Does altruism really exist?

[The Executive]

Altruism is defined by Merriam-Webster as "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". This is a motivating principle in most major religions as well as secular beliefs.

However, when you take utility into account, is pure altruism really possible? (in this context utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of consumption of goods) Other things equal, if one was to drive down to Gulf Shores to aid hurricane victims after Katrina, yes, this is a noble, compassionate act, but when you really get down to it you are doing this because it provides more utility for you than any other choice. There may not be any tangible benefits involved, but you increase your sense of self-worth; you still benefit from this action. The same logic applies to nearly any "selfless" action a man can perform.

Bearing this in mind, is it possible for a human to exhibit truly altruistic behaviors?

Edit: For the record, I don't believe it's possible.

 

[snex]

what about people who knowingly sacrifice themselves to save the lives of others?

 

[The Executive]

what about people who knowingly sacrifice themselves to save the lives of others?

In that case, your desire to protect other people from harm/not have to live with your inaction (and subsequent utility gained) outweighs self-preservation instincts and desire to continue existing (and subsequent utility gained).

edit: grammatical errors

 

[Extremenerd]

In that case, your desire to protect other people from harm/not have to live with your inaction (and subsequent utility gained) outweighs self-preservation instincts and desire to continue existing (and subsequent utility gained).

edit: grammatical errors

I don't beleive it exists. People may claim that you can sacrifice yourself for another, and a handful may, but when it comes down to it, human nature is self-preservation. It goes against millions of years of evolution to throw your own life away for anothers.

 

[snex]

I don't beleive it exists. People may claim that you can sacrifice yourself for another, and a handful may, but when it comes down to it, human nature is self-preservation. It goes against millions of years of evolution to throw your own life away for anothers.

millions of years of evolution has favored the propagation of your genes, not you. MOST of the time they two are equal, but not always. even animals display behavior that goes against self-preservation, but enables the preservation of their genes.

 

[The Executive]

millions of years of evolution has favored the propagation of your genes, not you. MOST of the time they two are equal, but not always. even animals display behavior that goes against self-preservation, but enables the preservation of their genes.

Would taking a bullet for your child fall under this? You die, which violates self-preservation, but your genes live on in your offspring.
</tangent>

Is there an example of truly altruistic behavior? Even if someone brings up something like Jesus' crucifixion, according to the Bible His desire to follow the will of His Father was His primary motivation, thus utility was gained and the action was not purely altruistic.

 

[snex]

yes taking a bullet for a child would count. also consider birds that alert their flockmates about predators. by sounding an alert call, they draw the predator's attention to themselves but the rest of the flock knows to flee.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

One could argue that consciously deciding against sacrificing oneself for one's child is "worse than death" to the mind of the person who made the decision. Or simply say that they were acting "irrationally" from the standpoint of self-preservation. In the first case, altruism doesn't enter into it, in the second, we're calling the notion of altruism irrational. Could we use similar logic on all such examples? I'm not entirely sure. I like a lot of what Ayn Rand and Objectivism has to say about this sort of thing, the problem to me is that it seems to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because it seems like we are free to redefine "irrational" as we see fit; that's why I don't consider myself an Objectivist.

 

[mzink*]

I think certain actions can be purely selfless at least up to the point that the action is done. Protecting a friend or a child could simply be impulse, a spur of the moment reaction. It may be self satisfying afterward but the timespan up to the actual action I think could be selfless. As for the bird example, yea I think I agree with your example in general, a mother animal would not be thinking self preservation when instinct tells it to put itself in the path of danger to protect its young, maybe preservation of its young and the species but not self. And I don't think an animal does it for self satisfaction, I think it would be pure instinct. Whether instinct counts as a purely selfless act or not I'm not sure.

 

[Pure-???]

In it's purest form selflessness does not exist. certainly, some people will exhibit it more than others, but in it's rawest form, no. noone is completely selfless. People do things out of selflessness, however. nothing can prove that wrong.

But Pure Altruism? Very Unlikely.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

Well in the end it doesn't matter.

What I mean is because of the simple fact that "utility" does exist, when anyone does anything altruistic, their (core) motives can be automatically questioned. Problem is, there's little or no way to prove that your actions are Truly altruistic, because subconciously who knows what's going on in your brain.
I do like the "spur of the moment" decision arguement.

