Pathological Altruism

[Trausti]

Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads. So it's worth calling out. Its definition may vary, but essentially it occurs when a well-meaning person seeks to aid a third person, but fails to appreciate the harm to the third person caused by such good intentions - harm which is reasonable foreseeable to an external observer. There's a peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf+html

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

 

[Nexus]

A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

Is indentured servitude better than no job?

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting topic!

I have wondered sometimes if there's a tendency among atheists to ignore the dangers of attempted altruism... perhaps because of the "biblical" overtones of such idioms as "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". So many of the parables and fables used to teach the dangers of good intentions are biblical in nature - "Give a man a fish..." for example. I've never understood by it seems so offensive to some people to step back and consider the potential consequences of an altruistic action.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is indentured servitude better than no job?

Obviously you mean this as a reduction to absurdity... but from a logical perspective, it might be. If having no job guarantees that you have no home and no food, and represents certain death, then I would argue that indentured servitude which provides for shelter and sustenance is unquestionably better than the alternative. .



ETA: Please note that I have not opined on whether it is morally justifiable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads. So it's worth calling out. Its definition may vary, but essentially it occurs when a well-meaning person seeks to aid a third person, but fails to appreciate the harm to the third person caused by such good intentions - harm which is reasonable foreseeable to an external observer. There's a peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf+html

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases;

But we've already shown this not to be true, and there are trade offs we recognize. People on minimum wage have to supplement that wage with public assistance making them dependent on public assistance.

and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

Nope. I will not work for minimum wage because my time is worth more and I won't be able to survive on it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Its been well demonstrated that sub-minimum wage jobs amount to corporate welfare. The Federal government pays 2.8 billion dollars to support walmart employees, while the company profits rise obscenely. If Wal-mart paid their employees properly, they'd STILL make a profit. There need be NO job losses.

Like most republican economics, it finds a way to screw the taxpayer for profit for the rich. Enough of this 'jobs' bullshit. Its about increasing profit and shifting the burden of supporting the worker onto someone else's shoulder.

The way it ought to work is that the employer supports the worker, the worker supports the employer. There are plenty of companies that do business this way, but they aren't the ones that spend billions to buy congressmen and media outlets. And of course, there are plenty of suckers who will do their work for free. How they must be laughing!

 

[prideandfall]

If having no job guarantees that you have no home and no food, and represents certain death, then I would argue that indentured servitude which provides for shelter and sustenance is unquestionably better than the alternative. .

even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.

civilization is based on a very simple premise that greedy-obsessed shit cocks seem hell-bent on completely ignoring, because they never heard of a thing called the french revolution:
step 1: homo sapiens band together in groups for mutual benefit, like many herd/pack animals.
step 2: the group collectively all put effort into maintaining group cohesion and spreading around resources and burdens - some individuals might be slightly better off or slightly worse off than they would arguably be if going it alone, but the group on the whole is better off than all the individuals would be alone.
step 3: those within the group with the most resources share them, those with the most need are given assistance.
step 4: those with less-than do not murder those with more-than directly in the fucking face and take all their shit, because the function of the group sharing its resources means everyone is still better off.

all these conservolibertarian dick waggers seem to have completely deluded themselves into thinking that they can skip step 3 without step 4 doing a 180.

a living wage isn't a pathological altruism, it's recognizing that the entire reason that our species lives in super-collectives is still fundamentally the benefit of all members of the society.
once you start pushing the lower class into destitution to the point of their basic livelihood being threatened, the social contract is broken... and just like how the french peasants got their murder on with the bloated upper class, you can only pull that shit for so long before the proles get restless.

besides, i'd call the desire to actively degrade, denigrate, and deprive members of our species of a minimum standard of living which is commensurate with our technological development and social advancement is far more of a pathological psychosis than thinking that maintaining the entire purpose of our civilization in the first place is a good idea is a pathological altruism.

 

[untermensche]

Wanting the world of man to operate fairly and with justice, even economic justice, is not altruism.

It is self interest.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here is an example of government withholding food because they were afraid of dependency. The work camps wage was about 1600 calories and the work was hard physical labor in the sun. The relief camps were one of the problems, not the solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–78

I would expect the same mentality of the GOP today.

 

[Nexus]

If having no job guarantees that you have no home and no food, and represents certain death, then I would argue that indentured servitude which provides for shelter and sustenance is unquestionably better than the alternative. .

even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.

This is where I was going with the question. The op is basically a false dichotomy ie no job vs sub-living wage. If basic needs aren't being met the entire system is up for readjustment using any means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Its been well demonstrated that sub-minimum wage jobs amount to corporate welfare. The Federal government pays 2.8 billion dollars to support walmart employees, while the company profits rise obscenely. If Wal-mart paid their employees properly, they'd STILL make a profit. There need be NO job losses.

For some very strange values of "well".

1) Wal-Mart doesn't pay sub-minimum wage in the first place. Your attack is completely off target.

2) The real problem isn't minimum wage jobs, it's working hours. Raising the minimum wage doesn't address this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

I can't read your article--it loads in such a small font I can't read it and for some reason I can't find the document on the page to save it and read it outside it's undersize window.

