Altruism - Is it a lie?

[I'm Murrin]

It's saying that the pleasure response can be associated with knowing how your action affects other people. Which simply shows the mechanism, not the cause. It's still entirely likely that pleasure derived from charitable activity is learned.

[Xar]

Hmm, I've just finished reading the various posts, and a thought occurs to me. When I read the discussion about humans always preferring the easier path, and the claim that humans, when choosing the path of greatest discomfort, do so for selfish reasons because the final reward may be greater, I realized there's an oversimplification here.

I don't think anybody can object that human beings are fundamentally animals. Whether we have souls or not is irrelevant to the topic: the important thing is that, like animals, we have (and often act upon) our instincts. Animals don't live for the "long-term view"; in fact, animals would rather receive a small gratification immediately rather than undergo an arduous trial to receive a bigger one later. Try giving a mouse a choice between a small piece of food immediately, or a large piece of food at the end of a long and dangerous, potentially injuring labyrinth, and see what the mouse chooses!
The ability to see the "long-term view" is apparently unique to humans, and is related to imagination. So, basically, the problem is: in a situation where a human is faced with an easy and immediately gratifying path and a hard and difficult path that is only gratifying in the long term, would a human follow instinct or disregard it in exchange for an imagined reward?
Selfishness and instinct would both point at the former. Would you rather get a small diamond without much trouble, or a big diamond by putting your arm into a machine full of moving, potentially injuring blades and spikes?

It's very much the same concept as the one described before, of the soldier throwing himself onto the grenade to protect his companions. He doesn't gain anything, he sacrifices everything, and for people who might not have done the same for him. He obviously can't "feel good" if he's dead. And not all those who sacrifice themselves like this are religious and believe in a God or an afterlife. So why would, say, an atheist sacrifice himself like this? It's obviously tempting to use the "low self-esteem" explanation, but in my opinion it is both wrong and possibly arrogant to assume that this is the only possible explanation. After all, the soldier can't give his own version, because he's dead; I could say he did it because he suddenly went insane and loved the idea of being blown to smithereens, and there would be no way to prove he didn't.

In the end, I think it's unfair to draw assumptions about people's actions, if there is no way to find out what these people were thinking, or why they did them. It's far too easy to label the dead, but when we do so, we do it based on our own experiences and outlook, and theirs probably differed. And assuming these people's actions were selfish because no human can be unselfish is a circular argument which confuses cause and effect, as well as overgeneralizing.

There is a fundamental difference between:

"People are selfish, so no actions can be unselfish"

and

"These actions were selfish, so this person was selfish."

Given that neither I, nor anyone here can claim to know everyone in the world, and to know their every action and thought, claiming "everyone is selfish" or "altruism doesn't exist" is tantamount to a person saying "no one is addicted to drugs" just because he never met such a person, and then saying "he's not addicted, he's just stupid" when he saw one.

[Prebe]

Good post Xar!

I was going with the no-altruism model untill I read your post.

[iQuestor]

OK. Altruism is a Lie. got it. check.

I agree all human motivation is, at some level, self centered, and self serving. Why? because evolution wired us this way! If we weren't self serving, then we'd all be dying off doing noble deeds, sacrificing ourselves, giving all our food away, and caring about all others before ourselves.

We have to be competitive! the non-competitive ones starved to death on the savannah 4 million years ago.

We have to be greedy and selfish, so us and our kids get more protein, grow faster, and have the advantage to mate. The ones who werent died off long ago.

We have to be vain -- good looks and good confidence = good health, and a successful mating. Good looks is based on good symetry of the features, which is an indication of health. Diseases disfigure, and lower or obliterate the chance to pass off genes.

We also care about where we stand socially -- we culture and nurture anything that raises our esteem in our social groups, because it raises our chances to mate and our survival. This includes doing good deeds and performing those seemingly selfless acts, such as saving a life, showing compassion, or sacrificing for others. These traits are attractive and increase the chance to mate and help ensure the survival of our family.

We have to be cunning and deceptive, for the same reasons -- it leads to more food, greater advantage over competitors that are bigger and stronger than us. The big stoopid ones died alongside the non-selfish ones. Lion food.

