OT: Egoism vs. Altruism

[Wombat]

Yes, I would think he was the greatest philosopher of
the last century.

I've never understood the basis for this American love affair with Russell. Whilst I'd resist the view of a lot of my British-educated contemporaries that he was thoroughly unoriginal and second-rate, his original ideas don't for me come even close in importance to those of his contemporaries Frege and Wittgenstein. Then, when you take into account the many original thinkers who peaked in the second half of the century, I wouldn't be able to find a place for him in my top ten. Most of my Oxford contemporaries would be much less charitable.

[Turas mor]

I have always wondered, in the discussion of egoism and altruism, where does conscience and reason come in? If I do something "altruistic" because my conscience (based on Webster's definition) tells me to, is that ultimately for my benefit?

What if I reason, through rational thought, that doing something altruistic is good? Is egosim involved? I may not have a natural proclivity to do good things for others, but I can reason that I should. (This assumes that suicide is not martyrdom, and therefore if I reason to do good, I can not later either complain or brag about it).

A personal thought; I have always had a problem rationalizing "modern" thinkers and "enlightenment". These thought processes assume a basic notion that mankind is progressing. My personal opinion, very subjective and probably erroneous, (though I will continue to adhere to it, because it is mine) is that mankind's psyche has not and does not change. Morality changes, tradition changes, environment changes, but our motives remain the same. Every progressive thought and philosophy will shortly be replaced by the next progressive philosophy, that is really an old one restated.

[jim stone]

P. S. We have done some technical philosophy
on this board--some of us are academics, mathematicians,
scientists. I think if you do a search under 'Anselm's Proof'
you will find some things.

[jim stone]

[quote="Turas mor"]I have always wondered, in the discussion of egoism and altruism, where does conscience and reason come in? If I do something "altruistic" because my conscience (based on Webster's definition) tells me to, is that ultimately for my benefit?

What if I reason, through rational thought, that doing something altruistic is good? Is egosim involved? I may not have a natural proclivity to do good things for others, but I can reason that I should. (This assumes that suicide is not martyrdom, and therefore if I reason to do good, I can not later either complain or brag about it).

Good questions. Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of
others. Paradigmatically altruistic acts would flow from
the sentiments of benevolence, kindness, and compassion.
But I suppose that altruistic acts might flow from conscience
and reason--I believe that it is my duty to promote the
public good, so I do--even though personally I would
just as soon let the rest of humanity hang. Kant emphasized
that love and sentiment are unreliable groundings for
morality.

What matters is that the actions are unselfish. They cannot
be motivated by a concern for what is in my own interest,
what is good for me. If my 'benevolent' action that helps
my friend, giving money for his medical treatment, is
really motivated by concern for how much I would miss
him if he dies, then it isn't altruistic--though it may appear
to be. If my giving to charity out of moral principle is
really motivated by fear of the thrashing my conscience
will give me if I don't, then my action isn't altruistic.

So as I see it, altruistic actions might flow both from
sentiment and from principle (conscience)--however
in both cases the psychological egoist (defined in an
earlier post) will insist that my real motive is always
self concern.

Wombat, where do you see the later Wittgenstein
in all this? Best

[Wombat]

Wombat, where do you see the later Wittgenstein
in all this? Best

Good question, Jim. My evaluation of him as an original thinker is based on his contributions to other topics and, in particular, his staggeringly brilliant efforts to pull together some probably incompatible but strikingly original lines of thought which, had they worked, might have turned our conception of what is a serious philosophical question completely on its head. I'd have to think long and hard before suggesting what, if anything, he had to contribute on this topic.

At the risk of repeating something that was said in the middle of this discussion—I've only read the beginning and end of the thread so far—I can't resist a comment or two on the topic. Whilst I doubt if many people still hold to Hobbes view that, if I understand him, apparent cases of altruism are always cases of disguised egoism, I think that something like this view still crops up surprisingly often in one or another slightly distorted form. Dawkins, for example, explained altruism as consequential on the selfishness of genes.

