Does true altruism exist?

[tooty]

Me thinks not. I would say even risking your own life to save another is rooted in selfishness. Acts can be selfless but motivations are selfish.

 

Thoughts?

[NewfieMike]

altruism is like one of those "Schrodinger's Cat" phenomenon. The idea that one person can do an act for another person without any sense of reward or recognition is possible, but as soon as you define it as "altruism", which has a positive tone, it becomes almost rewarding.

 

Like I remember hearing about P.K. Subban from the Montreal Canadiens going into a Children's Hospital on Christmas day to spend time with some kids. Hypothetically it could be possible for him to have felt no reward for doing it (though unlikely), but the very fact that I heard about the incident ruins the altruism because now I think of him as a better person.

 

Altruism exists until you realize what you've done is altruistic.

[nosuperman]

Its a principle of falsifiability violation. Whether we like it or not we're interrelated on so many levels that even if you tried, you couldn't help someone without contributing to the greater fabric of which you and your family and loved ones are an integral part.

[thatonekid]

Me thinks not. I would say even risking your own life to save another is rooted in selfishness. Acts can be selfless but motivations are selfish.

 

Thoughts?

I agree with the bolded part. I don't think it exists.

[Cnussey]

There are people who die sacrificing themselves for others without the knowledge that their deaths will do any good (soliders, for example--and for strangers as well as family!)...people often do good deeds that go unnoticed, that they don't get to see the outcome for, that they don't get to say "because I love you" for...people can do things because they know it is right and selfless to do and they don't necessarily make the person feel better or ever get to reap the benefits.

 

I believe there are varying levels, but in the end...I don't think it matters. A sacrifice is a sacrifice regardless of reward or not.

 

**I like Mike's explanation.

[tooty]

There are people who die sacrificing themselves for others without the knowledge that their deaths will do any good (soliders, for example--and for strangers as well as family!)...people often do good deeds that go unnoticed, that they don't get to see the outcome for, that they don't get to say "because I love you" for...people can do things because they know it is right and selfless to do and they don't necessarily make the person feel better or ever get to reap the benefits.

 

I believe there are varying levels, but in the end...I don't think it matters. A sacrifice is a sacrifice regardless of reward or not.

 

The reward isn't necessarily for others to know of your good deed. The reward can be simply feeling good about having helped or saved someone. If I helped an old lady cross the street, no one else would know about it nor will it make any tangible difference in the old lady's life but my motivation for helping her was to feel good about having helped. Without that motivation, I wouldn't have helped.

[Cnussey]

The reward isn't necessarily for others to know of your good deed. The reward can be simply feeling good about having helped or saved someone. If I helped an old lady cross the street, no one else would know about it nor will it make any tangible difference in the old lady's life but my motivation for helping her was to feel good about having helped. Without that motivation, I wouldn't have helped.

 

Yes, but lots of people give of themselves and do good deeds without that "reward"...sorry--when I say reward, I don't only mean external recognition, but internal as well.

[tooty]

Yes, but lots of people give of themselves and do good deeds without that "reward"...sorry--when I say reward, I don't only mean external recognition, but internal as well.

 

example?

 

A soldier jumping on a grenade for his buddy would not be altruistic because he would have felt guilty for not trying, or sad for losing a friend. He doesn't want to feel guilty or sad so he helped, in a very extreme way.

 

If they don't have that reward, they're somehow psychologically abnormal because I believe that trait has been hard-wired into our brains by evolution.

[Cnussey]

example?

 

A soldier jumping on a grenade for his buddy would not be altruistic because he would have felt guilty for not trying, or sad for losing a friend. He doesn't want to feel guilty or sad so he helped, in a very extreme way.

 

Not really...consider the impulse. How much time does a person have to think through living with their lack-of-actions in such a moment? Think about the person who sees a struggling mother with an infant in her arms as they are passing by quickly and holds open the door for her...not a whole lot of higher-processing going on...afterwards, sure...and learned reactions, sure...but still--reactive. This kind of thing happens a lot. You see someone passing out and you reach to help them stop falling it's not because you've thought "Well, I'm gonna feel like **** when I see his/her head smash on the floor"...it's simply an innate impulse to help.

 

Fight or flight. Cavalier or by-stander.

 

**Good topic btw.

[apache]

i took a whole 2 evolutionary topics that seemed obsessed with addressing this in every chapter.

 

there were many chapters showing how "altruistic behavior" was in fact self serving.

 

i agree with you completely, although not because of those hokus pokus post hoc ev psych experiments. although at the very heart of my existence i truly want to help people, to make a significant other smile, to help someone who doesn't believe life is worth living be happy and joyful again, i know that deep inside it's to satisfy my ideological beliefs about the nature of humanity, our universe, my personal experience of having suffered in helping these people and the anger i felt when they were dismissed as non-existent.

 

my behavior may be altruistic, i lent my friend 6000 dollars for rent and other yearly expenses... and at this point i don't expect to get it back, people say i'm stupid for lending it to him but i understood the exact circumstances he grew up in, and perhaps i was acting out of anger towards the personal cards i was dealt... in the end i believe in altruistic behavior, it's in front of you, but i believe the cause, even if we choose to ignore it, is subtlety or grossly obviously self serving.

