Altruism

[dockeen]

It has been suggested by some (including Bertrand Russell) that there is no such thing as true altruism. There is always some form of payback in the system when one does something for another person. What do y'all think?

 

[Underseer]

That kind of depends on what you mean by altruism.

In one form or another, most members of every social species does things that do not directly benefit themselves. That was the puzzle that led to Dawkins encouraging other biologists to think of evolution from the perspective of populations instead of individual organisms.

 

[Zeluvia]

I think in general, Russell was right. You would have to be a very enlightened and self-aware individual who can parse your own motives to be capable of true altruism. I think that it is possible to be such a person, but they would be very rare. I think we recognize this by calling them "holy", although not all "holy" people are truly altruistic.

Most people do "altruistic" things for a personal benefit.

 

[EricK]

Normally the payback is just feeling good about yourself (eg giving money to a homeless will generally give no payback other than this). But if you count this as payback which prevents the act being altruistic, then I think you are making a category error. Feeling good about yourself when you do an altruistic act almost defines what it is to be an altruistic person. Selfish people don't get that good feeling - that's why they're selfish.

 

[bigfield]

It has been suggested by some (including Bertrand Russell) that there is no such thing as true altruism. There is always some form of payback in the system when one does something for another person. What do y'all think?

I can't think of any example of an altruistic act which has absolutely no payoff for the actor, so I suspect that the claim correct.

However, any act that is done out of concern for others without concern for or awareness of personal reward is fairly described as altruistic.

 

[Underseer]

I can't think of any example of an altruistic act which has absolutely no payoff for the actor, so I suspect that the claim correct.

However, any act that is done out of concern for others without concern for or awareness of personal reward is fairly described as altruistic.

If you are a part of a social species, then there is almost always a payoff of some sort when you help others. That's the whole point to being a social species as a survival strategy.

Think of the most useless person you can imagine. Even if that person contributes nothing to other humans, large amounts of farmland have to be devoted to feeding him, which means less land available to supporting potential predators that might threaten you. However tenuous the connection, keeping that person alive enhances your chances of survival to some degree.

For non-human social species (or humans from small isolated communities), helping others generally means helping relatives, which means that even if you sacrifice yourself saving another, you are in effect preserving genes that are very similar to your own.

If you are a member of a social species, true selflessness is nearly impossible.

On the other hand, if you use the more lax definition of altruism, individuals who are members of social species regularly help each other in ways that provide no direct or immediate benefit to themselves.

 

[bigfield]

For non-human social species (or humans from small isolated communities), helping others generally means helping relatives, which means that even if you sacrifice yourself saving another, you are in effect preserving genes that are very similar to your own.

Good point. Genetic payoffs count as well.

A soldier dying to save a complete stranger, such as a villager in a warzone, may not receive any indirect or delayed benefit to his genetic kin. Pretty much the only payoff he will receive is momentary satisfaction in his righteous deed.

That's the closest example in can think of to "true" altruism.

 

[Underseer]

Good point. Genetic payoffs count as well.

A soldier dying to save a complete stranger, such as a villager in a warzone, may not receive any indirect or delayed benefit to his genetic kin. Pretty much the only payoff he will receive is momentary satisfaction in his righteous deed.

That's the closest example in can think of to "true" altruism.

Not so.

As I said, even the most useless imaginable person provides some intangible benefits to others, so if the soldier in question has any surviving relatives, then they are helping those relatives indirectly by keeping someone else alive. If the soldier in question doesn't have surviving relatives, they are still helping their fellow humans who are all distantly related anyway.

 

[dockeen]

I have seen the argument made that even when a person is just behaving consistently with their moral compass then that is the payoff.
How many times does one hear the expression "I couldn't have lived with myself if I had not taken action..."

 

[rousseau]

I think in general, Russell was right. You would have to be a very enlightened and self-aware individual who can parse your own motives to be capable of true altruism. I think that it is possible to be such a person, but they would be very rare. I think we recognize this by calling them "holy", although not all "holy" people are truly altruistic.

Most people do "altruistic" things for a personal benefit.

These are basically my thoughts. In a lot of cases people do the 'right' thing because if they don't they face negative consequences, it's just expected of them. Other times they want karma. Rarely does a person act without any type of expectation, it definitely happens, but it's rare.

On the other hand, you could say that almost any positive action has a pay-off, but not every action is done because there is a pay-off.

 

[rousseau]

I can take a look at myself and some of the situations that arise in my college program. I code a lot of programs, take a lot of notes, and acquire a lot of 'information' that can help others. If I know that something I have can benefit someone else greatly I have two choices to make: help them out or don't help them. Maybe by helping someone I receive a benefit, but maybe by failing to help them I receive an even greater benefit, so you could say if I helped them I was acting altruistically. It's also possible that I helped them without expectation or concern over a benefit, but just because I wanted to improve someone else' life. I'd think that's altruism.

 

[Zeluvia]

I can take a look at myself and some of the situations that arise in my college program. I code a lot of programs, take a lot of notes, and acquire a lot of 'information' that can help others. If I know that something I have can benefit someone else greatly I have two choices to make: help them out or don't help them. Maybe by helping someone I receive a benefit, but maybe by failing to help them I receive an even greater benefit, so you could say if I helped them I was acting altruistically. It's also possible that I helped them without expectation or concern over a benefit, but just because I wanted to improve someone else' life. I'd think that's altruism.