Most commonly, and, for me, most disturbingly, I sense the ghost of Hobbes in the thinking of economists who build egoism into their very theory of rationality. Genuine altruism might not be impossible, but it is always irrational. Balderdash. The 'thin' thery of rationality that comes straight from the text books on decision theory has, I think, very little support from empirical studies of motivation. I can't currently cite references, although I can chase them up, but I believe that university students have been tested to see if they really are 'rational egoists'. Apparently the studies show that the only consistently positive results come from economics and business studies students *after* they have been exposed in class to decision theory and orthodox economics. Students from other faculties, and the very same economics students before they start their commerce degrees, are, by and large, *not* rational egoists. That so many people who go on to hold positions of power and influence undergo and succumb uncritically to this indoctrination is, in my opinion, seriously frightening.

[PhilO]

There are times when we clearly do things for others at some sacrifice to ourselves and without making it known that we did it, thereby avoiding the credit that most of us in one way or another really crave. To overanalyze is probably unnecessary (but clearly unavoidable with us) and to say that when we do sacrifice for others without credit, we are merely indulging in a form of self-aggrandizement that makes us feel better about ourselves, is beside the point. Such acts are probably better left un-probed as to underlying motivation; after all, the act itself is of great import. Moreover, I think the argument gets pretty much put to rest for most of us with children, when the aforementioned becomes almost routine and is as pure as possible, notwithstanding any attendant by-product ego enhancement.

Gee, how's that for overanalysis?

Regards,

PhilO

[jim stone]

The wily psychological egoist may respond that
sacrificing myself for the sake of something in which
I have a fierce personal attachment (e.g. my child)
on its face
isn't unselfish or altruistic.

This is a problem for evolutionary theory, by the way.
We can readily explain why creatures would evolve
that would sacrifice themselves for their own
children, but the creatures that first began to
sacrifice themselves for other's children
would have thier genes eliminated from
the gene pool.

[riasgt]

I'm probably posting to posts earlier in this thread, but I don't type very fast.

A) I have never read philosophers for pleasure

B) I can only speak for myself

C) see A)

D) I do have an MS in Elementary Ed/Child Development (which is why I work for a software company!)

1.

It is nice to know that recent research in developmental/child psychology suggests that our natural state is altruistic rather than selfish.

As a parent of a 2 and 4 year old, I can see that although there is a struggle between selfishness and altruism, I believe from watching my kids develop human beings are on a base level altruistic. If we as a species were rooted in selfishness, I don't think our race would have lasted as long as it has.

2.
Someone earlier stated that Hobbes was affected by the times he lived in. Isn't that true for _every_ philosopher?? What little I know about different philosophers makes me believe that they are all commenting on the world that they lived in at the time. Every great philosopher seems to have been writing during a time of great change in the world. IMHO, everything they state must be looked at through the world they lived in.

2a.
Dialog taken from one of my favorite movies, History of the World Part 1 by Mel Brooks:

As Comicus (Mel Brooks) stands in line at the Unemployment Office waiting to make a claim, the clerk (Maude Adams) asks:

"Profession?"
“Stand up philosopher.” He says.
“Stand up philosopher?” She asks.
“Yes, I collate the vapor of human existence into a viable and logical comprehension.” He explains.
“Oh, you mean a sh*t artist!” she says.

3.
Ponderings on wiping butts, Altruism and overcoming the Gag reflex.

Here is a topic near and dear to my heart. After having kids I realized what truly the father's role in parenthood is:

Daddy=doodoo
Papa= Poop
Father=feces

Mommy, Mother, Mama= Milk

Any questions?

Jess wrote:

A 6-year-old child needed help with extremely soiled clothing and I took care of it, not letting her know that each wipe made me gag (I have heard, and am hoping, that it's not so gross with one's own children).

Anna wrote:

Don't worry, Jess, you won't gag when it's your own baby's poop!

Jen-generally Anna is right you won't be grossed out, unless of course your dealing with the ultimate blow out that shoots out the diaper strait up the back and results in needing to give the child a shampoo and bath! (Hint/advice for the future- NEVER leave home without a diaper bag and AT LEAST 2 changes of clothes!).

