing these? You likely were raised in an environment that encouraged and rewarded these actions (as it appears from your personal accounts). So truly you do receive compensation for your efforts, even if they be simply in social or emotional rewards though I assume you'd likely have some expectation that these favors might be physically returned as well, if you were in need yourself.

So, the point of this thread is really that, most common acts of altruism are incorrectly seen as one way and ignoring the positive feedback that should be given for altruism degrades the value of it and will likely continue to discourage it further.

[SteveA]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I should think a religion with any type of heaven and hell could not support pure altruism, only because people are doing good things hoping to get into heaven and to avoid hell. Or, people do good things to be famous, for rewards, or for certain ending benefits. I've never found an example of anyone who's done a generous deed, then did not profit, was not admired, or was not benefitted in some way in the end.

How about Bill Gates paying 10 billion in taxes? That's pretty much a one way benefit.

Just kidding. (Truly I think there are many reasons he has motivation to do this but I won't detail them here)

Overall though, I agree with you Soccer.

The problem is that many people fail to see the compensations that people receive. This is by placing too great a focus on pure selfless altruism and ignoring the more common and useful variety which is truly an exchange (like a market economy) of goodwill and assistance.

What's killing the market in altruism (don't ya love the way a capitalist talks about charity?! ) are the increasing number of social 'black holes' that consume resources without even much of an appeciation for the assistance, much less any attempt to return the favor.

Returning to more social/local/communal/family and friends models of charitiable interactions would improve things a lot, IMO. Again, feel free to disagree.

Morality is something taught to us by others. Morals that prove beneficial support a society. A society with good morals that grows and has a surplus relative to other societies can via. charity offer this surplus in exchange for pasing their views of morality to others. Religions operate in this fashion, though this mode of transferring beneficial morals isn't limited to religious views. Economic views like capitalism also can operate this way. But consider that if you isolate the morals of the producer from being passed on to the recipient and replace those with the morals of an intermediary, then things can break down as beneficial and productive morals aren't passed on to others.

I'm thinking of public education and international governmental assistance in that last paragraph. The morals demonstrated through these are the morals of government, and not of those directly able to create this surplus. This provides a warped view of things to the recipient of this assistance and doesn't truly teach them 'how to fish'. It simply gives them a fish by stealing from the fishermen and because they don't directly see the harm, they assume these actions do little harm and support continuation of the 'you have a right to take fish' model. ;D

Quote by: tinybear Of course it's rare. Human beings are not known for their altruism. Everybody knows that.

I don't think this is solely a human trait. Even the male black widow spider, who's eaten after copulating, we can assume didn't fully appreciate the consequences of mating prior to looking for a good time.

If humans differ from animals, it's simply in the complexity of thoughts they're able to evalutate. Maybe not being known for ones altruism is, at least currently, truly intelligent behavior?

[another day]

Altruism does not exist. Everything we do we do for a personal reason...If you do a good deed, it is not just because you want to help someone, you also want to feel better about yourself..it gives a boost of confidence. This applies to everything.

[underbear1]

Altruism may be an ideal not achievable by humans, but rather a goal to aim towards. Giving secretly to a charity, and not being concerned if you would get a tax break, and certainly no acclaim from anyone else, may be as close as we can get to the goal. If you feel better about yourself after giving, you did it the best, you humanly could.

[SteveA]

Thanks again for the replies.

It seems most people agree that altruism, at least as most people typically use the word, is truly part of an exchange but that a large part of the exchange is simply based upon emotional satisfaction (commonly a product of the social values one's taught or learns).

Ignoring the necessity for such an exchange of 'value' does altruism a disservice and reduces the desire people have to provide it. I'm rather certain that few people, even if totally motivated could remain purely altruistic if their efforts were neither appreciated nor encouraged over a long period of time. At a minimum this would dampen the efforts of the individual.

The real reason I brought this up is that we expect greater sacrifices out of many of our citizens, and even use force to assure their compliance.

There are many people who're required to support our current system that not only get the overall short end of the stick but even have little chance of ever breaking even, much less receive a true benefit from it. Maybe others could point out indirect ways they benefit, and let's hope it would be convincing because to truly expect some people in our society to remain supportive of an institution that they feel only serves to harm them is really uncaring. At least with typical altruistic actions, not only are social rewards generally received but it's voluntary as well. Expecting and allowing force to be used against others to enforce greater sacrifices than this seems greedy and very unaltruistic. Imagine calling slavery altruism because the person is acting selflessly. Attempting to promote such a relation, as legitimate, is oppressive as well. Yet we have some people who not only encourage government programs that do effectively this but add to it by adopting the attitude that it's not only a right, but seem to enjoy twisting it a bit deeper, as if they were seeking revenge for some imagined wrong. I'm probably too harsh, as much of this is simply done through ignorance but encouraging this behavior only allows greater abuses of it.