I would also argue that there is a case for true altruism with religious peoples, because they don't do it for their own benefit, they do it because (they think) it's Right and True. Capital R. It's not like you can get into a really nice part of Heaven by doing more nice things.
Edit: at least in Christianity. Don't some religions judge that sort of thing though? Karma? Hinduism?

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...this is an interesting topic. I think that to an extent humans can possess altruism. This word is often called "service", which if done properly is for free, without even the thought of reward. However, for people to be this way all the time their whole lives is impossible. It is human nature to be selfish, and so therefore that nature will always prevail every once in a while. You can do things to make other people feel better you know, it doesn't necessarily have to be for yourself in any way. Though in many cases doing service does earn you a good reputation, so I suppose that sometimes service could be considered un-altruistic, but then that depends on my previous definition of service.

 

[manhunter098]

Well I think that any single action can be altruistic (well a lot of individual actions anyways, perhaps not all of them) but I dont think that anyone can act on altruism all of the time.

I mean I can be altruistic when I help somebody with something, maybe after the fact I can see some benefit or something, but when it comes to offering help at that time I would say my motives are pure, or at least hidden from my conscious at the moment, but I dont really like psychoanalytic theory too much, (it comes up with some neat concepts, but its just impossible to prove), so Ill go with the pure motives at first thing.

 

[SuperBowser]

I think altruism does exist.

I'm not sure if this case would count but I remember watching a few years ago this documentary about ''human'' traits in certain primates. There was one species that seemed to have a sense of ''fairness'' when observed in the wild. In an experiment, two of these monkeys were put next to each in spearate boxes with a small hole they could communicate to each other through. One box had a lever, the other box had 8 berries or some other fruit that would be released when the lever was pulled. The monkeys worked out what happens quite quickly but the second monkey had the ability to eat all the fruit for themselves as the first had no access. Instead he counted out the berries and put exactly half of them through the hole for the other one. So cute!

Can this count as altruism? I get the feeling this will become a pure semantics debate though...

 

[redgreenblue]

No. Altruism is, from its most fundamental definition, an imaginary concept.

"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"

ALL acts have some positive effect for the one doing the action, regardless of how the effect takes place. Mental positive effects such as self-esteem boosts count. Sacrificing yourself by stepping in front of a bullet for someone? You feel good because you sacrificed yourself, doing the "right thing to do". Taking all the blame for something you had nothing to do with? Making someone else feel good makes you feel good. There is no escaping the impossibly seamless confines of self-benefit.

However, altruism exists in two other forms.

The first is a loose definition of the word. Total unselfishness is impossible... however there is weighing off cost vs gain. If you take the definition of unselfishness as merely "cost outweighing gain" rather than "all cost and no gain", then altruism is indeed possible. In fact, this "altruism", if it can be called that, happens every day. Many people, knowingly or unknowingly, cost themselves more than they gain. Regardless, this idea cannot be accepted as legitimate altruism, since even though you are adhering to the definition of the concept, you are bending the definition of a key point of the concept.

The second is the more theoretically perfect form of plausible altruism. You may not know it takes place, but it happens all the time. People have been complaining about it since the dawn of human communication. This debate we are all engaging in happens to utilize it in many forms.

Have you guessed it yet? The only actual altruism that exists is the opposite; selfishness.

Isn't it ironic that altruism only takes place as the inverse affect of its inverse? The limitation with personally inflicted altruism is that it always has personal benefits, as said before. But what if you are MAKING someone behave altruistically? Taking something important to them away, something they would NEVER give up? Let's say you love pokemon cards. Your friend has a holographic charizard or whatever the kids use these days. You DON'T. So you take his. Your friend was extremely fond of his charizard and would never give it to you for no reason, so he starts crying and then never talks to you again because of his hate of you.

Stop. Getting that charizard felt good, yes? Your conscience may give you regret, but say you think your friend is overreacting. Say, your friend accidentally ripped up a rare card you once had unknowingly, and you stayed angry at him while he went unawares that he damaged your feelings. So you find it to be fitting to take his card in return. But he knew nothing of hurting your feelings earlier. So you now feel good for taking his card, while he feels completely hurt by your actions and consumed with negativity.

