GENIUS FORUMS

Question for those who don't believe in altruism:

Do you think an action could be considered altruism if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action that has an incidental side effect of helping others?

What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.

Say for a simple example, a selfish Christian who gives money to charity in order to get into Heaven, but his giving money feeds lots of children and perhaps saves their lives, even though he might be sociopathic and not even give a crap about children.

Couldn't that be considered altruistic or does altruism absolutely have to have a conscious motive that corresponds with an altruistic result? If so, why? Why can't altruism happen unconsciously? Is it just the bad feeling we get when we have to call sociopaths altruistic?

Matt Gregory wrote:Question for those who don't believe in altruism:

Do you think an action could be considered altruism if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action that has an incidental side effect of helping others?

What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.

Say for a simple example, a selfish Christian who gives money to charity in order to get into Heaven, but his giving money feeds lots of children and perhaps saves their lives, even though he might be sociopathic and not even give a crap about children.

Couldn't that be considered altruistic or does altruism absolutely have to have a conscious motive that corresponds with an altruistic result? If so, why? Why can't altruism happen unconsciously? Is it just the bad feeling we get when we have to call sociopaths altruistic?

Your selfish-Christian, who gives money in order to get himself into heaven, is not being altruistic by virtue of how you have defined him, not because of his faith.

Altruism is possible through actions that put others above yourself. Like giving money to helpless children without expecting anything for yourself in return.

average wrote: Altruism is possible through actions that put others above yourself. Like giving money to helpless children without expecting anything for yourself in return.

Has it occurred to you that this sort of charity might be driven by the desire to escape from the pain of guilt, or shame, to feel good, to appear to others as though one is good, or simply to think of oneself in a flattering way? (e.g.; look at the noble thing I've done, I must be a very good person, etc, etc.)

Being charitable is quite a drug in my experience. Giving to others feels good, it makes you appear good to yourself and others. Politicians love charity.

Most people resort to charity after they've done things they are ashamed of, and so they are charitable to bolster their self esteem, outweigh their shame, repair their souls, justify evil deeds, or simply promote themselves to the public.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Has it occurred to you that this sort of charity might be driven by the desire to escape from the pain of guilt, or shame, to feel good, to appear to others as though one is good, or simply to think of oneself in a flattering way? (e.g.; look at the noble thing I've done, I must be a very good person, etc, etc.)

Sure, it might be that way, in which case the act isn't altruistic. But I don't see any reason why it must always necessarily be this way.

Matt Gregory wrote:Question for those who don't believe in altruism:

Do you think an action could be considered altruistic if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action, is an incidental side effect, helping others?

Sure, it could be, if that's the way you want to define it. I personally don't think it's a good idea. If the meaning of a word becomes too broad, it erodes the purpose of their being a distinct word to begin with.

What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.

Right. In the sense that you're getting at, we're all unconsciously altruistic. I see what you mean, good point.

Couldn't that be considered altruistic or does altruism absolutely have to have a conscious motive that corresponds with an altruistic result? If so, why?

Altruism has traditionally been defined to mean, giving selflessly, without a selfish motive. But you can define a word however you please.

Why can't altruism happen unconsciously?

Because then we would all be altruistic. The word would become superfluous. The problem also is that selfishness or selflessness only has meaning relative to values. If we value expanding our knowledge of psychology and neuroendocrinology, a serial killer might actually give a lot of useful information to us, unwittingly. However, if we value emotional well being among family relationships, then serial killers are very selfish.

Whether or not they are altruistic, depends on what light you view them in, which depends on your values. Also, whether or not they are altruistic depends on whether or not you define the word to allow for unconscious altruism. And if you do allow for that, then we are all altruistic in some way or another. Interestingly, a big part of enlightenment of course is not ending your ego, but realizing your ego wasn't there to begin with. We are all going about our business selflessly, in a sense.

Is it just the bad feeling we get when we have to call sociopaths altruistic?

That's a good point. Serial killers, or any abnormality in personality, are arguably useful in helping man understand his own soul. Abnormality is simply normality under a magnifying glass. So in that sense, problematic personalities are great opportunities to learn because we have such a good excuse to rob them of their sense of free will, and use them for study.

Matt;

Do you think an action could be considered altruism if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action that has an incidental side effect of helping others?

Which action is not “selfish” to begin with?