We do what we have to do to ensure our own survival, and that of our genetic heritage.

What I don't get is that, in spite of 4 million years of evolution, suddenly we humans are above all this; Say what you want, but all of these traits are what got us here. I say, dance with whut brung you.

So while I agree with Darth's statement that there are no Altruistic people, what don't agree with is the negative connotation of the traits Darth despises.

Yes we are selfish. and Vain. And greedy. And promiscuous. And lying, cheating, cut-throating, back-stabbing and every other bad trait you want to name. You can't argue with 4 million years of programming.

SO the next time that sleazy used car salesman tries to put one over on you, or the smooth talking player tries to get you drunk and take you home; or the guy cuts you off on the freeway to get on the exit before you, dont get mad. you are looking at the pinnacle of human evolution.

Be proud.

[Revan]

Interesting post there avatar.

Hmm, been rather a long time since I started this thread. Things change it seems. Hard to believe I was so closed minded and judgmental just over 2 years ago.

I think iQuestor and Xar have it right. We are animals; self-preservation is a perfectly natural thing; and not a negative aspect in life either. If we had no selfishness - or self-preservation in life - our species would be long extinct.

However while there are those that are ruled by primarily selfish motives and material gain; there are also those who seek personal “gain”, the gratification that comes with helping another. Mother Theresa was such a one. But such “selfishness” is not weakness but strength. The world has been made a better place by such selfishness actions; and would be a far better place if there were more such people. Applying “selfish” to a person like Mother Theresa gives off negative connotations, like iQuestor right said; it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I sometimes wonder if it is still a selfish thing at all.

I have been studying neuropsychology recently; which relates to how the chemical balances and the physical aspects of the brain define behavior; very deterministic in regards to human actions. I found the relation to neuropsychological explanations for altruism very interesting. Though I do think; regardless of how much you can measure people’s brain waves and patterns; you cannot truly tell what a person is thinking.

But if you would like an expert opinion on the watch regarding this; I recommend Loremaster. I’ve spoken to him regarding biopsychology before; and it is a field in psychology he is inclined to, and very knowledgeable in.

[Revan]

-Decided to change the title so it could be treated more as a topic for discussion rather than an argument to brook no leeway.

[Loredoctor]

I think iQuestor and Xar have it right. We are animals; self-preservation is a perfectly natural thing; and not a negative aspect in life either. If we had no selfishness - or self-preservation in life - our species would be long extinct.

Well said, Revan. It's simply part of our evolutionary heritage that we are competitive. Fighting to survive is as natural as breathing or mating. Without the instinct to do what is best for the individual/animal there is little chance of that same individual/animal competing against those with the instinct. So in that regard, altruism cannot be an effective trait in the long run; it's simply bred out (whatever it is that makes an individual or animal altruistic - say, genetical - wont find much chance of passing on to the next generation; difficult to compete against selfish organisms, thus unlikely to either procreate or successfuly rear offspring [and perhaps then not pass on behavioural traits]). But this is an individual focus - humans and most higher mammals are social - more on that later.

However while there are those that are ruled by primarily selfish motives and material gain; there are also those who seek personal “gain”, the gratification that comes with helping another. Mother Theresa was such a one. But such “selfishness” is not weakness but strength. The world has been made a better place by such selfishness actions; and would be a far better place if there were more such people. Applying “selfish” to a person like Mother Theresa gives off negative connotations, like iQuestor right said; it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I sometimes wonder if it is still a selfish thing at all.

Looking at altriusm with a social perspective, as opposed to what I wrote above, Revan has a good point. Mother Theresa's (paragon of altruism) actions both benefitted herself and society. But the benefit to society must be analysed in regard to the benefit of herself. Her actions are certainly purely altruistic, but her motivations and the outcomes of her actions are entirely interwoven and 'selfish'. What I mean is that she was motivated to be kind and helpful in order for some gain. This might have simply been emotional ("I feel good") or spiritual ("I am a good Christian and serving God"), or perhaps social ("People like me and are more willing to help me or secure my future").

