Does true altruism exist?

[Cnussey]

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.

 

Nope, that doesn't actually exist in human societies because our elders are used to watch the young when they are no longer able to hunt, tell stories for entertainment and education, and hold an emotional attachment--all proving that keeping them alive is beneficial. Killing him off is only emotional pain and loss for the group, regardless of the additional resources he consumes.

[tooty]

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?

 

Therefore true altruism exists?

[Der Kaiser]

Therefore true altruism exists?

 

Sorry. I must have misunderstood what you were arguing. I was arguing that there could be an evolutionary benefit to suicide. Therefore, self destructive behaviour could be construed as evolutionary progress in certain environments.

[frozenarbitor]

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.

 

what about teenage suicide that has recently become more popular?

[frozenarbitor]

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!

 

How would you define normal? Is altruism normal? Most people are not altruistic and most are not suicidal. If evolution can't explain suicidal behaviors, I don't see how it can be used to argue that true altruism (which is probably rare) does not exist.

[frozenarbitor]

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.

 

In what way is suicide evolutionarily beneficial? To have evolutionary benefit, the act must enhance the chance of survival for an organism till the organism produces offspring because survival and reproduction is the only way a trait of a gene can be passed on. The previous post talking about elderly sacrifice might be true. But I'd argue that most suicide nowadays are not beneficial to the family or the society.

[Cnussey]

How would you define normal? Is altruism normal? Most people are not altruistic and most are not suicidal. If evolution can't explain suicidal behaviors, I don't see how it can be used to argue that true altruism (which is probably rare) does not exist.

 

Suicidal behaviour has been defined abnormal clinically and by society--has been for years...I don't have to define it. My point is, is that suicide as a sacrifice is not altruistic--suicide is a completely selfish act, actually...unless (as Tooty mentioned, I believe) someone jumps on a grenade for a friend. Evolution can be used to explain why all behaviours have some underlying beneficial act--all typical and normal behaviours...innate and learned behaviours. Negative and clinically defined, problematic behaviours are not beneficial (otherwise they wouldn't be named as such).

[tooty]

Frozen, let me know if I understand your argument:

 

- since we are sometimes self-destructive, ie suicide

- therefore we don't want reward for our actions 100% of the time

- AND since altruism, by definition, is not wanting a reward for an action

- therefore altruism exists.

 

Am I getting that right?

[tooty]

suicide is a completely selfish act, actually...unless (as Tooty mentioned, I believe) someone jumps on a grenade for a friend.

 

even jumping on a grenade has a selfish component. it's not completely selfish, but not completely selfless either. ergo no altruism exists.

[nosuperman]

The idea of altruism fundamentally requires a separation of a person from another person. If they are in any way connected then it can easily be argued that a seemingly selfless gesture (jumping on a grenade, fighting 12 lions, raising an un-related child, etc.) is confounded by evolutionary, social, and cultural benefits which are made available not only to the receiver of the altruism (obviously) but also to the giver of the altruism (therefor imparting potential selfishness directly) AND his or her family (immediate or not - imparting selfishness indirectly).

 

On a physical level we are not separate - not if you allow for the effects of gene flow, mutation, selection, as well as their social counterparts - memes. We're aggregates of millions of genes which behave probabilistically with no regard for what we label as "individuals".

 

Because you cannot separate out the confound of us ultimately being interconnected (on almost every conceivable level) you cannot say one person is truly altruistically helping another because the concept of individuals is merely an approximation - there are no true individuals if we zoom in and look at genes, molecules, etc. or if we zoom out and look at cultures and societies.

 

You may argue that this view is pedantic but it is required when you allow for evolutionary/genetic influences of behaviour.

[nosuperman]

The suicide being genetically beneficial argument is whole other can of worms, one which I don't believe requires the notion of altruism.

 

That being said - I think FA is saying, to put it bluntly, if you're suicidal then you have genes which make you prone to being suicidal, which arguably is a state of lowered fitness, so by killing yourself you're removing those lower-fitness genes from the population.

 

I'm going to disagree with what I think he's saying for two reasons.

 

1. Just because we've evolved a behaviour doesn't mean its adaptive. If you get cancer and you die, it does technically take your mutated p53 out of the gene pool, but this isn't necessarily beneficial - its simply a breakdown of other adaptive processes we've obtained to prevent cancer (cell growth checkpoints, macrophages, dna repair, etc.)

 

2. It doesn't take environmental dynamics into account. You could have twins with the same genes and one could commit suicide because they faced more adversity and developed poorer coping skills (I know I'm being simplistic) which lead to a differential response to despair. As we see in their twin (or relative) - those genes can have pretty good potential (lots of contributions to society, kids, white picket fence) so by killing themselves they're not necessarily doing the gene pool a favor. Plus they may cause family members to because unduly stressed or depressed which isn't adaptive for the immediate gene pool either.

[Cnussey]

even jumping on a grenade has a selfish component. it's not completely selfish, but not completely selfless either. ergo no altruism exists.

 

Wasn't exactly arguing with you. Lol.

[frozenarbitor]

Frozen, let me know if I understand your argument:

 

- since we are sometimes self-destructive, ie suicide

- therefore we don't want reward for our actions 100% of the time

- AND since altruism, by definition, is not wanting a reward for an action

- therefore altruism exists.

 

Am I getting that right?

 

Partially. I'm not trying to saying that true altruism exist. I don't think there is a way of proving that it does. What I'm trying to say is that it is unconvincing to simply say that altruism does not exist because every action we take is based on benefit motive due to evolution. Suicide is just an example I provided to show that not all of our actions are beneficial.