Hmm, what's that? You feel good and your friend feels bad? Or rather, thinking from the perspective of the friend, you feel bad and your friend feels good. That sounds a bit like

"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"

to me, doesn't it? Even if the regard is intentional or not, in YOUR charizard being in your FRIEND'S care, you are being completely unselfish. Your allowing of the charizard to be stolen, either by carelessness or trickery on your friends part, is unintentional regard for your friend's welfare (his agenda for his own welfare provides his positive benefit).

This can happen in other ways. Say you lose something very dear to you on the way to the bus stop. A picture of you and your long lost sister, whom you presume to be dead after a car accident a decade ago. You get on the bus and go home, then hours later realize it is missing. You go back but it is gone. You are gripped by the sadness of losing the only physical manifestation of your only family member you ever knew personally, your sister. You cry and cry and cry and sink into yourself.

Meanwhile, by incredible chance, your sister (who was supposedly dead) was the one who picked up the portrait near the bus stop. She becomes ecstatic with joy at the sight of the picture, as she had longed for many years to find some hint of you anywhere. She becomes a much happier person after that, and strives to try and find you (the story ends there).

So, your misfortune led to your sister's great happiness. What does this all mean? It means that true altruism, in its most pure and clear form, is only possible when the person to behave altruistically is doing it without knowledge of doing it. It means you can only be altruistic in BEING hurt, not hurting yourself. That makes all the difference.

Come to think of it, it kind of makes sense why many religions who take altruism as a "holy" characteristic hurt their followers, yes? "The greater good", I believe it is called.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

Wait what religions that take altruism and a holy characteristic hurt their followers?

Anyways,
I'm not sure if I buy that. There's no deliberate actions invovled.
I think that reasoning is too based on the end result of the subject. You're too focused on the subject of the altruistic behavior's feelings. I would say that the point is the action itself and how it relates to the altruistic person. But then again maybe the only way to measure that is through the end result of helping someone (making them happy or whatever).

I think it's a quite cynical view to think that true altruism, no matter how small or short or quick it may be, cannot exist. You can always question someone's subconcious motives and they would have no way to defend themselves. A spur of the moment decision, a speeding car towards a loved one and pushing them out of the way, sheerly on instict, holds no reward or good feeling for the hero in that situation. If the car doesn't hit them or kill them or whatever, they afterwards might have time to think and maybe pat themselves on the back a bit but there are countless stories of that happening with no expectation of reward. Again it comes down to people doing what they consider to be the Right thing.

But yeah this is going to devolve into a semantics debate, SuperBowser. I liked your monkey story!

 

[Kur]

I think people are confusing an issue here.

Some of you are saying pure altruism can not exist because you can always question the motives of somebody who behaves in an altruistic manner.

Well being able to question motives does not in any way prove that their motives were altruistic or not. You can claim that a person may have saved a total stranger at great risk to themselves because they felt good about doing the right thing, but that does not mean that is why they did it.

Some people are just good people.

It is 1am. A very strong thunderstorm is rolling through the neighborhood. Somebodies fence is blown down and that fence happens to be around a pool. Their neighbor, who happens to hate them because he suspects they have been stealing his newspaper and their kids annoy him, sees the fence laying in the yard and laughs. It serves them right. They are out of town visiting family and will probably get a large fine from the city for not having their pool enclosed. But then the neighbor realizes the family is pretty poor and probably could not afford a fine, so he grabs his hammer and fixes the fence that night.

He doesn't tell anybody about it so their will be no reward, no thank you. He has fixed fences many times so there is no 'job well done' sense of satisfaction. He actually hates fixing fences he has done it so much. He hates the family so he is not doing it for any satisfaction of helping a friend. If the family had more money, he'd have left that fence there and probably called the city himself to be sure they got a fine.

He does not do it out of guilt, he just does it because it is the right thing to do and he wishes the whole time that he wasn't so **** altruistic.


Sound too far fetched? I don't think so.

 

[redgreenblue]

I think people are confusing an issue here.

Some of you are saying pure altruism can not exist because you can always question the motives of somebody who behaves in an altruistic manner.

Well being able to question motives does not in any way prove that their motives were altruistic or not. You can claim that a person may have saved a total stranger at great risk to themselves because they felt good about doing the right thing, but that does not mean that is why they did it.

Some people are just good people.

