Altruism Doesn't Exist

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Joe Shmoe — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:25:31 GMT

Didn't I see a less wordy version of this argument on an episode of Friends? Tres Intellectuel!

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Brainpolice — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:56:23 GMT

So long as the concern is YOUR concern, even if the concern is FOR others, it is still YOUR concern and therefore it cannot be said to be genuinely "selfless". So long as you purposefully engage in the action, it is not "selfless" as the motivation for the action derives in your own mind, even if in your own mind you rationalize that action as being for the benefit of others. The very act of rationalizing an action defeats the "selflessness". So long as the rationalization for the motivation takes place inside his own mind, the guy who jumps on the live hand grenade is not truly "selfless". Once he dies, of course, he is.

Also, you seem to make the common mistake of assuming that egoism means atomism or solipsism, as if it implies that human action takes place in a vacuum without respect to interpersonal relations. But no egoist has ever taken such a view to my knowledge. The point, at least from the standpoint of psychological egoism, is merely that purposeful human action is driven by self-interested motivation, that motivation itself inherently involves self-reflection. The point, from the standpoint of methodological individualism, is that large-scale human interrelations must be understood as a cumulative result of individual actors rather than holistically.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

TomG — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:39:38 GMT

"Selfless concern for the welfare of others" is what The American Heritage Dictionary pocket edition I have defines as Atruism. Sounds like empathy and (in action) benevolence to me - no conflation at all. Self-reflection just feeds egoism. whereas human experience (especially amongst the muck and rabble) lends itself to seeing that we're not alone in the toil and travails of existence. And yes indeed, if one has the conviction that good acts toward his/her fellow person renders browney points in the afterlife, then even that can be interpreted as still end-oriented (in fact, *very*-end so). But there are those who have died for principles - such as a Thomas More - without a concern for how it optimizes their own interest/position, but simply because it was the right thing to do. Praytell how do you explain the guy who decides to jump on the live hand grenade that drops in the trench - in order for his fellow comrades to survive it? Thanks.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Brainpolice — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:58:51 GMT

"It's no different than my trying to argue with staunch anarchists about the fact that things are the way they are because that's how they should be (i.e. would be, given the state of being and mankind that's been dealt) - while they scream 'til blue in the face that people just haven't gotten enlightened enough to have faith in their anti-statist truths (and I'm *not* arguing against Misesean revealed praxis, etc - but it's more the unachievable ideal to be strived for, but not lamented for never being reached perfectly - since it can't any more than any other Utopian end in a most flawful universe)."

The idea that things are the way they are because that's how they should be, or that things necessarily have to be the way they are is a very unlibertarian view of things. It's a rather conservative view of stagnation, an apologetic for current conditions under the false guise of realism. It does not logically follow that because things are certain way they must always be that way. The world is dynamic, not static.

Furthermore, I never put foreward the notion that people aren't enlightened enough, so as far as this particular conversation goes that is a straw man. I also reject the disingenous notion that anarchism is utopian, as I readily concede the imperfections of human nature. Hobbesian or negative notions of human nature, however, do not justify the state. In fact, it would logically follow that if humans are incapable of self-rule they aren't any more capable of sensible ruling eachother. All negative assumptions about human nature apply equally if not moreso to the state, as the state is nothing but an institution made up of human beings.

"So, most simply put, if someone wants to believe that there's never been a sane person capable of caring about his/her fellow man even at his/her own expense (or even death!) then there's nothing anyone can do to force that perception/revelation (it's either realized in time as possible or one goes to the end thinking fallaciously (and there's no safety in numbers when it comes to confronting and rejecting truth - only groupthink and mutual delusion). Delving into the Randian "virtue of selfishness" arena for a sec, there's no virtue in it at all - only necessity to take care of one's own affairs first, in order to become of use in helping others too (which is really the root of all happiness all the while)."