Say if I even sacrifice my life for whatever reasons, it necessarily satisfies my SELF in one way or another. It is necessarily a self-centered action. So I don’t really understand what true ‘altruism’ would be like. I don’t see the possibility at its core; otherwise, comparatively speaking, it could only be considered as a matter of degree, but cannot be achieved in an absolute sense.

To the degree that you have an ego, you are going to be motivated by the search for emotional happiness, which makes it impossible to engage in a purely altruistic act.

Only Buddhas can be said to engage in altruistic activity, as they are the only ones who are completely beyond the stage of seeking egotistical rewards in what they do.

-

Average,

MG: Question for those who don't believe in altruism:

Do you think an action could be considered altruism if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action that has an incidental side effect of helping others?

What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.

Say for a simple example, a selfish Christian who gives money to charity in order to get into Heaven, but his giving money feeds lots of children and perhaps saves their lives, even though he might be sociopathic and not even give a crap about children.

Couldn't that be considered altruistic or does altruism absolutely have to have a conscious motive that corresponds with an altruistic result? If so, why? Why can't altruism happen unconsciously? Is it just the bad feeling we get when we have to call sociopaths altruistic?


A: Your selfish-Christian, who gives money in order to get himself into heaven, is not being altruistic by virtue of how you have defined him, not because of his faith.

I didn't say it was because of his faith.

A: Altruism is possible through actions that put others above yourself. Like giving money to helpless children without expecting anything for yourself in return.

Where do a person's intentions come from? I mean, do they spontaneously pop up in a person for no reason or are they caused by something?

Matt Gregory wrote:Do the intentions to give money to helpless children without expecting anything for yourself in return pop up out of nowhere or do they have a cause?

Things have causes. Intentions, ideas, purpose (etc) have reasons.

This is the distinction between physics and metaphysics.

If things (matter) temporally precede reason(s) (materialism), then all reasons are a sub-category of things and are thus caused.

If reasons (mind) temporally precede things (idealism), then all things are a sub-category of reasons and thus causality is illusory.

Altruism is a judgment, not an act. And it comes after the act/fact and it is rendered as such by whether it pleases the values of those of us who look on and judge it accordingly or not.

Every human act is performed in self-interest; no unself-interested act is possible. That some humans place their values over their comfort - and sometimes even their lives - does not mitigate this circumstance. The person diving into the torrential river to save the other is, and can only do so, based upon value held dear, instinctual or reasoned. The soldier in war, the martyr, the everyday-being who donates to others what he might keep to himself - all have their private values to serve, for values are the purest expression of this fundamental, inescapable self-interest. Values - for many - are higher than life itself, hence so many willing to die from their own self-interest in serving them.

We are using our own self-interest when we judge the motions and actions of another as altruistic or not. And they will be judged so if it serves our own notion/values of what ought to be done. They judge themselves the same way. No act is motivated by altruism, but by self-interest. And no act is judged altruistic but by our own self-interested values.

Pye wrote:Every human act is performed in self-interest

This is very true. Even the behaviour of an egoless Buddha arises out of the personal values of that same Buddha. And everything a Buddha does is only to serve his or her own purpose.

Kevin writes:

This is very true. Even the behaviour of an egoless Buddha arises out of the personal values of that same Buddha. And everything a Buddha does is only to serve his or her own purpose.

Well and good, but perhaps some sort of delineation is needed from you between "ego" and "self-interest."

Cory,

MG: Question for those who don't believe in altruism:

Do you think an action could be considered altruistic if it is the result of an ordinary, selfish action, is an incidental side effect, helping others?

CD: Sure, it could be, if that's the way you want to define it. I personally don't think it's a good idea. If the meaning of a word becomes too broad, it erodes the purpose of their being a distinct word to begin with.

No, I don't want to redefine the word. I want to take the dictionary definition of "selflessness" and see if it can possibly exist in any form.

MG: What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.


CD: Right. In the sense that you're getting at, we're all unconsciously altruistic. I see what you mean, good point.

You think every single person benefits other people in some way?

MG: Couldn't that be considered altruistic or does altruism absolutely have to have a conscious motive that corresponds with an altruistic result? If so, why?

CD: Altruism has traditionally been defined to mean, giving selflessly, without a selfish motive. But you can define a word however you please.

OK.

MG: Why can't altruism happen unconsciously?

CD: Because then we would all be altruistic. The word would become superfluous. The problem also is that selfishness or selflessness only has meaning relative to values. If we value expanding our knowledge of psychology and neuroendocrinology, a serial killer might actually give a lot of useful information to us, unwittingly. However, if we value emotional well being among family relationships, then serial killers are very selfish.