 

Me thinks not. I would say even risking your own life to save another is rooted in selfishness. Acts can be selfless but motivations are selfish.

 

Thoughts?

[tooty]

Not really...consider the impulse. How much time does a person have to think through living with their lack-of-actions in such a moment? Think about the person who sees a struggling mother with an infant in her arms as they are passing by quickly and holds open the door for her...not a whole lot of higher-processing going on...afterwards, sure...and learned reactions, sure...but still--reactive. This kind of thing happens a lot. You see someone passing out and you reach to help them stop falling it's not because you've thought "Well, I'm gonna feel like **** when I see his/her head smash on the floor"...it's simply an innate impulse to help.

 

Fight or flight. Cavalier or by-stander.

 

**Good topic btw.

 

Ah, that's exactly what I mean by 'hard-wired.' This higher processing happens instantly. We make countless instant judgements everyday. These judgements are often correct in serving to protect us and our species and seemingly altruistic acts are no different. Those who weren't able to make snap judgements that are logically sound in protecting them simply died off along with their bad traits (or lack of good traits).

 

I rarely think about helping someone, I just do it. But when I dissect my reasoning for having done that, it is due to the explanations I gave above. If we have to consciously acknowledge all of the motivations and consequences to our actions before we act, we'd be reacting much slower than we need to. And a lot of times, we need to act instantly.

[Cnussey]

Ah, that's exactly what I mean by 'hard-wired.' This higher processing happens instantly. We make countless instant judgements everyday. These judgements are often correct in serving to protect us and our species, and seemingly altruistic acts are no different. Those who weren't able to make snap judgements that are logically sound in protecting us simply died off along with their bad traits (or lack of good traits).

 

I rarely think about helping someone, I just do it. But when I dissect my reasoning for having done that, it is due to the explanations I gave above. If we have to consciously acknowledge all of the motivations and consequences to our actions before we act, we'd be reacting much slower than we need to. And a lot of times, we need to act instantly.

 

I guess then, can you define altruism on subconscious and reactive actions? Because if you are implicating there is always a reward (even if it's simply from an evolutionary perspective and not a personal one), then you are implicating some knowledge of said reward...

 

I mean, I agree...everything we do and have done is based on a benefit ratio--procreation, evolution, eating, being kind, etc. But do we really include the innate responses with the conscious acts? And you thought about it after the action...not prior. Or are you stating that because of prior learning, your reaction is already built upon a beneficial response?

[tooty]

I guess then, can you define altruism on subconscious and reactive actions? Because if you are implicating there is always a reward (even if it's simply from an evolutionary perspective and not a personal one), then you are implicating some knowledge of said reward...

 

I mean, I agree...everything we do and have done is based on a benefit ratio--procreation, evolution, eating, being kind, etc. But do we really include the innate responses with the conscious acts? And you thought about it after the action...not prior. Or are you stating that because of prior learning, your reaction is already built upon a beneficial response?

 

I think we want a reward for our actions 100% of the time, whether or not we realize it at the time we act. Your processing of innate responses don't go unnoticed. Just because you acted subconsciously, does not mean you do not feel good after having acted. The reason it is subconscious is it needs to be for the survival of our species. The fact that it is innate does not negate the reasons these traits are with us in the first place.

 

Take a mother catching her baby from falling off the table. Her processing of the situation and reaction is instant. This is not an example of seemingly altruistic acts, but an example of an innate reaction with a real and very conscious reward, which, we can all agree on, is to save that ****ing baby.

 

My altruistic example applies here too. I help the old lady based on a snap judgement but reap the internal rewards after the fact.

[frozenarbitor]

I think we want a reward for our actions 100% of the time, whether or not we realize it at the time we act.

 

what about self destructive behaviors?

[Cnussey]

I think we want a reward for our actions 100% of the time, whether or not we realize it at the time we act. Your processing of innate responses don't go unnoticed. Just because you acted subconsciously, does not mean you do not feel good after having acted. The reason it is subconscious is it needs to be for the survival of our species. The fact that it is innate does not negate the reasons these traits are with us in the first place.

 

Take a mother catching her baby from falling off the table. Her processing of the situation and reaction is instant. This is not an example of seemingly altruistic acts, but an example of an innate reaction with a real and very conscious reward, which, we can all agree on, is to save that ****ing baby.

 

My altruistic example applies here too. I help the old lady based on a snap judgement but reap the internal rewards after the fact.

 

I agree completely, but do these responses actually reduce the selflessness regardless of their subconscious level?

[Der Kaiser]

Me thinks not. I would say even risking your own life to save another is rooted in selfishness. Acts can be selfless but motivations are selfish.

 

Thoughts?

 

I largely agree with Spinoza's take on altruism as outlined in his Ethics. The answer would then be no. There are only ways to make yourself happier that also happen to make others happier as well. I actually see this as positive, since it means that everyone can be happy.