It is 1am. A very strong thunderstorm is rolling through the neighborhood. Somebodies fence is blown down and that fence happens to be around a pool. Their neighbor, who happens to hate them because he suspects they have been stealing his newspaper and their kids annoy him, sees the fence laying in the yard and laughs. It serves them right. They are out of town visiting family and will probably get a large fine from the city for not having their pool enclosed. But then the neighbor realizes the family is pretty poor and probably could not afford a fine, so he grabs his hammer and fixes the fence that night.

He doesn't tell anybody about it so their will be no reward, no thank you. He has fixed fences many times so there is no 'job well done' sense of satisfaction. He actually hates fixing fences he has done it so much. He hates the family so he is not doing it for any satisfaction of helping a friend. If the family had more money, he'd have left that fence there and probably called the city himself to be sure they got a fine.

He does not do it out of guilt, he just does it because it is the right thing to do and he wishes the whole time that he wasn't so **** altruistic.


Sound too far fetched? I don't think so.

There is always positive benefit to doing something, even if you don't realize it at the time. ALWAYS. That neighbor? He feels good for doing something right for the poor family. He may not realize it at the time. He may think "this ****ing sucks but they deserve it" while he's fixing the fence, but later, at some point in time, he feels good about it. If he doesn't remember doing it? Well then that's altruism. The kind I was talking about before, where you don't realize you are doing it.

People can act altruistically in the short term as much as they want. But BEING intentionally altruistic is impossible.

And to CogSmooch, a main example of a religion that is doing that would be... hmm, I'll try and choose one that won't offend anyone out of the many that are examples... scientology? If that even counts as a religion (). Scientologists are all about preaching to their followers about helping those still plagued by "thetans", yet they swindle money away from them as fast as they can.

 

[SuperBowser]

The first is a loose definition of the word. Total unselfishness is impossible... however there is weighing off cost vs gain. If you take the definition of unselfishness as merely "cost outweighing gain" rather than "all cost and no gain", then altruism is indeed possible. In fact, this "altruism", if it can be called that, happens every day. Many people, knowingly or unknowingly, cost themselves more than they gain. Regardless, this idea cannot be accepted as legitimate altruism, since even though you are adhering to the definition of the concept, you are bending the definition of a key point of the concept.

Why?

In the monkey example I gave above, are you be implying that the monkey is doing it because it ''feels good'', therefore is selfish? I would argue (as did the documentary; I'll look it up if you want) it's far more likely that the monkey had an inbuilt sense of what is fair or not fair (he only got the fruit through the work of the other), and is acting on this belief.

This meets your definition of altruism.

Sometimes people do the right thing because it is the right thing. Nothing more, nothing less is gained from the action.


Your version of altruism seems a bit... wrong You can't carry out an unselfish act and call it altruism if you didn't want the positive effects to occur at the time you acted.

 

[Pure-???]

Interesting Thought: Altruism specifies that nothing is received by the doer of the good deed. this makes it impossible to prove altruism because by attempting selflessness, you prove altruism. so it cancels itself out.

 

[redgreenblue]

Why?

In the monkey example I gave above, are you be implying that the monkey is doing it because it ''feels good'', therefore is selfish? I would argue (as did the documentary; I'll look it up if you want) it's far more likely that the monkey had an inbuilt sense of what is fair or not fair (he only got the fruit through the work of the other), and is acting on this belief.

This meets your definition of altruism.

Sometimes people do the right thing because it is the right thing. Nothing more, nothing less is gained from the action.


Your version of altruism seems a bit... wrong You can't carry out an unselfish act and call it altruism if you didn't want the positive effects to occur at the time you acted.

Selfishness is any intended positive benefit to yourself. Altruism is any intended positive effect for another.

ACTING selfish (knowingly or unknowingly putting yourself ahead of others) and ACTING altruistically (knowingly or unknowingly putting others ahead of yourself) are both very, very different from BEING either of those. Being selfish is just as impossible as it is to be altruistic.

Why do you think that people "do the right thing because it is the right thing"? Surely there must be some reason... humans are a sapient species, we ALWAYS have reason. All of life is reason. The reason for doing something is always both negative and positive benefit. You find something "the right thing to do", because you want to adhere to morality. You want be able to think "I did a good thing today". You could argue the monkey is not capable of reflecting on its actions, but then again... you just said it was judging the situation as either being fair or unfair.

And why would it care if it was fair or unfair? Perhaps an inlaid logicality from years of evolution says it must judge things as fair or unfair. So the monkey WANTS to adhere to that reasoning. Accomplishing its task of assessing the fairness of the situation is its benefit.