Whether or not they are altruistic, depends on what light you view them in, which depends on your values.

Which definition of altruism are you using here, because I thought you said it had to do with the person's motive, which is independent of the values of the person judging the act.

CD: Also, whether or not they are altruistic depends on whether or not you define the word to allow for unconscious altruism. And if you do allow for that, then we are all altruistic in some way or another. Interestingly, a big part of enlightenment of course is not ending your ego, but realizing your ego wasn't there to begin with. We are all going about our business selflessly, in a sense.

I guess it depends on what definition of ego you are using.

MG: Is it just the bad feeling we get when we have to call sociopaths altruistic?

CD: That's a good point. Serial killers, or any abnormality in personality, are arguably useful in helping man understand his own soul. Abnormality is simply normality under a magnifying glass. So in that sense, problematic personalities are great opportunities to learn because we have such a good excuse to rob them of their sense of free will, and use them for study.

Even so, I find it hard to not laugh at the idea of calling someone altruistic because he's so non-altruistic.

Sapius,

Which action is not “selfish” to begin with?

Say if I even sacrifice my life for whatever reasons, it necessarily satisfies my SELF in one way or another. It is necessarily a self-centered action. So I don’t really understand what true ‘altruism’ would be like. I don’t see the possibility at its core; otherwise, comparatively speaking, it could only be considered as a matter of degree, but cannot be achieved in an absolute sense.

Yes, I'm not disputing that actions are performed selfishly. I was playing with the idea that the "selfless" part of it would not be part of the conscious action but part of the indirect consequences of it. I gave an example.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
altruism
Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Not specific to humans.

MG: What made me think of this is the thought that an action's short term result and its long term result are often much different.

CD: Right. In the sense that you're getting at, we're all unconsciously altruistic. I see what you mean, good point.

You think every single person benefits other people in some way?

A single person may do nothing but harm to another individual, but the consequences of his harmful act must also indirectly give a significant amount of energy and benefit to someone else. Truman Capote investigated the intricacies of a multiple murder, and produced an enlightening novel, in part, as a result of these murders.

Hitler, although doing direct harm in the immediate to persons, has been a cause contributing to many books, films, and ultimately self-awareness.

Whether or not they are altruistic, depends on what light you view them in, which depends on your values.

Which definition of altruism are you using here, because I thought you said it had to do with the person's motive, which is independent of the values of the person judging the act.

Well, consider this: if someone gives selflessly, but harms the person he gives to (due to the nature of what he is giving) is he being altruistic?

Even so, I find it hard to not laugh at the idea of calling someone altruistic because he's so non-altruistic.

I agree, it's laughable. But a perpetual 'involuntarily and inadvertent giving' may simply be the fate of all things. Not that we should call it altruistic.

Truth comes close to pure altruism in the sense that while it might benefit humanity, wisdom or reason as whole, there are not many examples available it actually benefited the truthful individual.

Being honest and direct is not the same by the way since that's only saying something about the method of expression, no matter if it's a lie or a truth that is being communicated.

Cory: Has it occurred to you that this sort of charity might be driven by the desire to escape from the pain of guilt, or shame, to feel good, to appear to others as though one is good, or simply to think of oneself in a flattering way?

Average: Sure, it might be that way, in which case the act isn't altruistic. But I don't see any reason why it must always necessarily be this way.

Altruism as general mechanism to serve the species at the expense of individuals (like the military) could very well be activated at a lower level by (fear of) guilt, shame, wanting to look good or just getting payed or being bored.

Altruism is not an underlying motive itself, it's just an outward behavior, a description of the result. I think it has many possible causes, some even highly delusional. As if our instincts care about the why, as long it gets the job done. But instincts are not always right - they are too much damaged for that in humans anyway; fucked up is the right word.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Altruism as general mechanism to serve the species at the expense of individuals (like the military) could very well be activated at a lower level by (fear of) guilt, shame, wanting to look good or just getting payed or being bored.

The behavior of vampire bats is often taken as an example of altruism. It's clear that it does have benefits to the individual. In humans, as well, part of the benefit of altruism could be maintaining a culture of altruism, which acts as a kind of insurance (that others might help you when you need it).

This can be shown to arise pretty naturally from game theory with minimal assumptions. See for instance, The Evolution of the Social Contract.

Pye wrote:Kevin writes:

This is very true. Even the behaviour of an egoless Buddha arises out of the personal values of that same Buddha. And everything a Buddha does is only to serve his or her own purpose.