[frozenarbitor]

The suicide being genetically beneficial argument is whole other can of worms, one which I don't believe requires the notion of altruism.

 

That being said - I think FA is saying, to put it bluntly, if you're suicidal then you have genes which make you prone to being suicidal, which arguably is a state of lowered fitness, so by killing yourself you're removing those lower-fitness genes from the population.

 

I'm going to disagree with what I think he's saying for two reasons.

 

1. Just because we've evolved a behaviour doesn't mean its adaptive. If you get cancer and you die, it does technically take your mutated p53 out of the gene pool, but this isn't necessarily beneficial - its simply a breakdown of other adaptive processes we've obtained to prevent cancer (cell growth checkpoints, macrophages, dna repair, etc.)

 

2. It doesn't take environmental dynamics into account. You could have twins with the same genes and one could commit suicide because they faced more adversity and developed poorer coping skills (I know I'm being simplistic) which lead to a differential response to despair. As we see in their twin (or relative) - those genes can have pretty good potential (lots of contributions to society, kids, white picket fence) so by killing themselves they're not necessarily doing the gene pool a favor. Plus they may cause family members to because unduly stressed or depressed which isn't adaptive for the immediate gene pool either.

 

Lol, I'm actually a little confused about my own argument. I agree with your first point. Not every trait is adaptive. And I didn't really understand your second point. Is it an example to show that not every act is adaptive?

 

I think what I'm trying to say is that evolution does not explain all of our behaviors. To use evolution to "prove" that true altruism does not exist is flawed.

[frozenarbitor]

Suicidal behaviour has been defined abnormal clinically and by society--has been for years...I don't have to define it. My point is, is that suicide as a sacrifice is not altruistic--suicide is a completely selfish act, actually...unless (as Tooty mentioned, I believe) someone jumps on a grenade for a friend. Evolution can be used to explain why all behaviours have some underlying beneficial act--all typical and normal behaviours...innate and learned behaviours. Negative and clinically defined, problematic behaviours are not beneficial (otherwise they wouldn't be named as such).

 

Just because something is clinically defined doesn't make it any different. Homosexuality was clinically defined as abnormal but now it's legalized in Canada. I think there has been some studies that linked genetics to sexual orientation. To me, the term "normal" is subjective to different interpretations in different cultural contexts. What's normal in one society may not be normal in another. There are plenty of other examples of this if you take a cultural anthropology course.

[frozenarbitor]

The idea of altruism fundamentally requires a separation of a person from another person. If they are in any way connected then it can easily be argued that a seemingly selfless gesture (jumping on a grenade, fighting 12 lions, raising an un-related child, etc.) is confounded by evolutionary, social, and cultural benefits which are made available not only to the receiver of the altruism (obviously) but also to the giver of the altruism (therefor imparting potential selfishness directly) AND his or her family (immediate or not - imparting selfishness indirectly).

 

The giver can remain anonymous (thus separated from the receiver). For example, anonymous donations.

 

I think it may be close to "impossible" to separate the altruistic act from the rewarding feeling the altruistic person gains from the act. However, does true altruism require the giver to feel nothing? What if the good feeling is not the motive but a product of the action? If one does good things anonymously without the motive of gaining that rewarding feeling or self-satisfaction, but out of the motive of making the world a better place, isn't that altruistic?

[Cnussey]

Just because something is clinically defined doesn't make it any different. Homosexuality was clinically defined as abnormal but now it's legalized in Canada. I think there has been some studies that linked genetics to sexual orientation. To me, the term "normal" is subjective to different interpretations in different cultural contexts. What's normal in one society may not be normal in another. There are plenty of other examples of this if you take a cultural anthropology course.

 

Lame argument--you cannot toss out what is current simply because of changes in the past, otherwise nothing any of us says can be held to be true or arguable. Even evolution would have to be turned out of the conversation.

 

You don't seem to be arguing for or against anything in particular either. We're discussing altruism...while you're trying to discuss semantics.

[hking03]

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.

 

speaking of schrodingers cat- i watched the movie repo men... that was one of the crux's of the off screen voiceover... talking about the philosophical implications of something both alive and dead... blah blah blah.

 

terrible movie though... on so many levels.

 

oh, and altruism is a load of bunk... i like doing things for people, i love to help... but it makes me feel good. if i didn't like it... i'd be worried about myself.

[Der Kaiser]

 

1. Just because we've evolved a behaviour doesn't mean its adaptive.

 

Also, remember that some traits are adaptive to certain environments and not others. That is why it is so easy to argue that virtually anything we do is adaptive to some environment. The only non-adaptive traits are those that unequivocally prevent reproduction, and in certain cases even those can be argued to be adaptive, just not for the individual. For instance, how many types of insects have completely sterile individuals in their populations (worker ants)? The manner in which we are discussing evolution is very focused on the individual. But it is the survival of the species that is important, and that is why conceivably suicide could be an adaptation if it is carried out by members of a population that serve no purpose during times of environmental stress.

 

Altruism is a funny thing to define. It depends on our notion of self, which one could argue is both untrue and itself an adaptation. "No man is an island" comes to mind, which is to say that no individual is completely free of the influence of his/her fellow species members (I've rejigged its original intent). We come to have consciousness because of language, and consequently we believe ourselves to be individuals. In reality we are wholly dependent on our society for our identity (no language without more than one speaker). We are social animals that depend almost completely on other human beings for our existence.