Surely you must see there is absolutely no escaping cost and gain? There is no conscious application of pure cost or pure gain; they are as imaginary as the square root of a negative. Everything you do intentionally ALWAYS has both cost and gain. Anything with sentience always acts both altruistically and selfishly. You cannot be one OR the other. Only both.

 

[SuperBowser]

I don't see how you can call that a gain to the monkey. A monkey that shares is being selfish?!

It would rather eat all the fruit, but gives half away without receiving a tangible benefit. You can't call something selfish because it is an innate reaction.

 

[redgreenblue]

I don't see how you can call that a gain to the monkey. A monkey that shares is being selfish?!

It would rather eat all the fruit, but gives half away without receiving a tangible benefit. You can't call something selfish because it is an innate reaction.

Satisfying the innate reaction requirement IS its gain. A gain, however small or large, is still a gain! You can't possibly ignore the insurmountable evidence for my argument.

 

[SuperBowser]

Not neccessarily.

A baby cries if it's hungry. This isn't about satisfying its thoughts, it is simply the innate reaction. If I dropped something, the natural reaction of someone next to me may well be to try and catch it, but this is just an innate reaction. Some animals will run upon the sight of something new; yes, this is an evolutionary advantage, but they do not realise this. It is simply their natural reaction to run. Nothing about feeling good.

In the same way it is possible that these monkeys have an innate sense to act fairly.

 

[redgreenblue]

Not neccessarily.

A baby cries if it's hungry. This isn't about satisfying its thoughts, it is simply the innate reaction. If I dropped something, the natural reaction of someone next to me may well be to try and catch it, but this is just an innate reaction. Some animals will run upon the sight of something new; yes, this is an evolutionary advantage, but they do not realise this. It is simply their natural reaction to run. Nothing about feeling good.

In the same way it is possible that these monkeys have an innate sense to act fairly.

Look, if you cannot see my logic, I will simply have to prove you wrong by finding a benefit for the one doing the action in every single case you present to me.

Baby crying because it's hungry > wants food > food = benefit.

You drop something and person next to you picks it up > the want to pick it up > picking it up is either benefiting to them because they may think its theirs or they are being kind to you > they know from experience that making you feel good makes them feel good > feeling good = benefit.

Running from something new > fear of the unknown > escaping the the unknown > wanting to be safe, away from the unknown > being safe = benefit

Monkey bringing a sense of fairness to the situation > genetic imperative to be fair > want to satisfy the imperative or morals by being fair > satisfaction = benefit.

Any others?

 

[blazedaces]

You're both just using circular logic. What evidence? You haven't presented one source.

You've just made up your own definitions for words. One of you is saying "look, A = A" and the other is saying "look, B = B".

The definitions of selfish and selfless had purpose. Their purpose was to distinguish between different kinds of people. They were usable adjectives in the dictionary. According to some of you there literally is no point to ever call someone selfish or selfless. To call someone selfish requires a response of "duh".

You just want to see the world your way. You don't care what the world actually resembles. You don't care to find the truth. You would rather just claim the truth and then rationalize till you're willing to believe it.

This debate is pointless semantic bickering (said already by someone) and will never go anywhere...

Note: this doesn't apply to everyone who's posted...

-blazed

 

[redgreenblue]

You're both just using circular logic. What evidence? You haven't presented one source.

You've just made up your own definitions for words. One of you is saying "look, A = A" and the other is saying "look, B = B".

The definitions of selfish and selfless had purpose. Their purpose was to distinguish between different kinds of people. They were usable adjectives in the dictionary. According to some of you there literally is no point to ever call someone selfish or selfless. To call someone selfish requires a response of "duh".

You just want to see the world your way. You don't care what the world actually resembles. You don't care to find the truth. You would rather just claim the truth and then rationalize till you're willing to believe it.

This debate is pointless semantic bickering (said already by someone) and will never go anywhere...

Note: this doesn't apply to everyone who's posted...

-blazed

okay, you're right. I'm sorry.

 

[SuperBowser]

well to be fair I said it would be a semantics debate in my first post -_-

You can't learn something from a debate unless you pick a side and see how it turns out.

I wanted to point out that you can't prove an act is selfish with RGB's line of thinking, perhaps I did it messily.