Well and good, but perhaps some sort of delineation is needed from you between "ego" and "self-interest."

How long have you been here? You still need this question answered?

Dan writes:

How long have you been here?

It's true, Dan. I have not been assimilated.

You still need this question answered?

Clearly, I do. A most pointed-point has just arrived.
And since you tend to run interference/interpretation of the Q and the S, perhaps you'd care to take it on? It would beat the pot-shotting.

What is the difference between "ego" and "self-interest"?

Or, differently put, how do those who not believe in a self, believe in self-interest?

Either approach will do.

DHodges wrote: The behavior of vampire bats is often taken as an example of altruism. It's clear that it does have benefits to the individual. In humans, as well, part of the benefit of altruism could be maintaining a culture of altruism, which acts as a kind of insurance (that others might help you when you need it).

Yeah, it's a good example. But also one that demonstrates that benefits are only there for the individual on the longer term or by repeating the exchanges (like running a lot of cycles in a Prisoner's Dilemma game). On the short term there's no reward, unless the bats feel good about themselves or something, after being sucked....

That's why a military (or eg soldier ants) seems a more interesting example since the individual benefits are way weaker compared to the risks.

This can be shown to arise pretty naturally from game theory with minimal assumptions. See for instance, The Evolution of the Social Contract.

Seen through a more practical lens, as well evolution theory, there's perhaps no real altruism but only pseudo-altruism. In game theory it's often not the individual algorithm that is rewarded, unless it's already in an 'pseudo-altruist' environment. This is why in the 'real world' asocial ones have to be cast out to make the dream work, because it will take to long for them to starve out when it comes to a more or less altruist-oriented society.

Is belief in altruism the sole cause of all our moral indignation? I think it is.

It's hard to get angry with someone for seizing their own advantage at your expense when you are fully aware that you were trying to seize your advantage from him.

Matt Gregory wrote:Is belief in altruism the sole cause of all our moral indignation?

No. That would surely give the human individual and/or collective a great deal of personal power.

Belief in altruism is a reason for moral indignation.

Is the belief in society the sole cause of terrorism?

Leyla,

MG: Is belief in altruism the sole cause of all our moral indignation?


LS: No. That would surely give the human individual and/or collective a great deal of personal power.

Belief in altruism is a reason for moral indignation.

Is the belief in society the sole cause of terrorism?

What I mean is, if you got rid of all belief in altruism, purged it 100%, would that make moral indignation impossible?

Pye wrote:What is the difference between "ego" and "self-interest"?

Or, differently put, how do those who not believe in a self, believe in self-interest?

If I can take a crack at this....

The ego, and hence, self-interest, are both things that exist conventionally but not in any "inherent" sense. So, they are things we can talk about, terms we can use, but ultimately there is nothing to "believe" in, in either term.

If we look closely enough, and try to define exact what is and is not contained in "self interest", the edges are fuzzy. There will always be things that one may or may not consider to be in one's own self interest, and people do things which from another person's perspective might obviously not be in their self interest (e.g., suicide bombing).

A self only exists in a context, in relation to other selves, concepts and things. A person might consider sacrificing themselves for their children, for instance, to be a perfectly rational thing to do, and even consider it a horrible, cowardly thing if they backed away from doing that. Is that not because, in some way, they consider their children to be part of themselves? That part of how they define themselves, at least, is as "parent"?

And yet there would usually not be any confusion that the child is a separate person - a separate ego, a separate point of view, and the child may not understand a parent doing something "for their own good".

Self-interest is a matter of perspective, of point of view. In the end, it can only be defined in terms of what you consider to be in your interest. That interest may be narrowly egotistical, or promoting a group's interest ( a family or tribe) or even an ideology might be included in it.

When we talk about a person that is egoless (perhaps a Buddha), I take that to mean that person understands that the ego exists conventionally but not inherently - he no longer has the delusion of the ego being something transcendental. He could still say, "I went to the store and bought some eggs with my credit card," understanding that the "I" would went is something that only exists as a social convention, like the money he spent. He still acts, he just acts without the false idea of things (including himself) existing inherently.

Self interest and self (ego) are an example of co-dependent origination. Self interest can not arise without a self. When the false idea of a self (as inherently existing) arises, it gives rise to self-interest. Alternatively, self-interest gives rise to the ego - needs exists, such as hunger, and so the "self" arises as the object that has those needs.