Here is where I struggle with selfishness and altruism. Any child that has a mess needing to be dealt with: is it selfish to want to clean them up so you don't have to deal with the stink and/or the results of nasty diaper rash later, or are you altruistic by helping to clean the child because as an adult you are doing something for a person who can't do something for themselves? Personally I don't get that same kind of satisfaction after changing a diaper as I do after helping a person who is in desperate situations not relating to soiled clothes.

Hell, sometimes you do some things just because it needs doing not because it is spurred by selfish motivation or a sense of altruism.

4. Rambling conclusion

I'm also a Mason and try to do a lot for not only children, but others in need. Do I do this out of a altruistic need to do something good for my community and fellow human beings, or for a selfish recognition from my friends and peers that I am doing good?

weeks wrote:

John Adams believed that man's greatest need was recognition by others

I belive that every person has an elements of both altruism and selfishness. My kids, as I stated earlier, can be both altruistic and selfish. A fight over a toy, which game to play, or what movie to watch, when push comes to shove -literally in some cases- results in altruism winning out. The repercussions of total selfishness, even amongst a 2 and 4 year old, are recognized generally without adult intervention and the need to do something that might be self sacrificing and makes them feel good inside becomes victorious. I have not only witnessed this in my house between my kids, but also in the classroom of my children's peers and in the 4th graded classrooms I taught in prior to leaving teaching.

Of course, Freud would say that it revolves around potty training.

Like Freud ever had to deal with Potty training a child!

[end of babble]

[DCrom]

This is a problem for evolutionary theory, by the way.
We can readily explain why creatures would evolve
that would sacrifice themselves for their own
children, but the creatures that first began to
sacrifice themselves for other's children
would have thier genes eliminated from
the gene pool.

I have seen claims that willingness to sacrifice for the the well-being of siblings and their children may be a workable evolutionary strategy. On average, a full brother or sister will share 50% of your genes (yes, it can vary - but we're talking average), the same as your children will. Not being a biologist, I'm unqualified to comment further - but the arguments and examples given seemed quite convincing.

Many of the same studies, BTW, seemed to show that among social animals, a limited amount of homosexuality may also be a survival behavior - individuals without offspring of their own often help guard or feed the offspring of their siblings, which strengthens the group as a whole (and increases the likelihood that the "altruistic" sibling will see its genes passed on).

But most people do things for complex motives. If you derive satisfaction from a seemingly selfless act, does this mean it's not "altruistic"? And even those capable of a truly selfless act in one area may act selfishly in other areas.

[TelegramSam]

Well, being nice and making a few sacrifices now and then makes sense in that it makes life a lot easier in regards to getting along with your siblings/neighbors/peers. It's not necissarily a disadvantage, nor does it ulitimatly always go against one's desires, at least when it comes to quibbling with your big brother/sister over what to watch on the tv. (in my case, it was either let my brother watch GI Joe or get stomped lol).

[Turas mor]

Is there not a difference here that is one of morals versus ethos? If I do something because I think society looks favorably upon it, then it certainly may have selfish motives (conscious or unconscious). If on the other hand I do the same good deed because of my personal ethics, it must be altruism. Is it not contradictory to claim that something done to support that individual ethos, regardless of moral opinion, is selfish? Is it possible to be selfish in your motive for altruism, when it asks or requires no social approval?

There must be examples in history of individuals who sacrificed for the greater good, while society (or at least the larger portion of it) around them disapproved of their actions, or at least belittled them. (Socrates? Sir Thomas More? Jesus Christ? Sydney Carton?) How could they then be considered selfish in their motives, particularly if a measurement of selfishness is recognition by others?