This highlights something important with altruism - first, the reward factor, but more importantly the social element. Because we are naturally competitive, the idea that another is helping us is very fulfilling: less energy or investment is spent in order to receive a gain. For society, or the children Theresa helped, an altruistic individual is a sign of trust and support; we hone in on these elements. Society gains a feeling of security with altruistic people or organisations, and it dampens any feelings of discontent over social disparities (such as, richer versus poor, weak versus strong, diseased versus healthy); those in weaker positions are more likely to react against a social system that continues to allow weakness (being poor or sick), promotes weakness (i.e. monarchies or capitalist-based societies). Thus, altruism exerts a social stabilising influence, and rewards those in power.

However, this reward is a feedback mechanism for the altruistic; like Mother Theresa's thoughts, they feel content that their position is secured (by the people they help, those in power, and those who like to think they live in a society that allows altruistic individuals to exist). In this regard, altruism, seen from a social angle, is rewarded.

You could argue, and I believe this, that altruism is therefore selfish.

I have been studying neuropsychology recently; which relates to how the chemical balances and the physical aspects of the brain define behavior; very deterministic in regards to human actions. I found the relation to neuropsychological explanations for altruism very interesting. Though I do think; regardless of how much you can measure people’s brain waves and patterns; you cannot truly tell what a person is thinking.

You can relate my two examples/arguments to the brain. The brain displays our evolutionary heritage. This can be seen in the three sections of the brain. The more primitive 'core' which maintains vital functions (i.e. breathing, heart rate, rapidy sensory response, basic learning, some sexuality) is often referred to as the reptilian brain. Around this cluster of nuclei is the mammalian brain - a group of nuclei that process memories, emotional feelings, and senses, for example - which is less vital in its functions, but arguably very important. For instance, damage to some of the nuclei here can affect anger or happiness, even the ability to store short term memories.

The final section - the higher brain - is 'found' in the cortical layers of the brain - the convoluted folds we see on the exterior. This area is divided up into four lobes (frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital) and each section processes higher functions (complex decision making, advanced sensory operations [such as spatial processing or pattern recognition], long term memory storage and recall, symbolism, language, mathematics, inhibiting behaviours, and the recognition of context).

It's the higher brain that really moderates our behaviours based upon the context of the situation (standing in a bank means you are less likely to go to the toilet there as opposed to in a bathroom - thus, deals with the appropriatness of behaviour) and processes social cues or laws. If society (individuals) encourages altruism for the reasons I outlined before, you could argue that competitiveness may be socially disadvantageous; it may indeed be more effective - short term - to steal food from a bakery, but for society that same behaviour is problematic (it disprupts the sense of security we all have that society helps us or protects us; additionally, it places us in a position where we have to question fellow individuals - it's far easier to assume everybody obeys or follows the rules of society as there is less paranoia [emotional feelings] or 'social processing' happening). In that regard, the higher brain steps in and says 'Hey, why not pay the baker instead of stealing the bread - imagine the negative outcomes from those you steal or from society!'.

Because humans are such social creatures, and because society has worked so well for us - less constant competitition for ease of accessing food and security - we've developed advanced communication and complex social rules. The higher brain helps us in this aspect by 'providing' us language, allowing us to recognise contextual cues (bakery - one must pay as opposed to stealing bread; or, do not defecate in bank). Now, I'll relate this back to altruism.

The higher brain is like the father, or mother, of society (language and the ability to understand social cues and context). Decisions are made on a constant basis as to the appropriateness of any action. You could argue that in terms of being rewarded in the long run (or pehaps short run), altruism has large benefits. Being competitive, or selfish without regard to others, is dangerous precisely because it is dangerous to society. Being kind to others, on the other hand, is not. It means the individual is more trusted, is often rewarded in kind, and will invariably have a more secure social circle. Mother Theresa's higher brain most likely weighed the advantages of helping society against the advantages of being purely selfish.

If evidence of altruism is to be 'found' anywhere it will most likely be in the higher brain - the 'seat' of society, and no doubt working hard to restrict the baser, lower (animalistic) brain with its laws of the jungle (competition). (Note: neuropsychological studies can support my statement.)