 

If you think about it even the self sacrifice of Jesus in the Bible was not completely altruistic, since this was essentially God trying to redeem his fallen creation. God created man. Man is flawed. Therefore God is flawed. God must sacrifice self to redeem man. God is perfect again. Selfish jerk;).

 

p.s. not trying to start a religious debate or anything, just thought the Jesus story was an interesting case.

[medguy5367]

what about self destructive behaviors?

 

For Example?

[tooty]

I agree completely, but do these responses actually reduce the selflessness regardless of their subconscious level?

 

Yep. That kind of judgement is instant for us because it has become a shortcut process in our brains, programmed over thousands of years of evolution. But the logic is still there.

[Cnussey]

Yep. That kind of judgement is instant for us because it has become a shortcut process in our brains, programmed over thousands of years of evolution. But the logic is still there.

 

Well, I certainly agree than anything from an evolutionary perspective is there because it's beneficial...lol...otherwise I couldn't really believe in evolution.

[frozenarbitor]

For Example?

 

Suicide. How do you explain suicidal behaviors using evolution where every action we take must be beneficial since that behavior survived selection pressures? Evolution preserves traits that benefit reproduction and survival. Clear, committing suicide does not benefit either of the two. To commit suicide, one needs to be aware of the fact that what it is about to do will end it life. Most animals don't have this awareness and don't commit suicide like we do. Therefore, human is special and not every human action or behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. To me, using evolution to justify altruism doesn't exist is not very convincing.

[medguy5367]

Suicide. How do you explain suicidal behaviors using evolution where every action we take must be beneficial since that behavior survived selection pressures? Evolution preserves traits that benefit reproduction and survival. Clear, committing suicide does not benefit either of the two. To commit suicide, one needs to be aware of the fact that what it is about to do will end it life. Most animals don't have this awareness and don't commit suicide like we do. Therefore, human is special and not every human action or behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. To me, using evolution to justify altruism doesn't exist is not very convincing.

 

I don't think you have a strong grasp of evolution.

 

Evolution does not mean that "every action we take must be beneficial since that behavior survived selection pressures". (your own words)

 

As for why people commit suicide:

 

Life = pain

Killing oneself = ending the pain.

 

Purely selfish.

[tooty]

Suicide. How do you explain suicidal behaviors using evolution where every action we take must be beneficial since that behavior survived selection pressures? Evolution preserves traits that benefit reproduction and survival. Clear, committing suicide does not benefit either of the two. To commit suicide, one needs to be aware of the fact that what it is about to do will end it life. Most animals don't have this awareness and don't commit suicide like we do. Therefore, human is special and not every human action or behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. To me, using evolution to justify altruism doesn't exist is not very convincing.

 

Suicide is definitely a rewarding act. And as to whether it benefits the species: I would imagine that people with a tendency to commit suicide tend to die. They carry their unfavourable suicidal traits with them.

 

I don't see how the suicide example disproves my point of altruism not existing. You're saying since humans do not want a reward 100% of the time, they will not make altruistic acts for a reward 100% of the time?

[Cnussey]

Unless you are talking about sacrifice, suicide isn't a good topic to define whether or not true altruism exists. Suicide isn't classified as a normal behaviour--it's classified as an ill one!

 

 

Suicide. How do you explain suicidal behaviors using evolution where every action we take must be beneficial since that behavior survived selection pressures? Evolution preserves traits that benefit reproduction and survival. Clear, committing suicide does not benefit either of the two. To commit suicide, one needs to be aware of the fact that what it is about to do will end it life. Most animals don't have this awareness and don't commit suicide like we do. Therefore, human is special and not every human action or behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. To me, using evolution to justify altruism doesn't exist is not very convincing.

 

Suicide is definitely a rewarding act. And as to whether it benefits the species: I would imagine that people with a tendency to commit suicide tend to die. They carry their unfavourable suicidal traits with them.

 

I don't see how the suicide example disproves my point of altruism not existing. You're saying since humans do not want a reward 100% of the time, they will not make altruistic acts for a reward 100% of the time?

 

Self-serving and probably the most selfish act one can perform.

[TarCalion]

Remember too that genetic traits, by definition, do not "benefit the species". Only the individual gets the benefit, and sometimes not even that, some genes can be selected for at the expense of the organism as a whole. As long as you make it to reproductive age you are passing on traits.

[Der Kaiser]

Suicide is definitely a rewarding act. And as to whether it benefits the species: I would imagine that people with a tendency to commit suicide tend to die. They carry their unfavourable suicidal traits with them.

 

I don't see how the suicide example disproves my point of altruism not existing. You're saying since humans do not want a reward 100% of the time, they will not make altruistic acts for a reward 100% of the time?

 

What about an older male that has already produced offspring, has been rendered unable to help find resources for his tribe/family, and then commits suicide? Would this not be beneficial in terms of preserving resources in a harsh environment?

 

Still, I think human beings have been so successful in part because they care for their disabled and find ways for them to contribute to the group.