Something that came up in therapy that I've been pondering: Can altruism really exist? I mean, the dictionary defines altruism as "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others." Unselfish meaning that the person performing the altruistic behavior is not expecting anything in return.

But no one does something for nothing. You are technically getting something in return regardless of what your rationale is, even if it's just feeling all "warm and fuzzy" inside. I would argue that viewing  a "warm and fuzzy" reward as somehow higher or better than something more tangible is because of societal influences. Certainly someone who helps you for nothing (or gets a reward from it that doesn't have to come from you) is valued more than someone who expects reciprocation. In that sense, praising altruistic behavior is actually an act of selfishness. People only like it because they don't have to give anything back. Either that, or because it reinforces some ideology that people are innately moral and good; and people want to believe that that is true. Even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think people are just like any other animal - we'll do what we can to survive. We would like to believe because we have some more creases in our cortexes and the ability to conceive morality that we are somehow above any other creature - which would not be expected to be inherently good or bad. And maybe (I'm not really too knowledgable about any research being done on this...) we are born with some basis for acting in stereotypically "good" ways, but that just doubles back to survival. If in today's society doing for others without asking for anything in return is valued and revered more than the alternatives then people will strive for that. They will teach their children to act that way. And being valued and revered for the behavior is another reward.

Thoughts?

Would you consider pushing a stranger out of the way of a car / bus / airplane / high-velocity cat, killing you but saving their life, to be altruistic?

 
I'm afraid not.  A parent for a child might scratch the surface of it but its usually 'their' child and not someone elses child so that doesnt really count.

Quote from: rar on February 23, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
Would you consider pushing a stranger out of the way of a car / bus / airplane / high-velocity cat, killing you but saving their life, to be altruistic?

Only if the stranger wasnt TRYING to commit suicide  LOL

I volunteer for a cause close to my heart, education. I effect policy and events that people can learn from. I do it for several reasons. First I have the time without taking it from other responsibilities. Second I enjoy working with people. Third it is not like a job that you slave for a boss, you can tell them to go to hell if it compromises your morals or ethics. Fourth it is a way to get my ideas heard and in action. Fifth it makes people's lives better.  Call all that selfish but in the long run it is positive without pain.

Quote from: rar on February 23, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
Would you consider pushing a stranger out of the way of a car / bus / airplane / high-velocity cat, killing you but saving their life, to be altruistic?

I think I see where you are going with this... you are saying that giving your life to save a stranger is an act of altruism since you can't get anything back because you'd be dead. But, surely when you do it you must expect that people will call you a hero. People will talk about it, and think you were a good person... you'll gain some form of immortality, even if you aren't around to see it. Of course, this probably would not be the motivation for doing so... Maybe it could be in response to the fear of being thought less of for not acting heroically in this situation? Or avoidance of the guilt associated with inaction?

Okay, the lines are a bit blurred there. I suppose giving your life for a stranger can be seen as altruistic.

But, surely when you do it you must expect that people will call you a hero.

If you are thinking that much about it, you just missed your window to do it.

Communism is great on paper too but humans are totally incapable of living that philosophy out without creating a hellish world for the 99%.  Survival of the fittest is in our genes. Altruism at best, is like Bhuddism, a nice philosophy to ponder.

Quote from: espo on February 26, 2011, 01:25:00 PM
Communism is great on paper too but humans are totally incapable of living that philosophy out without creating a hellish world for the 99%.  Survival of the fittest is in our genes. Altruism at best, is like Bhuddism, a nice philosophy to ponder.

On the contrary, pondering altruism* is the worst thing you could do with it. I'm with lisagurl in that I don't think it matters whether you're being kind for your own sake or for others'. What matters is whether you're being kind.



* And Buddhism, but we're not allowed to talk about that here.

I agree with you that being kind is important, no question about that.  But being kind is not altruism, conducting our behaviour for the good of others is, in ethics.  What I was getting at in my last post is that not everyone agrees on what 'good' means. Does it mean 'happiness' ? In which case the end of this life and onto the other could be the ultimate act of altruism. LOL Or does it mean no pain?  There is something called 'tough love' which can be very painful.
Altruism is a theory more then anything.

Quote from: rar on February 23, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
Would you consider pushing a stranger out of the way of a car / bus / airplane / high-velocity cat, killing you but saving their life, to be altruistic?

I don't see any reason why somebody would do this for a total stranger for no reason. Either you do it because you know the person or because you're suicidal or because you do not expect to die.

I think I have one scenario, so I'll share it and you can "destroy" it
When I was around 10, my mum signed me up for aerobics. I hated it but I had to attend it for a year. The instructor was this phenomenal woman, she had such an unbelievable energy (but not enough for keeping me there). Anyway, I liked her so much that I devoted her a prayer and I wished her all good, however I was not in love with her. I just wanted happiness for her, but I didn't mind not seeing her ever again. It's very difficult to explain, I think it's just that we're much more pure when we're children. Anyway, once I told this about praying to my mother, she was suprised and she said "Wow, you have such a good heart!" and from that moment on, I couldn't do it anymore, because I just felt how I was doing it to keep that good heart.

Quote from: espo on February 26, 2011, 03:40:19 PMAltruism is a theory more then anything.

*shrug* I see it as a practice. But as I said, it's not important.