But in the end, all we have done is traded one form of selfishness for another: quick rewards replaced by social rewards. If the animal brain ruled, society would without doubt, crumble.

Thanks for the kind words, Revan.

[iQuestor]

do not defecate in bank

dammit. now you tell me.

Lore, how could anyone follow that post?

Agreed -- and 'selfish' has a bad rap.

[Loredoctor]

do not defecate in bank

dammit. now you tell me.

[Lore, how could anyone follow that post?

Thankyou, sir. Your post was excellent, too.

[Agreed -- and 'selfish' has a bad rap.

SO the next time that sleazy used car salesman tries to put one over on you, or the smooth talking player tries to get you drunk and take you home; or the guy cuts you off on the freeway to get on the exit before you, dont get mad. you are looking at the pinnacle of human evolution.

People say they dislike cynics because they 'blacken' humanity. I say cynics are empowering. They point out why we are successful. Yes, I hate suffering, but there is so much to humanity we should be proud of. We are 'built' on a model that has stood the test of time. There is good and there is bad, but we are human.

Be proud.

[Avatar]

Good posts Lore and iQuestor. Nice to see how this took off again.

But in the end, all we have done is traded one form of selfishness for another...

Exactly.

--A

[Xar]

Personally, I think that reducing altruism or selfishness (of one kind or another) by fitting it in categories might be oversimplifying the situation. Additionally, I would rather steer clear of any real-life examples - because, as I said before, we don't know what was going on in their mind, and saying otherwise makes absolutely no sense. Even if we are 99% sure that, say, Mother Teresa was altruistic because she was gaining some sort of reward out of it - any one of those Lore mentioned, for example - we cannot ABSOLUTELY be sure that was the case. I don't think any of us had a chance to privately talk with Mother Teresa about her motivations, and since she is dead, it's impossible to tell now; applying motivations to her actions based on our own ideas and theories is, in my opinion, rather unfair. As far as I'm concerned, especially in a topic where personal feelings and ideas have such a prominent role, the only possible, fair example one can make is oneself, and even then your own ideas and beliefs will likely cause you to be subjective when analyzing that example.

Mother Teresa, the guy who throws himself onto a land mine to save his companions... all these people may have had "selfish" reasons or not, but the truth is, we'll never know, so applying labels to them based on what we think their thoughts and intentions were is meaningless, in my opinion.

Lore makes a good point about "social altruism" as opposed to "individual selfishness", but there are a couple of examples that cause me to doubt everything can be so neatly categorized.

For example, science tells us that for an adult to sacrifice himself to ensure the survival of his children is an ingrained response, because it ensures the survival of the adult's genetic material. A variation of this idea is also an explanation as to why animals feel pleasure during sex - it leads you to wish to do it again, thus increasing the chances of your genes being passed on.

But still, how can we be sure that that's the real motivation behind such an action? We have plenty of examples where parents whose brains are not damaged in any way still completely lack any sort of affection towards their children, and in some cases even beat them to death. Where's the ingrained DNA preservation response in these cases? What causes it not to fire, or even to backfire? Can it be that so many people completely lack this instinct, or have it overridden by other impulses?

If this is the case - if so many people do not feel this instinct at all, then how can we be sure that the real motivation behind an adult sacrificing himself to save his children is an instinct?

Well, then, this of course leads us to another explanation: the adult sacrifices himself out of love, and therefore the "selfishness" in that is due to the fact that the adult perceives his sacrifice as the least painful path - he would rather suffer the brief pain of death than the long-term pain of living without his children.

But here we should start wondering - where does our concept of "altruism" start and our concept of "selfishness" stop? The explanation that says "he sacrifices himself because it's the way he can perceive the least pain" is exactly as valid as the explanation that says "he sacrifices himself because he loves his children and he would do anything for them". One person can see selfishness in both, another person might not. I'm personally an optimist, and I like to be; I think a line has to be drawn at some point, and as far as I'm concerned, overanalyzing a person's behaviour is something that can be just as misleading as it can be helpful. The truth is, we don't know what makes us tick in that kind of situations. If you found yourself in the kind of situation that would require you to choose whether to step in front of a gun, risking death to protect your loved one, who can say what would go through your mind? Some people would probably say "I'm not going to do it", others would say "I'll do it because I'd rather do it than suffer because of your loss afterwards", others still would say "I'd do it because I love you", and others might even say "I'd do it because the world needs people like you". Ultimately, who are we to say that the last two were still motivated by selfish purposes, however unconsciously?