As for the minimum wage bit--note who is behind it: the unions. Unions are always about restricting the number of workers in order to drive up wages. That's what raising the minimum wage is about, also--drive the poor workers out of the labor force entirely so companies have to pay more for workers. Never mind what happens to those who are cast aside.

 

[bilby]

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

I can't read your article--it loads in such a small font I can't read it and for some reason I can't find the document on the page to save it and read it outside it's undersize window.

As for the minimum wage bit--note who is behind it: the unions. Unions are always about restricting the number of workers in order to drive up wages. That's what raising the minimum wage is about, also--drive the poor workers out of the labor force entirely so companies have to pay more for workers. Never mind what happens to those who are cast aside.

I just did a google news search for "calling for an increase in minimum wage". The first page of results included not a single direct reference to a union, with articles referring to 'supporters' (unspecified); 'Obama'; 'Garcetti' (Mayor of LA); 'Van de Putte' (Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in Texas); 'Garcetti' (again); 'Obama' (again); 'Democrats'; 'NDP' (The Canadian political party); and 'The Green Party' (The UK political party).

Your assertion the 'the unions' are 'behind it' is not supported by the facts. Many trade unions do support a minimum wage, but they are not the main force behind it, except in wild conspiracy theory world, where it is vital to lay the blame at the door of the boogeyman pre-selected to support your ideological stance.

We get that you don't like unions Loren. That does not mean you can accuse them of 'being behind' stuff that other, non-union, organisations are far more vocally 'behind'. To do so is dishonest and unworthy. You have a right to your own opinion; you do not have a right to your own facts.

 

[laughing dog]

Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads. So it's worth calling out. Its definition may vary, but essentially it occurs when a well-meaning person seeks to aid a third person, but fails to appreciate the harm to the third person caused by such good intentions - harm which is reasonable foreseeable to an external observer. There's a peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf+html

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Here's an example: A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

 

[dystopian]

the "a minimum wage job is better than no job" argument is just an excuse to maintain an unfair level of inequality. You might as well just come right out and say "Don't seek to improve your lot in life you filthy peasants, or we'll take your jobs away and replace you with better peasants, peasants who don't ask so many questions and talk back to their masters."

 

[Axulus]

even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.

This is where I was going with the question. The op is basically a false dichotomy ie no job vs sub-living wage. If basic needs aren't being met the entire system is up for readjustment using any means.

The rub is what is actually meant by "sub-living wage". I've had people on this board essentially suggest that being in a situation where you need a roommate to survive is an unlivable situation. It goes to show how amorphous the term "living" really is. People survive into their 60's on less than $2 a day in third-world conditions, so obviously it doesn't mean having the absolute bare necessities to survive, but rather well beyond that. How much beyond that depends on who you ask.

 

[Axulus]

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

What is a living wage? Please define specifically what you mean by "living"? Is having two people living in a home that is more suited for just one individual an unlivable situation, even though two people could live in that situation (although less than ideal)?

- - - Updated - - -

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

What is your maximum tolerance to living wage jobs vs. unemployment ratio?

Also, why do you think is it the case that black teens and black young adults (age 18-29) have much higher unemployment levels today (even before the great recession) than they had in the 50's and 60's, when discrimination was much worse?

 

[Axulus]

the "a minimum wage job is better than no job" argument is just an excuse to maintain an unfair level of inequality.

False, are you really so uncharitable with the opposition argument that you have to paint them as evil psychopaths who will do anything to oppose decreases to inequality? Do you even have the most basic empathy for a person who is unemployed and unable to find a job, who will certainly have all that much more a difficult of a time if you double the minimum wage? You focus like hell on those who have jobs (and how they should get better pay), but seem to give a rat's ass about the unemployed (other than pay lip service to how they government should just pay them money while they remain bored and unemployed and very prone to depression as a result).

 

[barbos]

Pathological altruism seems rampant on this board, at least in the political threads. So it's worth calling out. Its definition may vary, but essentially it occurs when a well-meaning person seeks to aid a third person, but fails to appreciate the harm to the third person caused by such good intentions - harm which is reasonable foreseeable to an external observer. There's a peer-reviewed paper on the subject: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf+html

Pathological altruism is evident in the "living wage" discussion, where its proponents dismiss the harm of job losses and price increases; and in some instances charge that if a business cannot afford to pay a "living wage" it should not be in business. What happens to workers should that be the rule? A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Interesting topic. I would not exactly call it "altruism" though, pathological good "intentionism" is more like it.
Speaking of jobs and "good intentionism". There are laws in academia at least which require to have job offer posted for some period of time. Intention was to make it less discriminative, more transparent etc . In reality it ends up with job offers which are fake, where they already have a person and merely waste everybody's time applying for position which is already taken.
Same with indian software engineers problem where they post clearly unrealistic qualification requirements in order to overcome a (discriminative I guess) law protecting american engineers.

As for fast food industry, I think they should make $15/hour law, I really want to see robots doing it as a result