Btw, the actions I mentioned are automatic reactions and do not occur because of a premeditated benefit to the person. I'm not sure how to explain it properly but the first ones I mentioned are automatic reactions hardwired into our brains.

A better example would be if you were to touch something unexpectedly hot. The reflex goes through your spinal cord, and you withdraw your hand straight away as a reflex. These types of reactions also form part of our basic feelings/emotions, such as a natural aversion to certain smells like vomit (it is hardwired by the amygdala I believe). A loud noise makes a baby cry. There is no premeditated satisfaction from these actions, they just happen!

It was hypothesized in the documentary that these monkeys had an inbuilt sense of fairness the same way. Hopefully you understand me now (my english grammar is poor so i don't always get my point across).........

edit: i haven't been asked for sources so i haven't provided any, though i did offer.

 

[Vro]

It seems that the base of this debate stems over a belief in ethics.
Kantian ethics states that there is duty in being a good citizen. This duty would not be something you'd always want to attend to, but as your duty you served it. Is that altruism? Perhaps it is your duty to visit a classmate in the hospital, even tho you barely talk.

Should you go the route of Egocentrism, you'd say the guilt would subdue his happiness utility, so he goes for that reason. But what about events that you go thru but don't even want to do? Do you believe some Nazi soldiers weren't hesitant about their actions? They still went thru their actions. Do you think they felt better about completing their task? Do you think they'd feel guilty if they weren't working? In this situation, I cannot think of an Egocentric way to explain why humans would do things that didn't benefit them. And I'm sure there are many cases like that. The only explanation would then be the insubordinate nature of humans. But that's a different matter.

Going on that, I've personally done many things completely out of the way for the benefit of others. I've got the short end of the deal several times for the sake of others. Do you think I enjoy it enough that it'd compensate for my feelings of guilt?

Is it possible that humans do not always look out for themselves? I see of no reason biologically we'd have a gene of pure selfishness. There can be generosity in people without the intent of gain. Since when did you live every action based on utility? Unless you're utilitarian, it seems normal to think of things just as things, not values of happiness. I don't believe people always weigh out their decisions based on a predicted value of happiness, but rather by their free will.

I believe altruism can exist. But if you ever consider it altruism, it isn't. Kinda like how Tao called Tao is not Tao. And in Buddhism, performing actions based solely on predicted karma, creates no karma at all. So if you give a gift to someone hoping they'll forgive you for something, it isn't considered good karma. You're manipulating an event rather than truly meaning it.

Altruism can be seen as that; doing it for the sake of others, it's not really in the definition of altruism. You perform a deed expecting nothing back, thus fulfilling the "selfish" argument while also fulfilling the "selfless" argument. If you see it my way.. =/

(First post in DH)

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

Some of you are saying pure altruism can not exist because you can always question the motives of somebody who behaves in an altruistic manner.

Well being able to question motives does not in any way prove that their motives were altruistic or not. You can claim that a person may have saved a total stranger at great risk to themselves because they felt good about doing the right thing, but that does not mean that is why they did it.

exactly.

There is always positive benefit to doing something, even if you don't realize it at the time. ALWAYS. That neighbor? He feels good for doing something right for the poor family. He may not realize it at the time. He may think "this ****ing sucks but they deserve it" while he's fixing the fence, but later, at some point in time, he feels good about it. If he doesn't remember doing it? Well then that's altruism. The kind I was talking about before, where you don't realize you are doing it.

People can act altruistically in the short term as much as they want. But BEING intentionally altruistic is impossible.

And to CogSmooch, a main example of a religion that is doing that would be... hmm, I'll try and choose one that won't offend anyone out of the many that are examples... scientology? If that even counts as a religion (). Scientologists are all about preaching to their followers about helping those still plagued by "thetans", yet they swindle money away from them as fast as they can.

Selfishness is any intended positive benefit to yourself. Altruism is any intended positive effect for another.

ACTING selfish (knowingly or unknowingly putting yourself ahead of others) and ACTING altruistically (knowingly or unknowingly putting others ahead of yourself) are both very, very different from BEING either of those. Being selfish is just as impossible as it is to be altruistic.