But once again here you fall into the typical trap of conflating altruism with all empathy and benevolence, when clearly that is not what altruism is or means. I merely posit that empathy or sympathy for others arises from self-reflection (as Herbert Spencer noted in Social Statics). People respect the rights of others to the extent that they respect their own rights. I merely put foreward the notion that all human action is end-oriented, that all desire involves the self and cannot take place without some kind of incentive on the part of the actor, which may broadly be defined as "percieved self-interest" by the very least. I don't see how you've presented any real argument against these premises.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

TomG — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:34:58 GMT

If someone (or a movement) cares to define any act of selflessness as phony, delusional or insane then there's really no point in countering that belief with anecdotal examples - plentiful though they may be. In order for someone to see a different view of reality, it would take putting on a different pair of glasses that allow such light to penetrate the otherwise impenetrable filters that maintain that upheld paradigm. It's no different than my trying to argue with staunch anarchists about the fact that things are the way they are because that's how they should be (i.e. would be, given the state of being and mankind that's been dealt) - while they scream 'til blue in the face that people just haven't gotten enlightened enough to have faith in their anti-statist truths (and I'm *not* arguing against Misesean revealed praxis, etc - but it's more the unachievable ideal to be strived for, but not lamented for never being reached perfectly - since it can't any more than any other Utopian end in a most flawful universe). So, most simply put, if someone wants to believe that there's never been a sane person capable of caring about his/her fellow man even at his/her own expense (or even death!) then there's nothing anyone can do to force that perception/revelation (it's either realized in time as possible or one goes to the end thinking fallaciously (and there's no safety in numbers when it comes to confronting and rejecting truth - only groupthink and mutual delusion). Delving into the Randian "virtue of selfishness" arena for a sec, there's no virtue in it at all - only necessity to take care of one's own affairs first, in order to become of use in helping others too (which is really the root of all happiness all the while).

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Brainpolice — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:36:34 GMT

Tw:

I don't see how I'm setting up an oversimplified dychotomy. In fact, the point of this little writting here kind of breaks the typical dychotomy between egoism and altruism, as it rules out the possibility of the altruism side of the equation as being a reasonable descriptor of human action.

Actually I think a hardcore Objectivist might actually disagree with what I'm saying here. It certainly is not Objectivist propaganda, and I most certainly am not an Objectivist (with a large O at least).

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

zsignal — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:30:54 GMT

And you are on this site......

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

tw — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:06:02 GMT

This is why I do not identify myself as an Austrian nor participate with Austrians, even that I have Austrian beliefs. Austrians ramble oversimplified dichotomies, like egoism and altruism. Neither egoism nor altruism exist. Just because it is the individual is selfishly motivated to be altruistic by his genetic code, it does not mean that his motivation is egoistic. I would not waste time and argue. It is neither. Egoism and altruism are <i>definitional</i> fallacies, and altruism is not a subset of egoism. Sorry, but I see this blog post as Objectivist propaganda. <a href="en.wikipedia.org/.../Philosophical_egosim">Philosophical egosim</a> has been refuted. Oversimplified dichotomies would be nihilistic at the "fundamental level."

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

twv — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:13:04 GMT

This is what comes from taking metaphysics and ontology too seriously, above a critical common sense position.

Sure, you can define altruism out of existence by appealing to the usual essentialist baggage of ancient philosophy, but you don't contribute anything to the understanding of real-world egoism or altruism. You are merely playing with words.

It is not for nothing that Walter Kauffmann defined ontology as "the pseudoscience of being."

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Katee — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:50:15 GMT

"look only at the very impetus that wills potency to act..."

By that logic, it is really quite cyclical and in my opinion, very much subject to one's interpretation of human psychology and or one's subjective motivations manifested though actions. The very impetus, as you put it, would be self motivated. Wither that is a sacrificial action is irrelevant.

