Pathological Altruism

[Emily Lake]

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?

It wasn't intended to be leading questions, so much as making sure that we're using the same set of assumptions and inferences before we go forward. That's my personal pet peeves at play - I find it irksome when someone writes a wall of text that has an assumption in the first few sentences... and that assumption is a show-stopped from my vantage point. So I try to avoid doing that same thing when I can. I apologize if you found it frustrating or offensive, that was not my intent but I can understand how it could be seen that way.

The connection to altruism is only one of categorization. The meat of the issue is in step B which you called out above - that the negative consequences were reasonably foreseeable. the only reason that altruism comes in to this topic is that there is a category of actions that are taken for altruistic reasons, and that fall prey to the problems in step 2. It's categorical grouping of like problems under an assumed nomenclature, nothing more. You could relabel them as something else, and the grouping would remain.

It does not make the motivation any less altruistic, it doesn't make the intent any less good - nor more than the intent of the company in my example was good and beneficial. But because the outcome is reasonably foreseeable, then dismissal of that risk is the fault of the person taking the action. It's harm they could easily have prevented, and should have avoided. They did not avoid that harm, because their desire to do good, their impetus to altruism, blinded them to the downside.

So we have a category of actions, motivated by altruism, with reasonably foreseeable negative outcomes.

They're bound together by the motivation, and classified by the lack of care given to avoid negative outcomes.

If you disagree with the terminology put forth by the article, then I certainly respect that. I have no investment in the terms, and I have reservations about labeling it "pathological" anyway. But I think that the conceptual grouping has merit for discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does not make the motivation any less altruistic, it doesn't make the intent any less good - nor more than the intent of the company in my example was good and beneficial. But because the outcome is reasonably foreseeable, then dismissal of that risk is the fault of the person taking the action.

And you did a lovely job creating a fake case of it. Kudos. Would you like to venture into the non-fictional world and offer a suggestion of real entities trying to good, but apparently end up leaching toxins into the watershed, or some other sort of harm?

 

[Emily Lake]

It does not make the motivation any less altruistic, it doesn't make the intent any less good - nor more than the intent of the company in my example was good and beneficial. But because the outcome is reasonably foreseeable, then dismissal of that risk is the fault of the person taking the action.

And you did a lovely job creating a fake case of it. Kudos. Would you like to venture into the non-fictional world and offer a suggestion of real entities trying to good, but apparently end up leaching toxins into the watershed, or some other sort of harm?

Asbestos

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

ETA: Also lead paint.

Jimmy Higgins, are you claiming that nobody has ever engaged in an altruistic action that caused harm that was easily foreseeable? Are you claiming that my lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And you did a lovely job creating a fake case of it. Kudos. Would you like to venture into the non-fictional world and offer a suggestion of real entities trying to good, but apparently end up leaching toxins into the watershed, or some other sort of harm?

Asbestos

Asbestos. Seriously? Exposure to asbestos causing cancer was a "foreseeable" harm?

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

Yes.

ETA: Also lead paint.

Wasn't lead in paint for centuries? Also, children eating paint that was falling off in chips? That was foreseeable? And what part of putting lead in paint was being altruistic?

Jimmy Higgins, are you claiming that nobody has ever engaged in an altruistic action that caused harm that was easily foreseeable?

No, but rather than such cases are hardly common enough to even worry about it.

Are you claiming that my lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

Actually, that a person should support their position. Is that such a crazy idea?

You seem to be confusing unintended consequences with "easily foreseeable harm".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. Criticizing the particular type of help does not mean that we feel no help should be given. This is actually a subset of a bigger problem:

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Exactly. Criticizing the particular type of help does not mean that we feel no help should be given. This is actually a subset of a bigger problem:

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

I would take your response as germane if you had ever offered a solution to any problem and backed it up with evidence showing it would work. Usually, you present an idea, wait for objections, and poke holes in the objections. That isn't enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you did a lovely job creating a fake case of it. Kudos. Would you like to venture into the non-fictional world and offer a suggestion of real entities trying to good, but apparently end up leaching toxins into the watershed, or some other sort of harm?