Who's talking about BEING altruistic? Every single person on this planet is BEING a lot of things all the time, including things that contradict each other. This thread is about whether or not anyone can commit an act of PURE altruism. Just one single act. The answer is yes, even by your own definition. If the fence-fixing neighbor remembers 2 years later how he fixed that fence, and feels good about himself, he was still be altruistic. Because at that specific moment, at the moment that he decided to make the action and then actually did it, there was no even EXPECTATION of a reward of any kind. If it comes later is besides the point.

Monkey bringing a sense of fairness to the situation > genetic imperative to be fair > want to satisfy the imperative or morals by being fair > satisfaction = benefit.

Any others?

What? Monkeys live by moral imperatives now?
btw you are a cynical mofo lol

 

[redgreenblue]

What? Monkeys live by moral imperatives now?
btw you are a cynical mofo lol

I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off as a cynic. humans are very, very capable of doing good. And a lot do much good! If it sounded like I thought altruism was impossible and selfishness is all that existed, then I sorely misrepresented myself. What I meant was that, at least in my experience, there is usually a balance between altruistic behaviour and selfish behaviour in people. There are exceptions though... a lot of people I know strive to be as good as they can to everyone. Really sorry I came off as such a negative person, I didn't mean it!

 

[Kur]

There is always positive benefit to doing something, even if you don't realize it at the time. ALWAYS. That neighbor? He feels good for doing something right for the poor family. He may not realize it at the time. He may think "this ****ing sucks but they deserve it" while he's fixing the fence, but later, at some point in time, he feels good about it. If he doesn't remember doing it? Well then that's altruism. The kind I was talking about before, where you don't realize you are doing it.

People can act altruistically in the short term as much as they want. But BEING intentionally altruistic is impossible.

Now that is a stretch.

He can't be altruistic because he may or may not feel better about his deed in the future?

Is that the same as saying that Bill Gates isn't rich because he may or may not blow his wealth on a drunken poker night with Donald Trump in the future?

Maybe I am not alive because I will be dead in the future.



Face it, he is 100% altruistic. IF he later feels good about doing the good deed, it still doesn't take away from the altruism because that is not why he did the act at the time. At the time it was the last thing he wanted to do but did it anyway for no other reason than it was right. Being able to say "there might be some kind of future benefit!" means nothing because nobody can predict the future.

And get real. Not every good deed has a positive benefit to the doer of the deed. I lost a job, a good job, over a good deed I did. There was no positive benefit for me at all.

"No good deed goes unpunished" as they say.

 

[redgreenblue]

Now that is a stretch.

He can't be altruistic because he may or may not feel better about his deed in the future?

Is that the same as saying that Bill Gates isn't rich because he may or may not blow his wealth on a drunken poker night with Donald Trump in the future?

Maybe I am not alive because I will be dead in the future.



Face it, he is 100% altruistic. IF he later feels good about doing the good deed, it still doesn't take away from the altruism because that is not why he did the act at the time. At the time it was the last thing he wanted to do but did it anyway for no other reason than it was right. Being able to say "there might be some kind of future benefit!" means nothing because nobody can predict the future.

And get real. Not every good deed has a positive benefit to the doer of the deed. I lost a job, a good job, over a good deed I did. There was no positive benefit for me at all.

"No good deed goes unpunished" as they say.

Well... there is a reason people do something because it is right. It has nothing to do with them feeling better about the future... it's because they feel the need to have moral equality. In this situation, if he truly didn't think that fixing the fence was the right thing to do, he wouldn't have any reason to do it, right? Satisfying his values are still a benefit. Yes I know it's a stretch. This is a very altruistic thing to do. It's just not completely selfless in my opinion.

 

[manhunter098]

Well what I have gathered so far, is that there needs to be some thought preceding the actual deed to make it not altruistic, that thought being related to something about a supposed gain for their action. If that thought doesnt occur until after the deed has been done though, then the action was still completely altruistic, however the person who did it would not be.

I can see some altruism then in people who just kind of go along with the requests of help for others. Not really expecting anything from it, but a thought that goes more along the lines of "I might as well", toward the deed doesnt really contain any selfish regards. After they may thing they deserve something for their help, but with the help already completed they have already done an altruistic action, though they themselves are no longer being altruistic.

 

[Vro]

I can see some altruism then in people who just kind of go along with the requests of help for others. Not really expecting anything from it, but a thought that goes more along the lines of "I might as well", toward the deed doesn't really contain any selfish regards. After they may thing they deserve something for their help, but with the help already completed they have already done an altruistic action, though they themselves are no longer being altruistic.

