Kevin's Watch

Or at least, the commonly accepted definition thereof.

--A

Avatar wrote:Or at least, the commonly accepted definition thereof.

--A

If we argue that altruism is defined as comitting selfless acts, I really doubt you can attribute an action's motivation as being altruistic. I doubt that any action is selfless.

Well, what I was saying there was that by definition, the label "altruistic" makes an assumption based on the supposed motive.

In theory, nothing that is selfishly motivated can be called altruistic. So as a label, it relies on an assumption of motive.

--A

Avatar wrote:Well, what I was saying there was that by definition, the label "altruistic" makes an assumption based on the supposed motive.

Not if you're looking at this issue from a purely behavioural perspective; motivation is irrelevant. Which is not accurate.

Avatar wrote:In theory, nothing that is selfishly motivated can be called altruistic. So as a label, it relies on an assumption of motive.

Back to square one.

No wait. we're agreeing here, and disagreeing with Xar.

I'm saying you can't call something altruistic unless you know the motive.

--A

Avatar wrote:No wait. we're agreeing here, and disagreeing with Xar.

I know, I'm just agreeing with you by arguing along. You just don't like the fact we're on the same side!

Avatar wrote:I'm saying you can't call something altruistic unless you know the motive.

I realise that's what you meant. I just complicated the issue by dismissing a behaviourist approach.

Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, guys. I miss these debates.

No need to miss them. Just take part.

--A

Avatar wrote:No need to miss them. Just take part.

--A

Easier said than done.

Bah. Excuses excuses. Sleep well. I'm off home shortly.

--A

Av, I'm sorry but I still disagree with your idea. If you define something as "altruistic" simply based on what you can observe (the action and its consequences), starting from the premise that an altruistic act is "an act which brings no discernible reward to the person who commits it", then you can still have altruistic actions even without making assumptions. Again, this is from a purely observable point of view: therefore, if the person received an observable emotional reward (a feeling of "feeling good" which might manifest itself as a smile, a laughter or so on) then you could possibly argue that the act was not altruistic.

I believe much of the confusion and conflicting ideas here are caused by the fact that we all have different notions of what "altruism" is and how it manifests, and therefore we tend to look at different situations differently.

Note of course that the definition I mentioned above is intentionally vague on one point: how much data you analyze. An action that may appear altruistic if you witness it might actually have been dictated by other necessities (as a silly example, a person saves another, and unbeknownst to you the action was performed because the first was owed money by the second). So of course if you want to have 100% certainty that a given action is altruistic, you need all possible data about the context within which the action was taken. But what about the person's state of mind or intentions?

Well, here things become difficult. There's no way to be sure of a person's intentions: even if you ask him and he tells you, he might not be telling the whole truth, or give you an outright lie - not necessarily out of malice, but perhaps out of embarrassment, or even out of humility. So, unless you want to hook the person up to an unfailing truth machine, you can never be 100% sure of exactly why the person did the action.

As for the example of the guy donating to a charity because he wants a tax break: of course this action wouldn't be altruistic, per se. But in the real world, how can you be sure that the fact that Mr. X donated money to a charity is linked in any way to his tax record? Of course, you know that donating money grants a tax break. And you know that Mr. X pays taxes, so he would benefit from the donation. But there is no way to be absolutely sure that the reason why he donated money was the tax break. Of course, knowing Mr. X could help in imagining the likelihood of this action: if Mr. X is a greedy miser who hoards every copper coin he gets, it sounds unlikely that he might have given money to a charity out of altruism. But even if it is 99,9% unlikely, there is always a tiny, microscopic chance that he suddenly had the urge to give money out of the goodness of his heart, and the truth is that you cannot be sure that wasn't the case.
Obviously, if you were really persistent you might ask him directly, or check his tax records and see if he uses the donation as a tax break (using the rationale that if he doesn't, then it was indeed an act of goodness, but if he does then he obviously had ulterior motives). But then of course you still couldn't be sure; did he say he only donated because he wanted a tax break? What if he lied just to preserve the image people have of him (admittedly a small possibility, but it's still there)? What if his accountant simply found the record of his donation and used it as a tax break? For that matter, what if, a few days after doing a donation of goodness, he realized that the donation could also warrant a tax break and exploited the chance?
The latter case is especially interesting. If X does an action out of goodness and then later realizes he received a reward without knowing it, does this make the action any less altruistic at the time he performed it?

What I'm saying is simply that since we can't get into the heads of people, we can either base our concept of altruism on speculations (which can easily go opposite ways, both of which are equally possible), or we can base it upon observable facts. In the latter case, yes, it is likely that we'll mistake some self-serving actions for altruism; but it is also likely that, since we don't rely on speculations, we can define with reasonable certainty whether a certain action is altruistic (at least according to observable criteria) or not.