I never denied the possibility of a "selfless act" as I mentioned I do not believe it to be rational. Now we do act irrationality, but even those actions...a man taking a bullet for his wife, pushing a child out of the way of a car, neither actions are rational, but neither are purely altruistic within the drawn out framework. When I mentioned the "begger" example, it's not that we are being altruistic or selfless when we give him money, we are alleviating our own guilt, a arguably selfish motive. On the other hand, some may argue that rationale is bullarky and splitting hairs.

I can't say for certain but Hegel would not agree all humans are purely selfish. In his (sometimes) pseudo religious reasoning would bring up the greatest sacrifice Christ made for all of humanity. That is contingent that you believe in Christ, and you are willing to accept theology into this conversation.

As I said it is really all dependent on you're perspective.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

TomG — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:02:01 GMT

Katie concluded: "If those actions happen to be of a "unselfish" nature, it would be purely coincidental."

if we can get past the semantical, contextual, and even etymological distinctions in meaning to the term "a selfless act" - and look only at what the very impetus that wills potency to act, then can one see conditions for the subordination of self-maximization (ie. actual relative sacrifice) for the sake of the extra-self's improved state (regardless of actual outcome). Now one could argue that this motivation is a moment of demostrated irrationality - but it doesn't negate the essence of having committed a selfless act, that may even have self-optimizing spinoff or direct consequences. Again, what was the intent, the motivation, the very will for setting potency to act.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Katee — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:46:20 GMT

lol dingaling....no need to thank me

after all I got where I am needed....

BTW I joined your board...I finally petered out on PG =)

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Brainpolice — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:16:53 GMT

Thanks for the very thoughtful comment.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Kate — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:40:25 GMT

I agree. I think it really depends on the philosophical theory or "ego theory."

1. Empirical (like cynicism)

All human beings are selfish, all "apparently" unselfish actions are at deep motivated by selfish motivations.

Dogmatic denials of unselfish nature of humans is going against the evidence. How do we explain the self-sacrificing behaviors of the past? On the other hand, take Hobbs, he said that people only form communities and co-operate for selfish reasons. The classic example is "giving to the begger to relieve our own guilt."

2. Verbal (words "want," "likes")

This is pretty much a issue of linguistics. That a desire by any name is still selfish. No matter what you call it, or define it as.

3. Rationalism (only selfish motives are rational)

I agree that actions which are motivated by self-interest are far more rationale than those motivated by altruism. This idea is applied to all sorts of area of politics for example. Generally people who act in the most rationale manner are deemed to be "greedy" or "conscienceless" because self-serving is frowned upon. However, it is obvious to anyone with a IQ over -1 that even the most unselfish policy initiatives, are still serving a particular group more than another. Such is the logic behind lobbying, your cause may seem "altruistic" but even if your reward is not monetary in nature you are still receiving perhaps, intangible or institutional benefits. Why would an individual ignore his or her own welfare for no good purpose? Ultimately, altruism is a unachievable end (its almost against human survival instinct), which borders on almost being comically quixotic.

4. Purely Nietzschean (good = selfish, bad= unselfish)

Okay. So would we be a better world if we honestly based morality on self-interest rather than high handed tales of altruism? That view--in his opinion--would require a relativistic view of truth, contrary to western theological teachings. Society makes us believe that our positive aims should be-at least publicly- altruistic or unselfish. He claims that men are either "slaves" to a lower morality and envy those "higher" men who are able to escape such frivolity. The higher morality he spoke of was being free, individualistic, autocratic, whereas in the slave he saw pitying, chartable, conformist, helpful. Hence from this we get the concept of "necessary fiction" that these people need moral codes. There is far to much to talk about here.

I don't believe in altruism, I am a rationale person who acts with my best intention at heart, so to speak. If those actions happen to be of a "unselfish" nature, it would be purely coincidental.

re: Altruism Doesn't Exist

Brainpolice — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:39:24 GMT

Right. That's why, in ontological and psychological and praxeological terms, I don't see how it's possible for one to actually fullfill altruism, as in consistantly enter a state a being that is truly "selfless". Motivation can never be truly "selfless" because it involves the self and reflection thereof in order to take place.