Pathological Altruism

[bilby]

But Item A2 causes us concern and worry. Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm is something that makes most normal humans stop and evaluate the situation. "What went wrong?" is probably the first thing that comes to mind. A significant element of childhood is learning from one's mistakes, learning from accidents, so that that they aren't repeated. And the emphasis of that lesson is on being able to foresee and expect those negative outcomes.

So then, Item A2 actually has two subdivisions to it:
Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm
... Which we believe could have reasonably been foreseen as harmful
... Which we believe could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful

If the outcome could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful, then it is an accident. We're expected to learn from it and carry on. But if it is reasonable that the harmful outcome could have been foreseen, it is either ignored or dismissed, then that's an entirely different situation. At this point it is effectively negligence and recklessness.

And this is where the article's terminology comes in to play. We could certainly quibble about whether the technical term "pathological" is appropriate to use. It may not be. But I think that the sentiment being expressed is valid: That there exist some people, especially in the realm of politics, for whom the desire to take an Action Intended to Help is so strong that the desire overrides concerns and risks associated with the action that would make it reasonably foresseable as a harmful action.

Their DESIRE to take action in a helpful way, their desire to help, is so strong that it subsumes all objections and causes them to dismiss reasonable concerns of harm.

Thus they may still be acting from a motivation of altruism - they truly desire to help. But they would effectively be allowing that desire to lead them into negligence and recklessness.

I think pathological is a reasonable term here. All too many altruistic acts fall into the A2a category. It's far more about feeling good about providing help than the results.

How many are 'All too many'? If it is less than 50% of all category A, then absent any other information, any given altruistic act is more likely to help than harm.

To suggest otherwise on the basis of something as insubstantial as 'all too many' smacks of a search for a rationalisation for not being altruistic. All the more so given that you have the ability to ensure that your personal altruism is well researched - Even if altruism in general was harmful (and you will need a lot more than vague assertions of 'all too many' to persuade me that it is), altruism from the subset of people who do the research first may well be beneficial.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Because you don't understand the point.

The problem is there is a considerable disconnect between "charitable contributions" and "helping people". I'm not saying that helping people is bad, I'm saying that most charities are a pretty poor way of accomplishing this.

And you say all sorts of crap. Why not back it up. "Most" charities?

 

[bleubird]

Loren,Did you not get the memo?Extraordinary claims require that the other party must do the search. OMG,are you like 12.

 

[laughing dog]

You are correct, in that there are other reasonable interpretations of Loren Pechtel's post, and I errantly assumed only one. I maintain, however, that his post does not support a conclusion that he believes "helping people is worse than not helping". That requires assuming facts not in evidence.

I did not attempt to address whether helping was good or bad--it's pretty obvious that it's good. I was questioning the means by which the help was provided, a means with a historically quite poor track record.

If there is a historically quite poor track record, you ought to be able to substantiate with the historical record. Tellingly, you have not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think pathological is a reasonable term here. All too many altruistic acts fall into the A2a category. It's far more about feeling good about providing help than the results.

How many are 'All too many'? If it is less than 50% of all category A, then absent any other information, any given altruistic act is more likely to help than harm.

To suggest otherwise on the basis of something as insubstantial as 'all too many' smacks of a search for a rationalisation for not being altruistic. All the more so given that you have the ability to ensure that your personal altruism is well researched - Even if altruism in general was harmful (and you will need a lot more than vague assertions of 'all too many' to persuade me that it is), altruism from the subset of people who do the research first may well be beneficial.

I fully agree that carefully researched altruism is beneficial.

Nobody is saying that all altruism is pathological--we are referring to a subset of it where the primary motivation is for the person to feel good about what they are doing, the decisions are usually emotional and very often short sighted.

- - - Updated - - -

I did not attempt to address whether helping was good or bad--it's pretty obvious that it's good. I was questioning the means by which the help was provided, a means with a historically quite poor track record.

If there is a historically quite poor track record, you ought to be able to substantiate with the historical record. Tellingly, you have not.

Haven't you guys paid attention to the news? Every so often the poor performance gets reported on.

 

[laughing dog]

Haven't you guys paid attention to the news? Every so often the poor performance gets reported on.

Everyone here is still waiting for you to produce that record or some relevant facts.

Nobody is saying that all altruism is pathological--we are referring to a subset of it where the primary motivation is for the person to feel good about what they are doing, the decisions are usually emotional and very often short sighted.

Seems to me that your responses in this thread meet those criteria.

 

[DBT]

Q1-So, donations to charities, bad or good?
Q2-Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?
Reply -Actually, mostly bad.

Given the context, it seems logical to assume that intention of the reply in this instance was to convey that;
1) donating to charities is mostly bad.
2) making sure that someone is alright (grandma as the example) is also mostly bad.

 

[bilby]

Q1-So, donations to charities, bad or good?
Q2-Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?
Reply -Actually, mostly bad.

