Altruism: reality or myth?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Laird Shaw	Altruism: reality or myth?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 72 (04/05/08 02:19 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Tags : None An argument that I have seen several times recently is that selfless acts of love are a myth. The argument runs something like this: even if you are engaging in what would ordinarily be described as altruistic, selfless behaviour, you are nevertheless motivated by a desire to ease your conscience, or by the desire to do the right thing or similar, and the satisfaction of this desire is a selfish end, nullifying the otherwise "selflessness" of your actions. In other words: since every single act that a person makes is self-focussed, there is no such thing as a selfless act. What do you make of this argument? In the light of this argument, is it still meaningful to talk of "selfless" acts?
Ducky M		#1	[-]
Posts: 94 (04/05/08 04:22 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Yes! Because whatever satisfaction a person gets from performing an altruistic act is not obtained at the expense of the person(s) for whom the altruistic act is performed. Ducky just connects the old dots in new ways. Unfortunately, in order to do that, he must add more dots... ...and the picture becomes even more confusing!
Philosophaster		#2	[-]
Posts: 485 (04/05/08 05:02 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird Shaw wrote: An argument that I have seen several times recently is that selfless acts of love are a myth. The argument runs something like this: even if you are engaging in what would ordinarily be described as altruistic, selfless behaviour, you are nevertheless motivated by a desire to ease your conscience, or by the desire to do the right thing or similar, and the satisfaction of this desire is a selfish end, nullifying the otherwise "selflessness" of your actions. Sounds like somebody having a fun time making a tautologous argument. Sure, if you define any attempt to achieve a desire as a "selfish" act, then we can call every act "selfish." Whooptee-do! The argument assumes that we should call a person "selfish" simply because he had a goal and tried to achieve it. That seems far from obvious to me. History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
Laird Shaw		#3	[-]
Posts: 76 (04/05/08 05:21 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Tautologous argument: somebody say QRS? You probably won't be surprised to learn that I first heard this argument at Genius Forum, however it's not the only place that I've heard it - my sister told me that one of her dates brought it up as a topic of conversation with her. I agree with both of you guys that the argument is flawed by the way. Sure, the self is inevitable, but to say that just because one functions according to priorities determined by the self doesn't mean that we should discard the word "selfless" - it still has a legitimate meaning, that being when one's actions are primarily geared towards the benefit of others and minimally towards oneself. Edit: damn, after all that talk about insults I felt a little guilty about the dig at QRS in the first sentence of this post. Dan (since you're probably the only member of the trio who'll actually read this post): I believe that I'm right, so I guess that it wasn't disrespectful, fair enough? Last Edited By: Laird Shaw 04/05/08 05:32 PM. Edited 1 times.
vinny the hack		#4	[-]
Posts: 1544 (04/05/08 07:20 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	I've been hearing that argument since I was a kid. While sending your parents on a cruise may give you a warm feeling, presumably your parents get a little more out of it. Unless they are like mine. Also, I don't think people making such gestures are necessarily motivated by the anticipation of getting the warm and fuzzies, but that it is just a pleasant by-product of doing something nice for someone. In other words, you do nice things for people you like/love irrespective of anything you might get out of it. And that is altruism. You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
Dan Rowden		#5	[-]
Posts: 50 (04/05/08 08:22 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, Mentioning QRS did seem a rather trite thing to do given that a truckload of modern psychologists would make that same argument, so, if you first saw it first at GF you need to get out more. It's just plain obvious that whilst all motivation to help others springs from the self and its values and concerns - and is therefore not selfless - such action can be beneficial to others - sometimes. Seems to me that is the measure of an act that really matters, not whether it stems from someone's personal and selfish perspective - because unless he's a Buddha, it necessarily must. But hey, if you guys want to pump up actions that you have deemed morally virtuous, but somehow thereby miraculously not issuing from self-concerned motives, knock yourselves out. In short, this is largely a non-issue to me. You want something - i.e. the betterment of the circumstances of others. Whilst necessarily being something you want, it can still be beneficial to those others. Altruism is a myth as normally defined, but its myth status is irrelevant to life as far as I can tell.
sammy8		#6	[-]
Posts: 190 (04/06/08 10:48 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	I agree with both points of view in this thread, namely that yes, all acts are selfish in the sense that unless coerced, people always, without exception, do what they want. Even choosing to take your next breath is a choice. When a parent works two jobs to put their kid through college, it is because it gives them more pleasure than taking it easy and having their kid skip college. On the other hand, I agree that the fact that the parent chooses and gets pleasure from their sacrifice doesn't mean it is not altruistic. The reason I like the point being made about the selfish nature of people's actions is because it removes a lot of guilt from the rest of us who don't devote our lives to helping others. Like when my self-righteous friend comes back from Habitat for Humanity and sniffs disdainfully at me because I played frisbee golf, I can relax because I know they get a huge amount of pleasure from their activity; some if it is from knowing they are helping others and some of it is because it makes them feel better than me. The worst are my friends who are proud to claim they have no time for themselves because they have to take their kids from one activity to another every day and on the weekends. I enjoy realizing that's their choice - I know plenty of people who don't do that, and their kids are fine with it. That's how certain parents want to spend their time - not how they have to spend their time. Those parents always get mad when I point out that they are choosing to spend their time that way, and they shouldn't get any 'points' because they enjoy it more than other activities. That realization instantly removes the self-sacrifice angle they love to play up in every conversation, and implies a degree of selfishness that they had been trying to place on me.
vinny the hack		#7	[-]