I propose that, since we are unable to know what another person thinks with any degree of certainty, much less what another person FEELS at a particular moment in time, or whether there are unconscious thoughts flitting through his/her mind and influencing his decisions, one can only look at actions and consequences to define what is altruism and whether a given person is to be considered altruistic or not.

[Avatar]

Hmmmm.

First of course, I think thatthe proportion of failures of that hard-wired preservation response in adults is not statistically significant in terms of the wider population.

Animal parents also sometime kill or abandon their young. It may be a failure in design, but I don't think that it is "so many" who lack it.

Some, certainly. But not so many.

Second, I don't think that the question of altruism can be determined solely by action/consequence.

If action and consequence, (throwing oneself on grenade / saving people) are the determining factors, then we must undoubtably concede that altruism exists in a purely objective sense. Because people do clearly carry out actions which do not appear to benefit them in any way.

If we can so easily dismiss the motives of those people, (speculative as they may be), then the discussion becomes moot in every sense.

If somebody makes a donation to charity, and the charity receives it and is benefitted by it, we could cal that altruistic, even if the motive was a tax break.

Motive is inherent in determining altruism, I think. Despite the fact that motive is almost impossible to determine.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Xar,
My point was not to simplify the discussion; it was to reconcile altruistic behaviour with biological imperatives. As it stands, altruism is almost an 'anti-gene', meaning that it is extremely difficult to pass on, or to evolve in animals. You cannot dispute comptetition in the environment, due to resource limitations; therefore, you cannot rule out inherent selfishness.

I think by using that 'logic', one can make educated guesses as to what thoughts or motivations exist with every altruistic act. That is what I was trying to discuss. As Avatar said:

Motive is inherent in determining altruism, I think. Despite the fact that motive is almost impossible to determine.

I think it is not impossible - difficult, certainly, but not impossible.

Good post, Xar (and Avatar).

[Avatar]

Thank you. I did say almost impossible. And I stand by it. Certainly, as Xar so rightly pointed out, we cannot see into peoples minds. And even if they told us their motivation, there is no way to determine the honesty of the revelation.

As I've probably said in this thread, I do tend toward the idea that altruistic behaviour seems likely to spring from motives that are selfish in one respect or another.

That does not preclude the possibility of true altruism though. I just think that it is less prevalent than people like to admit to perhaps.

--A

[Xar]

Animal parents also sometime kill or abandon their young. It may be a failure in design, but I don't think that it is "so many" who lack it.

If action and consequence, (throwing oneself on grenade / saving people) are the determining factors, then we must undoubtably concede that altruism exists in a purely objective sense. Because people do clearly carry out actions which do not appear to benefit them in any way.

If we can so easily dismiss the motives of those people, (speculative as they may be), then the discussion becomes moot in every sense.

If somebody makes a donation to charity, and the charity receives it and is benefitted by it, we could cal that altruistic, even if the motive was a tax break.

Motive is inherent in determining altruism, I think. Despite the fact that motive is almost impossible to determine.

Well, true, animals do sometimes abandon or eat their young. Of course, we focus on animals who normally care for their young in this discussion, because animals who don't - such as snakes - are irrelevant for this purpose. But even among animals who care for their young, one must make a distinction: there are two main reproductive strategies. The first involves producing a lot of young; in this case, the parents are less involved with their young, because their sheer number should ensure that at least one or two survive to maturity. This is the case for many animals, mammals or otherwise. The other strategy (the one humans use, for instance) involves having few (or one) young, and taking very good care of it to ensure it reaches adulthood.
Now, animals using the first strategy are known sometimes to abandon or even eat their young. But there is a reason for this: the young who are abandoned or eaten are constitutionally sickly and weak, and thus they would die in the wild. Therefore, by getting rid of them, the parents ensure that the surviving ones receive more resources than they otherwise would (milk, for instance).
Humankind doesn't use this strategy, however; and even a cursory analysis of cases of abandonment, mistreatment or murder of children shows that these children aren't "sickly or weak" - at least insofar as genetics goes (although of course, mistreatments can MAKE them "sickly or weak"). So here we have a problem: if these children are not sickly, weak or otherwise defective, the reasons why animals hurt their young do not apply here. So what gives?