Given the context, it seems logical to assume that intention of the reply in this instance was to convey that;
1) donating to charities is mostly bad.
2) making sure that someone is alright (grandma as the example) is also mostly bad.

I have never met Loren's grandma, so I am not in a position to comment on point 2.

 

[Togo]

Then it's not altruism that is pathological. It can't be. Because altruism is a motivation.

Any action can be harmful sure. But there's nothing special about altruism, as opposed to any other motive.

Nobody has said all altruism is pathological, you're arguing against a strawman.

No, I'm not.

The term pathological altruism has two words a noun and an adjective. Altruism is the noun, pathological is the word used to describe that noun.

The point I'm making is that, even in cases where a given action achieves more harm than good, it's not the altruism that's the problem. The motive makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad, and so whether the action is altruistic makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad. Thus any discussion about altruism has no possible connection to good or bad outcomes, and no possible connection to the pathology you're describing.

The problem is the high percentage of "charity" money that goes to funding the charity rather than doing good works. All in all it's a very inefficient way of providing help.

This is a very broad brush generalisation. Some charities spend substantial sums on keeping the charity going, but then some forms of helping people do the same. I went on a neighbourhood carol singing drive to raise money for local carers for the elderly. No charity involved, all the money collected went straight to the carers, but the sums involved in organising it all, getting all the people there, and singing, dwarfed the amount raised.

Similarly I was involved with a canal regeneration charity that spent, itself, 95% of the money raised directly on labour to regenerate the canal. It was a very efficient operation. Because it was so efficient, it didn't advertise, and thus you've never heard of it and the amount of money they could raise was very small.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that most charity is bad, based simply on inefficiencies in a few charities you may not properly understand. What on earth is it based on?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But Item A2 causes us concern and worry. Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm is something that makes most normal humans stop and evaluate the situation. "What went wrong?" is probably the first thing that comes to mind. A significant element of childhood is learning from one's mistakes, learning from accidents, so that that they aren't repeated. And the emphasis of that lesson is on being able to foresee and expect those negative outcomes.

So then, Item A2 actually has two subdivisions to it:
Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm
... Which we believe could have reasonably been foreseen as harmful
... Which we believe could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful

If the outcome could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful, then it is an accident. We're expected to learn from it and carry on. But if it is reasonable that the harmful outcome could have been foreseen, it is either ignored or dismissed, then that's an entirely different situation. At this point it is effectively negligence and recklessness.

And this is where the article's terminology comes in to play. We could certainly quibble about whether the technical term "pathological" is appropriate to use. It may not be. But I think that the sentiment being expressed is valid: That there exist some people, especially in the realm of politics, for whom the desire to take an Action Intended to Help is so strong that the desire overrides concerns and risks associated with the action that would make it reasonably foresseable as a harmful action.

Their DESIRE to take action in a helpful way, their desire to help, is so strong that it subsumes all objections and causes them to dismiss reasonable concerns of harm.

Thus they may still be acting from a motivation of altruism - they truly desire to help. But they would effectively be allowing that desire to lead them into negligence and recklessness.

I think pathological is a reasonable term here. All too many altruistic acts fall into the A2a category. It's far more about feeling good about providing help than the results.

Proof?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How many are 'All too many'? If it is less than 50% of all category A, then absent any other information, any given altruistic act is more likely to help than harm.

To suggest otherwise on the basis of something as insubstantial as 'all too many' smacks of a search for a rationalisation for not being altruistic. All the more so given that you have the ability to ensure that your personal altruism is well researched - Even if altruism in general was harmful (and you will need a lot more than vague assertions of 'all too many' to persuade me that it is), altruism from the subset of people who do the research first may well be beneficial.

I fully agree that carefully researched altruism is beneficial.

Nobody is saying that all altruism is pathological--we are referring to a subset of it where the primary motivation is for the person to feel good about what they are doing, the decisions are usually emotional and very often short sighted.

You said "most". That carries a particular weight.

I did not attempt to address whether helping was good or bad--it's pretty obvious that it's good. I was questioning the means by which the help was provided, a means with a historically quite poor track record.

If there is a historically quite poor track record, you ought to be able to substantiate with the historical record. Tellingly, you have not.

Haven't you guys paid attention to the news? Every so often the poor performance gets reported on.

Yes. We are aware all charities aren't perfect. There are ones that have overhead issues. Others have political idiots in charge that change the aim of the charity. But you said "most", which implies a substantial majority, not some here and there.

You are also continuing to state it is pathological.

But very little (as in no) back up to your claims... what a surprise.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Regarding the Affordable Heath Care Act, I have no idea why anyone would portray it as motivated by any form of "altruism". A health care reform motivated by altruism would have established an hybrid system with access to a Public option(single payer). Motivated by altruism would have meant a complete change of mentality where health care is not treated as an industry any longer and medically needy persons not viewed as "consumers". When it comes to the US health care system, as long as any reform pursues to support the notion or concept of "profit centered industry", we cannot speak of altruism motivated reforms.