Quote from: Darner on February 26, 2011, 03:55:38 PMI don't see any reason why somebody would do this for a total stranger for no reason. Either you do it because you know the person or because you're suicidal or because you do not expect to die.

Why would you need a reason?

Quote from: Darner on February 26, 2011, 03:55:38 PM... from that moment on, I couldn't do it anymore, because I just felt how I was doing it to keep that good heart.

It's possible to get that genuineness back, though it takes a lot of work. A few people never lose it in the first place. But I reiterate, whether you're doing it selflessly or selfishly is not nearly as important as just acting compassionately.

Quote from: rar on February 26, 2011, 06:36:41 PM
Why would you need a reason?

Self-preservation. It's in our animal nature that we avoid danger and try to save our lives. Except in the case of unconditional love for somebody, nothing by default would make you just die for a random stranger; you should at least know a bit of their background to feel they're more worthy than you.

I agree with your last sentence though. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you do something nice with or without an agenda, as long as you do it.

« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 07:36:41 pm »
Quote
Quote from: espo on Yesterday at 04:40:19 pm
Altruism is a theory more then anything.

*shrug* I see it as a practice. But as I said, it's not important




Didn't say theories can't be practiced LOL
Although, being in the philosophy room I though it might be cool to exlore the 'theory ' side of it. 

Quote from: Darner on February 27, 2011, 06:39:52 AM
Self-preservation. It's in our animal nature that we avoid danger and try to save our lives. Except in the case of unconditional love for somebody, nothing by default would make you just die for a random stranger; you should at least know a bit of their background to feel they're more worthy than you.

What about police and firefighters etc.? Don't they risk and sometimes give their lives to protect strangers? I know the remuneration means it's not strictly altruistic, but still, there are people (not many, granted) who're willing to give their lives to save complete strangers because they believe it's right. And those people aren't necessarily all paid to do so. We're not bound by our nature.

Quote from: espo on February 27, 2011, 11:54:30 AMAlthough, being in the philosophy room I though it might be cool to exlore the 'theory ' side of it.

I never said you shouldn't. I'm just not a very good discussion partner for that.

Policemen and firemen went to their profession with some reason - money, thrill, whatever. And once they're on the crime scene, they know that their uniform obliges them to act because this is what civil people expect. In their case, if they save a person, it's good for their career, if they don't want to do it but still help someone (which would mean that it didn't make them happy but they still did a selfless deed) in was because their sense of duty, because otherwise they know it will be hell (if they just leave someone die there) -  either they will personally feel bad, or people will judge them. Thus, they still do it for selfish reasons.
Sorry, I just cannot think of one single good reason why would you die for someone that you know absolutely nothing about. It doesn't make sense, like if you would be asked now to kill yourself so a boy in Andorra will live. If you don't know anything about him, it won't convince you to do it just for the sake of doing it.

for the scientific clinical realm of people being alturistic may not be possible but for those who follow a higher power being alturistic is the reason for living and believing one just does alturistically as best as they can.

worry not for all things here on earth!

When you do good: let one hand not know what the other is doing.

Quote from: Darner on February 27, 2011, 04:39:39 PM
Policemen and firemen went to their profession with some reason - money, thrill, whatever. And once they're on the crime scene, they know that their uniform obliges them to act because this is what civil people expect. In their case, if they save a person, it's good for their career, if they don't want to do it but still help someone (which would mean that it didn't make them happy but they still did a selfless deed) in was because their sense of duty, because otherwise they know it will be hell (if they just leave someone die there) -  either they will personally feel bad, or people will judge them. Thus, they still do it for selfish reasons.
Sorry, I just cannot think of one single good reason why would you die for someone that you know absolutely nothing about. It doesn't make sense, like if you would be asked now to kill yourself so a boy in Andorra will live. If you don't know anything about him, it won't convince you to do it just for the sake of doing it.

But you just wrote a whole paragraph of reasons. Money, thrill, empathy, shame, professional duty, and I'd add moral duty.... Do you not see "one single good reason" there to die for a stranger? So what if they're selfish?

Quote from: Randy on February 23, 2011, 10:35:01 AM
the dictionary defines altruism as "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others."

I think the important part is the second part of the definition, "devotion to the welfare of others". With communal species (like us)sacrificing oneself for the benefit of one's mate/kid/family/tribe/etc isn't necessarily without reward if it supports the survival and well-being of others. So in that way it isn't really doing something and getting nothing, it's just not the typical physical, or monetary, reward that many people think about. Sometimes someone might go out of their way to help someone because they believe it's the right thing to do. In this way they get the satisfaction of doing something that their beliefs tell them they ought to be proud of. This is another case of a non-physical reward, but it's still a reward. Perhaps a better definition is something like "concern for strangers without expectation of a tangible reward".

Two separate groups of cops.  One in Columbine, on in NYC on 9-11.  Those cops in Columbine, following proper procedure and all, waited outside while people on the inside bleed out and died.  In NYC, they rushed - rushed mind you - into buildings were certain death was pretty much a given.  I've always wondered what the Columbine cops thought watching that all play out.

Now I'm not sure that a lot of what we see as being altruistic is just doing the right thing by people capable of doing it in the knowledge that, as I was taught once by people who thought they had a leg up in moral guidance, 'it's pretty easy to know what the right choice is, it's the one that sucks.'