Asbestos

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

ETA: Also lead paint.

Jimmy Higgins, are you claiming that nobody has ever engaged in an altruistic action that caused harm that was easily foreseeable? Are you claiming that my lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

 

[arkirk]

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.

Exactly. Criticizing the particular type of help does not mean that we feel no help should be given. This is actually a subset of a bigger problem:

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

And while we are doing all this looking....do nothing? When are we going to start doing something significant about global warming or perhaps the abundance of plastic bags in the Pacific gyre? We have been doing a whole lot of nothing.

 

[KeepTalking]

Asbestos

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

ETA: Also lead paint.

Jimmy Higgins, are you claiming that nobody has ever engaged in an altruistic action that caused harm that was easily foreseeable? Are you claiming that my lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

Since you seem to have ignored Jimmy's response to the post you quote, perhaps you can respond to the following question:

Where is the altruism in the above scenario?

And, if you are able to establish and altruistic motive for the scenario, please explain how it is in any way indicative of pathological behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Exactly. Criticizing the particular type of help does not mean that we feel no help should be given. This is actually a subset of a bigger problem:

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

Jebus Fucking Christ! Will you start supplying actual examples?!

People who are so quick to say we should be cautious of helping, are themselves, causing more harm. For instance, we see {problem A} and {people alpha} propose a {solution A} to the problem. But then {people beta} get in the way saying, "we just think this is pathological and stuff". And then the earth gets obliterated by an asteroid and its all your fucking fault!!!!

For a problem that is so endemic, that it is labeled "pathological" by the WSJ, though they didn't actually mean the word "pathological" at all, but then for Loren to defend the use of the actual definition of pathological (that no one was actually suggesting in the first place except maybe the OPer), there seems to be a problem with people giving actual examples. I saw asbestos and lead paint raised as atruistic solutions to problems (19th century, 4th century BC) that had foreseeable harm as papers from the mid 1880s from the American Cancer Society clearly demonstrate. But other than that... fucking hypotheticals! Shit or get off the pot! And it better be analogous!

 

[Emily Lake]

Asbestos

Asbestos. Seriously? Exposure to asbestos causing cancer was a "foreseeable" harm?

There was a point where asbestos was suspected of causing cancer, and concerns were raised. But because it was seen as such a miraculous fire-retardant, it continued to be used. The known benefit of preventing fires was considered to outweigh the concerns and unproven worries being raised about its toxic nature. Even after research had been done linking asbestos to cancer, it continued to be used until it was made illegal to do so. Yes, for a good chunk of time it was foreseeable harm.

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

Yes.

Would you kindly give it a go, then?

ETA: Also lead paint.

Wasn't lead in paint for centuries? Also, children eating paint that was falling off in chips? That was foreseeable? And what part of putting lead in paint was being altruistic?

Lead had been used in paint for centuries, but in the early 20th century it was recommended by the US government for use in house paint specifically for health reasons - it was washable and didn't break down quickly. This allowed for homeowners to wash their walls, which was seen as preferable to the more commonly used wallpaper at the time, which was believed to be able to capture bacteria. The government recommended, and in some states specified, the use of lead-based paint in home construction for beneficial reasons, in order to reduce the risk of contagion. Lead toxicity had been known to exist for quite some time before that, but was initially thought to only occur when exposed to large amounts. Research began occurring in the 1950s, linking lead paint in houses to illness in children. There was a period during which the risks were discounted despite the research being sound, because the benefits of lead paint were considered so great. It wasn't actually outlawed for use in house paint until some time in the early 1970s.

You seem to be confusing unintended consequences with "easily foreseeable harm".

On the contrary, you seem to be dismissing all negative outcomes as "unintended consequences" and discounting the foreseeability of them altogether. In other words, you are allowing the desire to do good works outweigh rationality and objectivity, and you're using that desire as a foil for the obligation of due diligence. "But gee, I just wanted to help, I didn't know it could harm!"