Loremaster wrote:Certainly, in a behaviour, yes. But I'm arguing that the motivation is selfish, which therefore makes altruism a lie.

It's not the individual who is selfish, it's the genes.

Altruism is rather difficult to describe, but to argue whether it exists or not, we need to do so. Here are the definitions of the word "altruism" from several dictionaries one can access through the net. I included the definition of the American Heritage Science Dictionary because, as said before, humankind IS a kind of animal, and therefore the definition should apply to humans as well. Several dictionaries seem to define "altruism" as something "unselfish", as you will notice - therefore, among all the definitions given below, the only ones one can technically discuss without also defining "selfishness" are the definitions from the American Heritage Science Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the second definition of MSN Encarta.

Definitions of Altruism

Dictionary.com Unabridged wrote:al·tru·ism /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:al·tru·ism (āl'trōō-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Word.net wrote:altruism
noun
the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others

American Heritage Science Dictionary wrote:altruism (āl'tr-ĭz'əm)
Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair's pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual's genetic material.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online wrote:altruism
noun
willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:altruism:
Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness.

MSN Encarta wrote:al·tru·ism
noun
Definition:
1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. belief in acting for others' good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good

I do owe an apology to Av, since these definitions all focus on the motivations a person has to commit an altruistic act. However, it seems to me that all the definitions that don't require to also define "selfishness" (and which therefore can be discussed without also discussing the nature of selfishness) indicate that an action is altruistic as long as the person who performs it does it because he believes it is right to do so. So, according to these definitions (I'm focusing in particular on the Cambridge Dictionaries definition) the soldier throwing himself on a bomb or even the father who buys books for his children rather than beer for himself are both performing altruistic actions. Even more, they also imply that someone like Mother Teresa (who, after all, visited the sick and the afflicted daily, thus constantly risking her health) was an example of altruistic person, since she clearly exhibited a great willingness of benefiting others, even if it would cause her a disadvantage.

You sure know how to take the fun out of the discussion with something as mundane as definitions! Pfhh...

Prebe wrote:

Loremaster wrote:Certainly, in a behaviour, yes. But I'm arguing that the motivation is selfish, which therefore makes altruism a lie.

It's not the individual who is selfish, it's the genes.

And genes make the person. So, you technically agree with me. All I am saying is that we can't ignore motivation by focusing only on behaviour.

Haha, thanks Xar. I was going to respond to your earlier post by asking for definitions.

As you agree, motive is a prime factor in the determination of altruism.

The why of the action, as it were.

See, the idea of no discernable reward is a false one. Because rewards may be indiscernable. It is only by knowing the motivation that we can determine whether or not the actor is being rewarded. Not necessarily materially of course, but in any sense which he perceives or experiences gain.

Thus, even giving a coin to a beggar could generate a reward stimulus by making a person feel good and noble about his kind deed. Therefore, if he does kind deeds for the purpose of feeling good about them, the description of altruistic is suspect, because he does gain a reward of some sort.

That said, I still believe that there can be altruistic actions. For example, the father who forgoes beer to buy his child books. There the reward is only for the child. Unless there is the conscious intent to do so for material purposes, (like the child, better educated, will take care of the father better in his old age), in which case the apparently altruistic is actually inherently selfish.

--A

Avatar wrote:Haha, thanks Xar. I was going to respond to your earlier post by asking for definitions.

As you agree, motive is a prime factor in the determination of altruism.

The why of the action, as it were.

See, the idea of no discernable reward is a false one. Because rewards may be indiscernable. It is only by knowing the motivation that we can determine whether or not the actor is being rewarded. Not necessarily materially of course, but in any sense which he perceives or experiences gain.

Thus, even giving a coin to a beggar could generate a reward stimulus by making a person feel good and noble about his kind deed. Therefore, if he does kind deeds for the purpose of feeling good about them, the description of altruistic is suspect, because he does gain a reward of some sort.

That said, I still believe that there can be altruistic actions. For example, the father who forgoes beer to buy his child books. There the reward is only for the child. Unless there is the conscious intent to do so for material purposes, (like the child, better educated, will take care of the father better in his old age), in which case the apparently altruistic is actually inherently selfish.