Are you saying that no proactive people are altruistic? I understand situations where you just feel like helping out. But you don't think there are any altruistic people by nature? Is finding joy in helping others break the altruistic standard and qualify as benefiting yourself?

Also, are you saying no person can be altruistic but rather only actions? It would seem actions are inert unless you have a subject and accusative. For instance, the action of giving money seems like an altruistic behavior. However, when changing the parameters, it seems altruism shows. What if the money was stolen? What if the money was used for "immoral" things? It would then seem the action is not altruism, but the person performing it is.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off as a cynic. humans are very, very capable of doing good. And a lot do much good! If it sounded like I thought altruism was impossible and selfishness is all that existed, then I sorely misrepresented myself. What I meant was that, at least in my experience, there is usually a balance between altruistic behaviour and selfish behaviour in people. There are exceptions though... a lot of people I know strive to be as good as they can to everyone. Really sorry I came off as such a negative person, I didn't mean it!

LOL don't worry about it, it's all good.

Are you saying that no proactive people are altruistic? I understand situations where you just feel like helping out. But you don't think there are any altruistic people by nature? Is finding joy in helping others break the altruistic standard and qualify as benefiting yourself?

Also, are you saying no person can be altruistic but rather only actions? It would seem actions are inert unless you have a subject and accusative. For instance, the action of giving money seems like an altruistic behavior. However, when changing the parameters, it seems altruism shows. What if the money was stolen? What if the money was used for "immoral" things? It would then seem the action is not altruism, but the person performing it is.

I typed a big reply to this but SWF ate it......stupid database error.

What I said was that if you give a homeless man a blanket on a cold night and 5 minutes later he is so mad at the world and himself that he hangs himself with it....does that make your action not altruistic because it had a bad and unintended consequence?

 

[Vro]

Of course your action would be altruistic. When talking about the consequences of events, you must always go to direct causes. There can be an infinite amount of indirect causes and effects. Therefore, to keep in consistency, we can just ignore all indirect effects and look primarily at direct ones.

When giving the blanket to the man, the situation is:
1) You have more fortune than the man.
2) The blanket has value
3) You expect nothing in return.

Now that seems pretty altruistic to me. You are not in control of any other actions or events that bestow him once you leave him be. Your action still shows altruism, altho it is unknown if the person is altruistic.

 

[Firus]

No. I do not believe that it exists.

Pretty much no matter what you do, it's always going to have some sort of positive for you. If you sacrifice your life for someone, you save a human life, which not only makes you a hero, but it makes you feel good to die for a good cause. Instead of dying peacefully in your sleep, you died doing something.

If you do just about anything good, it'll make you feel good about yourself and others will treat you as a hero, or if it's a lesser deed, then just a good person.

redgreenblue brought up a good point with giving someone joy unknowingly, but it's still selfish--you are crying, or you are upset, and even if it makes things fair, it's still selfish because you are thinking of yourself. If you were to learn the truth behind the story, that your sister picked up the picture, that would make you feel joy, not only because your sister is alive, but because she has the picture of you. If you learn that you hurt your friend's feelings before and that's why your Charizard was stolen, you'll either still be upset because you still cared for that Charizard and think it was an unfair payback, or you'll feel good because the bad thing you did has been alleviated.

 

[Vro]

That's a pretty pessimistic view on altruism. Are you saying you can never be satisfied with an altruistic act, for that in itself is selfish? There seems to be a dividing line between the action and effect and your perspective or feelings about the event.

Can I not help someone up after they fall, without it being called selfish? If I were in the same situation, I'd want help. I didn't expect the person I picked up to return anything to me. But you're saying that the satisfaction I receive from helping another is selfish. That would entail any good feelings within yourself to be selfish, which seems to be a stretch to me.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

^^^ Good point. If any good feeling you get, ever, is going to be defined as selfish, then I doubt altruism exists. But I don't think Joy is selfish...
There is a fine like to be drawn, though, ie- you act unselflessly for the sole purpose of feeling better about yourself-- not altruism. you act unselflessly with no expectation of reward, but sometime afterwards you realize you did the Right thing (according to your moral structure), that still falls under altruism, imo. Maybe it's hard to explain if you're not relgious, but it's not pride or smugness or strictly a good feeling, rather just content knowledge that you did something correctly for once.