 

[ksen]

Ford Pinto

Pathological - yes

Altruistic - ??

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Asbestos. Seriously? Exposure to asbestos causing cancer was a "foreseeable" harm?

There was a point where asbestos was suspected of causing cancer, and concerns were raised. But because it was seen as such a miraculous fire-retardant, it continued to be used. The known benefit of preventing fires was considered to outweigh the concerns and unproven worries being raised about its toxic nature. Even after research had been done linking asbestos to cancer, it continued to be used until it was made illegal to do so. Yes, for a good chunk of time it was foreseeable harm.

That's not how I remember it. More like the asbestos industry and its client industries settling lawsuits under seal and lobbying legislatures not to outlaw a profitable good. The cigarette industry springs to mind.

 

[Emily Lake]

Depends on what period of time you look at. There was a period where the benefits were still believed to outweigh the "unproven" concerns.

Then it transitioned into a period where the concerns were known, but ignored, to preserve the bottom line.

But for at least some period of time, there was believed to be a benefit to asbestos that was unchallenged, and anyone who raised concerns was believed to have ulterior motives, and their concerns were dismissed.

It's not always easy to draw the line, and what seems like altruism at the time often looks nefarious after the fact - specifically because once the concerns are known and established, then the fact that they were ignored and dismissed takes on a malicious feel. I think that much of the time that maliciousness is ascribed after the fact, or as in the case with asbestos and tobacco, there's a transitional period. Because remember that for a long period of time, cigarettes were thought to be beneficial as well.

 

[Togo]

The connection to altruism is only one of categorization. The meat of the issue is in step B which you called out above - that the negative consequences were reasonably foreseeable. the only reason that altruism comes in to this topic is that there is a category of actions that are taken for altruistic reasons, and that fall prey to the problems in step 2. It's categorical grouping of like problems under an assumed nomenclature, nothing more. You could relabel them as something else, and the grouping would remain.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that there is actually a grouping at all? You can draw a circle around any form of human motivation on earth, from desire to impress the opposite sex, through altruism, to profit motives, a desire to be fashionable and with the 'in' crowd or even wanting to be tidy and neat. And any circle you draw will obviously include some actions that have unforseen bad consequences. But that doesn't make 'wanting to be tidy and neat' pathological. It just means that being neat and causing harm sometimes coincide, like snakes and coke cans sometimes coincide.

So again, still wanting to hear how these two concepts, of altruism and poor outcomes, are related in some meaningful way. Is there any reason to them as being somehow related?

They did not avoid that harm, because their desire to do good, their impetus to altruism, blinded them to the downside.

How do you know that was the reason the harm wasn't forseen? Particularly since non-altrusitic acts seem no less prone to the same phenomenon?

But I think that the conceptual grouping has merit for discussion.

But that's just it - it's not a conceptual grouping - it's an a priori judgement. Saying you want to look into 'pathological altruism' is like saying you want to look at the sexual inadequacy of Republicans - it's putting all the bother of establishing that you're talking about something real into the title as a assumption. Sure there may be people who are both republican and sexually inadequate, just like there are bound to be people who are both altrusitic and cause harm. But unless you're willing to discuss the assumption built into the title, whether sexual inadequacy and voting republican are linked in any way beyond happenstance, or whether altruism is actually some kind of pathology that blinds you to harm, rather than just assuming the case and looking for examples, then what on earth are you intending to discuss?

 

[Togo]

But for at least some period of time, there was believed to be a benefit to asbestos that was unchallenged, and anyone who raised concerns was believed to have ulterior motives, and their concerns were dismissed.

There still is. Plenty of people the world over still argue that the benefits of asbestos greatly outweigh the dangers. Some people still argue that the dangers of lead paint were overstated too, although it doesn't much matter now that paint technology has improved so much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Asbestos. Seriously? Exposure to asbestos causing cancer was a "foreseeable" harm?