Posts: 1558 (04/06/08 01:26 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Sammy, I agree with everything you said except for parents enjoying whisking their kid hither and thither. There was a time when I was so busy I had precious little time for myself, but trust me, it was not all fun. Having to clean the shit house is not fun, but somebody has to do it. I will concede, though, and I had (most of my friends' kids are grown up) friends who were "guilty" of putting their kids into too many activities in my opinion, but the parents didn't necessarily enjoy it. They felt it was their duty. As you said, these parents loved to tell everyone about all the clubs, classes, sports, etc. their kids were in. God, how I hated to hear it. I had my kids in no more than one or two organized activities at a time. You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
Philosophaster		#8	[-]
Posts: 487 (04/06/08 03:11 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	The "everybody tries to achieve goals (and pleasure) one way or another" point is just trivial. The important thing is whether those goals are helpful, harmless, or harmful toward yourself and others. History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
sammy8		#9	[-]
Posts: 192 (04/07/08 02:47 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	The "everybody tries to achieve goals (and pleasure) one way or another" point is just trivial. The important thing is whether those goals are helpful, harmless, or harmful toward yourself and others. Well, I wouldn't say it is trivial, it is the topic of this thread. Whether you realize it or not, you are making a bold claim that most people would not agree with. You are saying that altruism really is a myth. There is no sacrificing your own satisfaction help others - there is only helping others because you want to. Even when you do it through a sense of duty, that means you would feel worse if you didn't do it because of your sense of duty. If you accept Philo's statement, then there is no altruism, no selfless acts, only helpful acts. Even the man who dives into a raging river to save a child is doing so because he would feel worse that night if he hadn't done it.
Philosophaster		#10	[-]
Posts: 490 (04/07/08 03:13 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	There is no sacrificing your own satisfaction help others - there is only helping others because you want to. Even when you do it through a sense of duty, that means you would feel worse if you didn't do it because of your sense of duty. What is a "sense of duty" other than the part of you that makes you feel like crap when you don't do the things that you see as duties? That's what needs to be explained here... An unselfish person is just one who cares as much about other people's pains and pleasures as his own -- helping people pleases him as if he had just helped himself, and hurting people hurts him. I don't see what's so scary about that idea. Even the man who dives into a raging river to save a child is doing so because he would feel worse that night if he hadn't done it. Or because he cares about the kid and wants to help people. I'm not conceptualizing this in the crass way you seem to have interpreted it. History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
vinny the hack		#11	[-]
Posts: 1569 (04/07/08 03:22 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	If a person sat down and weighed the pros and cons of helping someone out before acting, I might be inclined to agree with Philo. When a man jumps into a ranging river to save a child, there is no forethought--his only thought at that moment is the safety/well-being of the child. In that sense, how can it not be a selfless act, and by definition, altruistic? You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin Last Edited By: vinny the hack 04/07/08 03:25 PM. Edited 1 times.
Philosophaster		#12	[-]
Posts: 491 (04/07/08 03:39 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	In case you were wondering, I'm not going along with the silly interpretation of my view that sammy8 just offered, so don't respond to that as if it's something I've said. I don't deny that people are often motivated to help other people. History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
sammy8		#13	[-]
Posts: 194 (04/07/08 04:56 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Philo, sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I read your post: "Sure, if you define any attempt to achieve a desire as a "selfish" act, then we can call every act "selfish." Whooptee-do! " and it sounded to me like you were agreeing, and saying that it wasn't a big deal since it was obvious. I didn't notice you went on to say "The argument assumes that we should call a person "selfish" simply because he had a goal and tried to achieve it. That seems far from obvious to me" How, then, would you define altruism? Is it just anytime you do a good deed? That is what I took from your statement "The important thing is whether those goals are helpful, harmless, or harmful toward yourself and others. " But defining altruism as doing good deeds doesn't make sense. It's not enough to just do good. You have to do good at your expense. But since you haven't even tried to refute that people only do things they want to, I'm not sure I get your point.
Philosophaster		#14	[-]
Posts: 492 (04/07/08 09:42 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Altruistic acts are ones where you help someone without any expectation that anybody will repay you. History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto Last Edited By: Philosophaster 04/07/08 09:45 PM. Edited 1 times.
sammy8		#15	[-]
Posts: 195 (04/07/08 10:46 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	A callous way of rephrasing your statement would be that altruistic acts are those where you rely on immediate gratification.
Philosophaster		#16	[-]
Posts: 493 (04/07/08 11:17 PM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Sorry, but how does that follow from anything I said? History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
Sherezada		#17	[-]
Posts: 1 (04/07/08 11:33 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Sorry, but how does that follow from anything I said? He's saying that because you enjoy doing a deed you are getting immediate gratification, as opposed to expecting to get something back in the future, which would be deferred gratification. Un solo territorio, una sola bandera. Patria libre o morir!
Majin Dan		#18	[-]
Posts: 2020 (04/08/08 08:46 AM) fnord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	That still assumes that 'altruism is a myth' is true. Personally, it's far too pessimistic of an idea for me to stomach and so I'll go ahead believing in altruism if for no other reason than I want to. Prepare for disappointment!
Philosophaster		#19	[-]
Posts: 494 (04/08/08 09:41 AM) Perpetual student Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Majin Dan wrote: That still assumes that 'altruism is a myth' is true. What still assumes that? History is a graveyard of aristocracies. - Vilfredo Pareto
Majin Dan		#20	[-]
Posts: 2023 (04/08/08 10:43 AM) fnord Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Sherezada wrote: He's saying that because you enjoy doing a deed you are getting immediate gratification, as opposed to expecting to get something back in the future, which would be deferred gratification. Both her examples -- delayed and immediate gratification -- are assuming that you're taking the action for personal gratification. If altruism exists, you aren't necessarily taking the action for either. Prepare for disappointment!

Yuku free message boards

Altruism: reality or myth?

Altruism: reality or myth?

Quick Reply