For clarity, I did not intend to imply that it was motivated by altruism. I merely held it up as an example of a policy with reasonably foreseeable negative consequences that proponents vociferously ignored or dismissed.

I was questioning why the AHCA would pop up in this thread the OP of which focuses on "altruism" when it is clear to me that the AHCA reform failed to meet what I would consider to be a health care reform motivated by altruism.

I personally believe that its impetus was to help (and could thus be cast as altruistic) but its final form was far from it.

"far from it" when it comes to the proposal of "was to help" I must fully disagree with. I am rather certain that I am not a unique case when it comes to my previous status (prior to January 1st 2014) as a medically needy person in the stagnating status of under insured. Which meant being limited to a totally inadequate coverage via an employer's provided Group Plan and NO other option. Which of course meant an accumulation of medical debts directly related to cost out of pocket addressing absolutely vital medical care. If not a state of self rationing and having to make a choice such as bypassing monoclonal treatments strongly recommended by my oncologist following a recurrence of lymphoma in 2010.

I am rather certain that the millions of Americans who fell under the under insured category and non insured category based on their financial inability to contract adequate coverage plans do not view the AHCA as "its final form being far from it". "It' meaning the help they received via the AHCA.

 

[Emily Lake]

To suggest otherwise on the basis of something as insubstantial as 'all too many' smacks of a search for a rationalisation for not being altruistic.

It is my impression that several people in this thread, most recently including lpetrich, have assumed this - that the intention of this topic is to lead people to conclude that humans should not engage in altruistic acts.

I think that your assumption is in error. I don't believe that anyone is suggestion that we should not endeavor to help. The message is not "Don't Help because some people help in bad ways". The message is "Be more thoughtful in how you help" and additionally "Don't discount the concerns of those who disagree with your proposed approach of helping just because you want to help" - that is to say, don't dismiss concerns out of hand as nothing more than petty obstructionism; if your objective is to truly help, then it is incumbent on you to consider fairly and objectively any concerns raised.

I hope that it is clear that "you" in this context is the general you, not you specifically.

 

[ksen]

Actually I think the OP was trying to say that wanting to pay people enough to live on if they work is pathological altruism and the linked article was just for background on pathological altruism.

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

The term pathological altruism has two words a noun and an adjective. Altruism is the noun, pathological is the word used to describe that noun.

The point I'm making is that, even in cases where a given action achieves more harm than good, it's not the altruism that's the problem. The motive makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad, and so whether the action is altruistic makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad. Thus any discussion about altruism has no possible connection to good or bad outcomes, and no possible connection to the pathology you're describing.

Togo, what are your views toward negligence and recklessness?

Consider a company that makes health food, and clearly has no intent to harm people - indeed their intent is to make people healthier (and obviously make a profit in the process). This company processes some of their food, and washes the residue down the drain, into the water system. They have no intent to hurt people with their processing residue, they aren't even aware that the residue is harmful because they haven't investigated whether it might be so. Clearly their motivation is beneficial. Are they guilty of negligence if that residue is found to be toxic?

Consider a driver who has had too much to drink and gets behind the wheel of his car. He has had enough that he is not completely aware of how substantially it has impaired him. He obviously has no intention to harm anyone on his drive home, he intends only to get to his own bed. His motivation is not harmful at all. Is he guilty of recklessness if he runs over someone's mailbox on route?

 

[Emily Lake]

For clarity, I did not intend to imply that it was motivated by altruism. I merely held it up as an example of a policy with reasonably foreseeable negative consequences that proponents vociferously ignored or dismissed.

I was questioning why the AHCA would pop up in this thread the OP of which focuses on "altruism" when it is clear to me that the AHCA reform failed to meet what I would consider to be a health care reform motivated by altruism.

I personally believe that its impetus was to help (and could thus be cast as altruistic) but its final form was far from it.

"far from it" when it comes to the proposal of "was to help" I must fully disagree with. I am rather certain that I am not a unique case when it comes to my previous status (prior to January 1st 2014) as a medically needy person in the stagnating status of under insured. Which meant being limited to a totally inadequate coverage via an employer's provided Group Plan and NO other option. Which of course meant an accumulation of medical debts directly related to cost out of pocket addressing absolutely vital medical care. If not a state of self rationing and having to make a choice such as bypassing monoclonal treatments strongly recommended by my oncologist following a recurrence of lymphoma in 2010.

I am rather certain that the millions of Americans who fell under the under insured category and non insured category based on their financial inability to contract adequate coverage plans do not view the AHCA as "its final form being far from it". "It' meaning the help they received via the AHCA.