There was a point where asbestos was suspected of causing cancer, and concerns were raised. But because it was seen as such a miraculous fire-retardant, it continued to be used. The known benefit of preventing fires was considered to outweigh the concerns and unproven worries being raised about its toxic nature. Even after research had been done linking asbestos to cancer, it continued to be used until it was made illegal to do so. Yes, for a good chunk of time it was foreseeable harm.

The initial use of asbestos did not contain foreseeable harm.

Is it possible for you to interact in a genial fashion?

Yes.

Would you kindly give it a go, then?

Meh.

ETA: Also lead paint.

Wasn't lead in paint for centuries? Also, children eating paint that was falling off in chips? That was foreseeable? And what part of putting lead in paint was being altruistic?

Lead had been used in paint for centuries, but in the early 20th century it was recommended by the US government for use in house paint specifically for health reasons - it was washable and didn't break down quickly. This allowed for homeowners to wash their walls, which was seen as preferable to the more commonly used wallpaper at the time, which was believed to be able to capture bacteria. The government recommended, and in some states specified, the use of lead-based paint in home construction for beneficial reasons, in order to reduce the risk of contagion. Lead toxicity had been known to exist for quite some time before that, but was initially thought to only occur when exposed to large amounts. Research began occurring in the 1950s, linking lead paint in houses to illness in children.

Who would think that people would start eating the paint? That is not a foreseeable harm. The only initial foreseeable harm in lead paint would be the exposure to it while painting, and maybe at that point they would understand for workers when sandblasting it off.

There was a period during which the risks were discounted despite the research being sound, because the benefits of lead paint were considered so great.

So 20 years of research, it is conclusive, they eliminate it. That doesn't fit your narrative.

You seem to be confusing unintended consequences with "easily foreseeable harm".

On the contrary, you seem to be dismissing all negative outcomes as "unintended consequences" and discounting the foreseeability of them altogether.

When asbestos was initially used, there was no foreseeable harm in it causing a disease that hadn't been discovered yet. Nor did people consider the risk of children eating paint chips because the paint is on the walls, not on the floor in chips. These are unforeseeable consequences. Not like say the Hindenburg, which was a known risk. See the difference? The risk is recognized in the short-term, not several decades after the initial use.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

[derail]You guys do know that asbestos was used as early as ancient Greece. [/derail]

http://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/history/

 

[Emily Lake]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that there is actually a grouping at all?

This question doesn't make sense. Groupings are categorizations. I think I gave a pretty good run down of the conceptual set already, back here...

Aside from that, I've already repeatedly said that I don't put any merit in the term "pathological". In this case, I think you're completely dismissing the onus of reasonably foreseeable negative consequences without any consideration at all. I don't quite understand why you're insisting on doing so.

I'll try to make it very straightforward, and cut through my own tendency to long-windedness: If you're going to try to do something that is helpful (altruistic) then it's your duty to try your hardest to make sure that it's actually going to help, and to not ignore concerns and worries about potential harm. If you press forward with an action that you want to be helpful, simply because you want to help, when the negative outcome was reasonably foreseeable, then you're an asshole and probably a narcissist. That's the whole point here.

I can't help but feel that you're taking umbrage with the terminology more than anything else.

 

[Emily Lake]

The initial use of asbestos did not contain foreseeable harm.

I did not say that the initial use of asbestos did. I was quite clear about a certain period of use, AFTER its initial widespread introduction, and BEFORE it was finally banned. Your statement above is evidence of a lack of reading on your part.

Who would think that people would start eating the paint? That is not a foreseeable harm. The only initial foreseeable harm in lead paint would be the exposure to it while painting, and maybe at that point they would understand for workers when sandblasting it off.

There was a period during which the risks were discounted despite the research being sound, because the benefits of lead paint were considered so great.

So 20 years of research, it is conclusive, they eliminate it. That doesn't fit your narrative.

I think you really ought to go do some research before you dismiss this out of hand based on your gut feel and whatever you think sounds clever. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Actually, a lot of what you're parroting here is based on no knowledge at all, and is merely assumptions of what must be in order for it to fit your preformed notion of how things work.