As for the other point - I disagree with you. While motives - if known - can be taken into account, speculative motives are meaningless, at least if you want to take a scientific take on this kind of analysis. After all, your speculations and mine could lead to completely opposite results - and yet neither would inherently be superior to the other, and both could be wrong. So unless we fully know the motives behind an action, we cannot base our interpretations of that action's altruistic nature on our speculations. Additionally, even if you know the motives, overanalyzing or placing additional labels upon them creates an artifact. So, even if you know the motives, trying to analyze what mr. X's subconscious mind or motives might have been is an exercise that, again, goes into the realm of speculations. And since you have no way to prove that these speculations on mr.X's subconscious reasons are true (since they are subconscious and he himself might not be aware of them), then you cannot use them as certain premises to reach any certain conclusion.

To put it simply:

X does Y.

If I know that X did Y because of Z, then I can say "X did Y because of reason Z". I can use this to prove a point, because all the variables are known.

But to say "X did Y because of reasons Z and W", whereas W is speculation, means I cannot use this sentence to prove my point, because I cannot prove that W is correct in the first place.

This, incidentally, is the same argument which explains why you cannot put someone on trial just based on what you think he would have done, unless you have proof that he was at least planning that action.

[Loredoctor]

So we should abandon discussing this issue? As far as I know we are discussing theories, and I proposed a theory using evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology (backed up by research) which may shed light on motivations. Though we cannot objectively measure thoughts (at least in modern times), we can at least infer from research. Much of psychology is based upon this premise.

[Avatar]

I'm not saying that we can ever know a person's motivation.

What I'm saying is that unless you do, then there is no way to determine the altrusim, relative or otherwise, of an action.

In fact, doesn't the very definition of altruism make an assumption about the motives of the action?

How can we label something as altruistic merely from the percieved action and outcome?

If, as I suggested, the motive for a donation is the tax break, can it still realistically be called altruistic?

--A

[Loredoctor]

I'm not saying that we can ever know a person's motivation.

What I'm saying is that unless you do, then there is no way to determine the altrusim, relative or otherwise, of an action.

In fact, doesn't the very definition of altruism make an assumption about the motives of the action?

How can we label something as altruistic merely from the percieved action and outcome?

If, as I suggested, the motive for a donation is the tax break, can it still realistically be called altruistic?

--A

Good post.

If we ignore motivation we are heading into a purely behaviourist analysis, which will lead us nowhere.

[Prebe]

As it stands, altruism is almost an 'anti-gene', meaning that it is extremely difficult to pass on, or to evolve in animals.

That certainly depends on towards whom you are being altruistic. If you are being altruistic toward your sibling/parent/offspring, you are protecting genes of which you share a good deal (1/2 in the case of offspring/parent), thus increasing the chance of survival of these genes.

Now, consider a population of (not immediatly related) individuals with a certain inbreeding frequency (inbreeding frequency is the likelihood of you and a randomly picked individual of the population have the same gene identical by descend). Defending any of these individuals you have a certain probablity of defending your own genes, hence increasing the chance that these genes will multiply. It's called kin-selection.

So yes, there can be a genetic drive toward APPARENT altrusim.

[Loredoctor]

So yes, there can be a genetic drive toward APPARENT altrusim.

I don't deny that; my argument earlier regarding social altruism is predicated on this (hence, as well, my comments regarding altruistic behaviour versus an altruistic motivation). But apparent altruism doesn't mean altruism exists. Certainly, in a behaviour, yes. But I'm arguing that the motivation is selfish, which therefore makes altruism a lie.