(Hey, I'm way over my head here, but it's fun)

[PhilO]

David, since you referenced division of duties (doodies?) re parenting, I recalled the method we naturally fell into upon the birth of our now teenage daughter, stemming from our employment in City government at the time. Ergo, we divided our roles/responsibilities (after the fact) loosely on various agencies:

Me (Daddy) - NYPD, Fire, Emergency Services, Parks & Recreation

Spouse (Mommy) - Sanitation, Consumer Affairs, Human Resources, State Agricultural Markets

We shared Health and Mental Health from the beginning and eventually shared Juvenile Justice, Corrections, and Education as well.

Regards,

PhilO

[mjacob]

...is it selfish to want to clean them up so you don't have to deal with the stink and/or the results of nasty diaper rash later

I think so, by that motivation.


Here's another way of looking at the issue, from a Taoist perspective. I bet a lot of people here can relate, Taoist or not.

“…if you view yourself as part of everything, then it is inherently obvious that you must allow your purpose to happen rather than taking things into your own hands. It is your job to fulfill this purpose, but it is all to the credit and benefit of all that exists around you. You exist not for you, but for all that exists around you. Think of the universe as your body. Regard my words "recklessly", if you will. If one little piece of one little cell in your body decides to pursue its own gain, then what you eventually have as a result is something along the lines of cancer. Rather than serving as a part of you, the cell does its own thing. It becomes a detriment to you and destroys itself and the cells around it in the process. On the other hand, right now your cells are functioning for the sake of your whole body, and you are "healthy" as a result. I'm sure if your cells could express their individual opinions about this matter, they'd be pleased. I'm sure you're pleased with the outcome of each cell serving its purpose in a compatible manner. To me, we are cells and we have a purpose for Earth, which perhaps has some sort of purpose for Heaven. I won't venture that far, though. Overall, we are to find our own niche on this Earth for the benefit of all beings around us. In Taoism, this niche is found by going with the flow and harmonizing with other beings rather than contending with them for selfish gain. Taoist egoism is altruism in all actuality.”
-Jon Andrews

[jim stone]

This is a problem for evolutionary theory, by the way.
We can readily explain why creatures would evolve
that would sacrifice themselves for their own
children, but the creatures that first began to
sacrifice themselves for other's children
would have thier genes eliminated from
the gene pool.

I have seen claims that willingness to sacrifice for the the well-being of siblings and their children may be a workable evolutionary strategy. On average, a full brother or sister will share 50% of your genes (yes, it can vary - but we're talking average), the same as your children will. Not being a biologist, I'm unqualified to comment further - but the arguments and examples given seemed quite convincing.

Many of the same studies, BTW, seemed to show that among social animals, a limited amount of homosexuality may also be a survival behavior - individuals without offspring of their own often help guard or feed the offspring of their siblings, which strengthens the group as a whole (and increases the likelihood that the "altruistic" sibling will see its genes passed on).

But most people do things for complex motives. If you derive satisfaction from a seemingly selfless act, does this mean it's not "altruistic"? And even those capable of a truly selfless act in one area may act selfishly in other areas.

Very interesting and suggestive. As to the last point.

Suppose I maintain that everybody who jumps into water
does so to make a splash. A lifeguard objects that yesterday
she jumped into the water solely to save a drowning
child. 'Did you make a splash?' I ask. 'Well, yes...' 'See!'

The fallacy is to infer from the fact that the splash happened
immediately after the act that the act happened for the sake
of the splash. That doesn't follow. Similarly I say to the
egoist--'yesterday I gave a poor man some money; my
sole motive was to help him' 'Did you feel good afterwards?'
Well, yes...' 'See!' Same fallacy. That we feel good after
doing apparently selfless acts is insufficient reason to
conclude that we do them to feel good.

In addition,
suppose I give the poor fellow some money and feel good.
'Hey, I like the way I feel!' I say to myself. So I go back
and give more money in order to get that good feeling.
But this time it doesn't work, typically. Usually we don't
feel good when we are charitable if we act for the
sake of the good feeling. On the face of things the
good feeling is a side effect of genuine altruism.

[PhilO]

Mjacob - Thus, the laws of the universe...do unto others as you would have them do to you....what goes round comes round....? I firmly believe in these, whether in my lifespan I actually see each particular instance prove out.

PhilO