Your post here seems to indicate that you believe the intent of ACA was to provide help to those who needed it... which seems at odds with your prior post which seemed to indicate that you believed that ACA could not be considered altruistic in a reasonable way. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you... or perhaps you have taken issue with a loose usage of the term "altruistic"?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I think the OP was trying to say that wanting to pay people enough to live on if they work is pathological altruism and the linked article was just for background on pathological altruism.

I understand full well what Trausti was attempting to say. I don't think anyone at all is confused in that regard. I don't happen to think that Trausti's position holds water, nor is it interesting enough to merit an entirely separate thread, when one devoted to that topic already exists. I believe that at least several of the posters in this thread are interested in discussing the linked paper in a larger and more abstract context, and I am uncertain why you keep insisting that it can only be discussed in the context of Trausti's narrowly framed OP.

 

[ksen]

Actually I think the OP was trying to say that wanting to pay people enough to live on if they work is pathological altruism and the linked article was just for background on pathological altruism.

I understand full well what Trausti was attempting to say. I don't happen to think that Trausti's position holds water, nor is it interesting enough to merit an entirely separate thread, when one devoted to that topic already exists.

So just fuck it and derail the hell out of it?

 

[Togo]

The term pathological altruism has two words a noun and an adjective. Altruism is the noun, pathological is the word used to describe that noun.

The point I'm making is that, even in cases where a given action achieves more harm than good, it's not the altruism that's the problem. The motive makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad, and so whether the action is altruistic makes no difference to whether a given action is good or bad. Thus any discussion about altruism has no possible connection to good or bad outcomes, and no possible connection to the pathology you're describing.

Togo, what are your views toward negligence and recklessness?

Consider a company that makes health food, and clearly has no intent to harm people - indeed their intent is to make people healthier (and obviously make a profit in the process). This company processes some of their food, and washes the residue down the drain, into the water system. They have no intent to hurt people with their processing residue, they aren't even aware that the residue is harmful because they haven't investigated whether it might be so. Clearly their motivation is beneficial. Are they guilty of negligence if that residue is found to be toxic?

Consider a driver who has had too much to drink and gets behind the wheel of his car. He has had enough that he is not completely aware of how substantially it has impaired him. He obviously has no intention to harm anyone on his drive home, he intends only to get to his own bed. His motivation is not harmful at all. Is he guilty of recklessness if he runs over someone's mailbox on route?

Yes, these are examples of negligence and recklessness. Not seeing the connection to their motivations though...

 

[Emily Lake]

I understand full well what Trausti was attempting to say. I don't happen to think that Trausti's position holds water, nor is it interesting enough to merit an entirely separate thread, when one devoted to that topic already exists.

So just fuck it and derail the hell out of it?

It's not a derail to discuss the content of the linked article.

Trausti presented a topic, and an article, and then presented one specific example that she/he believed represents the concept covered by the linked article. I see no good reason that we should be bound to discuss only that sole example, and ignore the remainder of the topic and the ideas set forth by the article itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Togo, what are your views toward negligence and recklessness?

Consider a company that makes health food, and clearly has no intent to harm people - indeed their intent is to make people healthier (and obviously make a profit in the process). This company processes some of their food, and washes the residue down the drain, into the water system. They have no intent to hurt people with their processing residue, they aren't even aware that the residue is harmful because they haven't investigated whether it might be so. Clearly their motivation is beneficial. Are they guilty of negligence if that residue is found to be toxic?

Consider a driver who has had too much to drink and gets behind the wheel of his car. He has had enough that he is not completely aware of how substantially it has impaired him. He obviously has no intention to harm anyone on his drive home, he intends only to get to his own bed. His motivation is not harmful at all. Is he guilty of recklessness if he runs over someone's mailbox on route?

Yes, these are examples of negligence and recklessness. Not seeing the connection to their motivations though...

So in both cases, the motivation was NOT negligence or recklessness. What characteristic, in your estimation, causes those examples to be correctly classified as negligence and recklessness, respectively?

 

[Togo]

Yes, these are examples of negligence and recklessness. Not seeing the connection to their motivations though...

So in both cases, the motivation was NOT negligence or recklessness.

Negligence and recklessness are not motivations. They are conditions whereby someone carrying out a task fails to take sufficient care to avoid a downside. Again, that's the case irrespective of what their motive for acting is, including whether they are being altruistic or acting for some other motive. You can be reckless in carrying out an activity that someone else is forcing you to do.

What characteristic, in your estimation, causes those examples to be correctly classified as negligence and recklessness, respectively?

A) An action was taken
B) It had a possible negative consequence which was reasonably foreseeable*
C) The negative consequence arose and someone was hurt as a result

*(Under UK law, the standard is the 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus'. Your local standard may vary)

Can I please ask that you stop posting leading questions and just make the point you want to make? Where is the connection to altruism?