I recognize there have been and still are (and likely always will be) injustices that need to be remedied and some of those regard wealth or power that's been unjustly acquired but reclaiming those by force should be a part of seeking justice for some true injustice and not be a part of 'business as usual' oppressing innocent people.

So yes there are unjustly acquired imbalances of power. Often these occur through fraudulent or forceful means of theft or effective slavery but I think people should focus on where and how these happen and deter them from continuing. If we simply expect those capable of being productive to simply become slaves and continue working harder and for less reward in order to make up for these losses and inefficiencies, things will eventually just fall apart in a chaotic and damaging fashion. Who knows, maybe we truly can simply keep increasing taxes and spending and add more social safety nets forever, more and more until everyone prefers sitting in the wagon, while noone wants to pull it. Is that when whips, muzzles and harnesses to keep the wagon moving are mandatory for all? I doubt you'd hear many more cries for government enforced selfless atruism then and suddenly the benefit of everyone retaining their self interests would become apparent.

[anak]

Is Altruism Real or an Illusion?

enlighten yourself with this article. view it with openness and you will learn more about yourself and the human race. expand your self-knowledge, realize that every action you do is for the benefit of yourself. to some it may seem very cold, but you cannot deny our social programming.

[anak]

james 1:17
"every good gift and every perfect gift is from above"

modified:
every good gift and every perfect gift is from an ego and is issued to benefit that ego (i'm no shakespeare!)

ode to the evolution of religion...

[samsara15]

Being on the board of organizations is having a controlling influence, and therefore seldom altrusitic.

[anak]

Vexen Crabtree is my hero . you want to know the truth?... click on my link in my previous post and read, examine, scrutinize, and digest.

[pikatore]

Studies were done to see why people helped others. It was found that when a person saw another person in pain, the same neurons fired that would have fired if that person him or herself felt the pain. Hence, they understand the pain and can sympathise with it.

BUT that would make any act of help a selfish act, wouldnt it? That would even mean that dieing for another person would always contain a smidget of self-centeredness.

Pure altruism is a concept, like a pure and perfect God. From a biological point of view, its not possible.

[anak]

pikatore, it would be AWESOME if you could post a link, or two, or three, to support that.

Just today I had an argument with a guy in my school's Christian Ethics class and I explained to him our 'human nature' and our 'natural responses of altruism'... like you explained, about the neurons. I mostly focused on the "triggers" that go off in your brain when you help someone... a feeling of happiness. I think its the dopamine production. That article I posted before explains this, I'm sure.

But all he said that he has seen "true acts of altruism" ... but offered no real examples and kinda just repeated that the entire discussion. I got him thinkin', you know it.

[pikatore]

ALTRUISM AND MIRROR NEURONS: Darwin Dawkins Rizzolatti
Science: Human Behavior and Mirror Neurons - washingtonpost.com

[Occam]

The argument that altruism can be rejected because it makes the person feel good about him/herself is a cop-out. The question must be, is the action likely to result in some benefit to the performer (other than feeling good about him/herself). If not then it's altruistic.

Suppose you are walking through a mall parking lot and see a roofing nail pointing up in the middle of the driveway. This means the next car that rruns over it is very likely to get a flat tire. Do you a) chuckle at the person's pain, )b) shrug your shoulders, say, "it doesn't affect me" and go on, or
c) Pick up the nail and throw it in the trash can, knowing that you saved someone some pain, but also knowing that no one will ever recognize that you helped?

If you chose c) you performed an altruistic act.

Occam

[Hostile55]

The argument that altruism can be rejected because it makes the person feel good about him/herself is a cop-out. The question must be, is the action likely to result in some benefit to the performer (other than feeling good about him/herself). If not then it's altruistic

It's not a cop out. It is a very good point. If you do something for someone else; why ? Out of a sense of loyalty. Because you will feel uncomfortable if you don't. Because you will feel good if you do. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We are all hard wired to serve our own desires. Regardless of the action the end is always self contentment.