Yeah, except for the feeling good about yourself thing you get from helping someone out, which means its not completely altruistic. It's like wealthy people giving food away on Christmas, but not the rest of the year. My ex loves to help other people out, especially women, of any age, because he has a "hero" complex and likes to come to the rescue. One of my other friends is a total doormat because she just loves helping people, it makes her feel more powerful in a strange way. Which means that most people when they don't really look deeply at their motives LIKE to feel good about themselves by helping others, and consider that to be altruism, but paradoxically, because they get that good feeling, it negates the act being truly altruistic.

Now if you help someone out with no expectation of reward and it doesn't make you feel in any way at all, then that is altruism.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't see it as implausible that there are some people who are truly altruistic, though they may be rare. I also don't see it as implausible that a lot of people have self-interest. I think it depends on an individual's development.

 

[bigfield]

Not so.

As I said, even the most useless imaginable person provides some intangible benefits to others, so if the soldier in question has any surviving relatives, then they are helping those relatives indirectly by keeping someone else alive. If the soldier in question doesn't have surviving relatives, they are still helping their fellow humans who are all distantly related anyway.

Fair enough, but that is a vanishingly small payoff in a world of 7 billion humans.

 

[Wiploc]

It has been suggested by some (including Bertrand Russell) that there is no such thing as true altruism. There is always some form of payback in the system when one does something for another person. What do y'all think?

This strikes me as an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Every time an example is offered, you say, "Yes, but that's not true altruism."

We all experience altruism, in ourselves and others. But it's no great trick to redefine altruism as something that can't exist, and then to discover that --- according to that definition --- it doesn't exist.

 

[Unbeatable]

I have seen the argument made that even when a person is just behaving consistently with their moral compass then that is the payoff.
How many times does one hear the expression "I couldn't have lived with myself if I had not taken action..."

Sure. There are carrots and sticks. People act to pursue carrots and avoid sticks. Seems like that's human motivation in a nutshell. If you set certain carrots and sticks aside and think it's better to care about them, then I guess concepts like "altruism" will tend to have more meaning to you.

The question of whether something is "true altruism" or not has little meaning to me. It's largely a semantic question, depending upon how you choose to define altruism, how you choose to define payback, how you choose to define "the system", etc. Once you can settle upon a definition, then it becomes a question for neuroscience. I think the altruism/selflessness v. selfishness dichotomy is a clever notion that's useful for encouraging people to behave in prosocial ways without expending much cerebral processing power thinking about how such behavior is in their long-term interests. Its ability to shortcut past rational thought also makes it useful for encouraging people to eagerly submit to or resign themselves to being exploited.

I lean towards ethical egoism, so I tend to be okay with the idea of defining terms like altruism/selflessness out of existence.

 

[Togo]

It has been suggested by some (including Bertrand Russell) that there is no such thing as true altruism. There is always some form of payback in the system when one does something for another person. What do y'all think?

I think there are two different questions there.

The second question is 'is there always some form of payoff'. The answer is probably yes. It's almost impossible to act within a social system without benefiting yourself in some way.
The first question is whether there is true altruism. If you define true altruism as acting with no payback, then it's almost impossible to orchestrate. You can thus claim that otherwise altruistic acts are not 'true' altruism, since they benefit the actor in some way.

However, this then sends us into different territory, since the 'true' label is not just about presence or absence of payoff, but touches on the motives of the actor. This is where the proposition looks more dubious. While acts that are devoid of payoff are hard to arrange, that doesn't in turn mean that the motive of the actor wasn't altruistic. Many of these payoffs are tiny, distant, or strictly theoretical. I've even seen it argued that heroic self-sacrifice is an instinct that benefits your genetic relations, which you are likely to have in a social group, and thus wasn't altruistic, even if in point of fact you aren't related to anyone who benefited from your actions.

In general, it's probably easier, more practical and more accurate to regard apparently altruistic actions on behalf of others as... altruistic actions on the behalf of others. We can argue about whether a social system rewards and reinforces such behaviour, or whether it would selected for at a genetic level, but by any useful measure of a person's actions, they're being altruistic.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have seen the argument made that even when a person is just behaving consistently with their moral compass then that is the payoff.
How many times does one hear the expression "I couldn't have lived with myself if I had not taken action..."

I've often wondered if there was a point to this kind of discussion. Are we trying to prove altruism is a myth? If someone does something good for another person and their only reward is a warm fuzzy feeling and the admiration of their neighbors, it doesn't reduce the good that was done.

It might be called altruistic if I spread sunflower seeds around the baseboards because I think the mice might be hungry. If a caged bird scatters seed on the floor, it's not altruistic, because we assume the bird doesn't care about the mice.

There certainly is altruism. All we need to do is recognize it is matter of degree. We say there is no such thing as pure altruism, as if there was some need or use for pure altruism and we are lacking something good because of it. That is not true. It's a spectrum. Somewhere between pure altruism and pure self serving is the real world, where most people feel empathy for others and will share some small part of their wealth, time, etc, with someone who needs it, even if the only reason is the need to feel someone will do the same for them, sometime or another.

 

[Underseer]

There's supposed to be a point? Aw, crap. Does this mean I have to self-ban in shame? And I just chewed the carpets so that they're frayed just like I like 'em.

 

[Togo]

I've often wondered if there was a point to this kind of discussion. Are we trying to prove altruism is a myth?

There are some strong motives to do so. Anyone trying to float a reductionist theory of human behaviour tends to define human behaviour as being the result of simple and easily interpreted motivations, i.e. selfish motives. Altruism plays merry hob with that idea, because it suggests that people actually act for complex social motives rather than simple personal motives, which means in turn that you can't eliminate great swathes of social behaviour and social psychology from your model.

Since reductionist theories include many of the simpler neurophysiological models and behaviourist models, models that try and use simplistic Darwinian principles to define behaviour, most of economics, and several major strands of political theory, Altruism ends up with a lot of enemies.