But I still contend that you can never be 100% sure of the reason(s) why a certain person committed a certain action. Even asking and receiving an answer isn't enough, because the person could be lying for some reason, or not be aware of all the reasons that prompted him to commit that action, for example. If you see a guy walking by a Save the Children booth, being approached by one of the staff who talks with (or pesters) him for a while, until he finally agrees to make monthly donations, you could ask him why he did it, and he might say "because it was the fastest way to shut her up", for example. Granted, it's silly, but it could happen. And all the while, the real reason why he did it might be that he really cared about the children. But since he doesn't tell you that, the only motivation you know would be shutting the woman up, which wouldn't exactly make it an altruistic action.

I don't know if I'm explaining this clearly enough... what I mean is basically that since we can't go into the head of a person committing an action, we cannot be 100% sure whether his motivation was altruistic or not. By the same token, we cannot always be sure whether he received a "feel good" feeling by performing the action. And speculating on his motives or feelings can work both ways, so it is ultimately useless in this regard.

Now, if you look at this definition of altruism, for example:

Cambridge Dictionaries wrote:altruism
noun
willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself.

it says nothing about rewards. According to it, as long as you are willing to do something for the good of others, even if it hurts yourself (note the "even if", which suggests that could also NOT be the case), then you are altruistic (or at least performing an altruistic action). The definition doesn't say anything about rewards at all: according to it, I could give money to charity and receive a tax break and still be considered altruistic.

I think here the point lies with what is the primary motivation for your action. If I wanted to donate to charity mostly because of the tax break, then obviously I'm not altruistic. But if I wanted to donate to charity because I wanted to help people, and considered the tax break just a nice side benefit, it would still be altruistic according to that definition.

Take this other definition:

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:altruism:
Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness.

It also says nothing about rewards. Even more, it says that altruism is "devotion to the welfare of others as a principle of action". It doesn't even say it must be the ONLY motivator for an altruistic action, only the principal one. So, for example, since I doubt anyone could say that Mother Teresa's primary motivation for helping people was to feel good about herself, according to this definition she would be an altruistic person even if her actions were performed with the secondary motivation of serving God or feeling good about herself.

Both definitions, then, allow for altruistic actions and even altruistic people, since as long as the willingness to help others is the primary motivation in an action, you could have secondary motivations (such as wanting to "feel good" about yourself) and STILL be considered altruistic. So, in short, according to these definitions (which come from the Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionaries, not exactly unknown sources ), altruism does exist, as do altruistic people and altruistic actions.

Only by those specific definitions though. Effectively, you're saying that only the result of an action counts toward its description of altruism.

Therefore, in theory, an action which was intended to harm somebody could be altruistic if it benefits somebody other than the person doing it.

Of course, you can never be 100% sure of somebodies motivation. If that means we can never define something as altruistic or not, then we can never be certain either that it exists or does not.

Mother Teresa's primary motivation may have been to help. It may however have been to fulfill the will of god, or even to make herself more acceptable to god.

Now that isn't to say that she didn't do a great deal of good. She obviously did. But did she do it only to improve the lives of others? Or in obediance to gods wish that the poor and sick be cared for?

It makes no difference to the people she helped. That, I will agree with. But I do think it makes a difference in labelling it altruistic.

I am however willing to accept that the primary motivation is a more important one than secondary ones. But again, by your own argument the motivation is impossible to prove.

So while I might not be able to say with certainty that the action wasn't altruistic, nor can you say with certainty that it was.

--A

Avatar wrote:Only by those specific definitions though. Effectively, you're saying that only the result of an action counts toward its description of altruism.

Therefore, in theory, an action which was intended to harm somebody could be altruistic if it benefits somebody other than the person doing it.

Of course, you can never be 100% sure of somebodies motivation. If that means we can never define something as altruistic or not, then we can never be certain either that it exists or does not.

Mother Teresa's primary motivation may have been to help. It may however have been to fulfill the will of god, or even to make herself more acceptable to god.

Now that isn't to say that she didn't do a great deal of good. She obviously did. But did she do it only to improve the lives of others? Or in obediance to gods wish that the poor and sick be cared for?

It makes no difference to the people she helped. That, I will agree with. But I do think it makes a difference in labelling it altruistic.

I am however willing to accept that the primary motivation is a more important one than secondary ones. But again, by your own argument the motivation is impossible to prove.

So while I might not be able to say with certainty that the action wasn't altruistic, nor can you say with certainty that it was.

I chose those definitions because they are the only ones that do not require to also define "selfishness" and are not based on that definition in turn. In any case, I disagree with one point you make. While the OED's definition obviously goes into the realm of motivations, at least in requiring you to define whether your desire to help others was your primary motivation or not, the CD definition describes altruism as a "willingness to benefit others", which is actually observable. It's fairly simple, after all: if you aren't willing, you don't do the action. If you are willing, you do it. This definition doesn't take into account any motivation; it is obviously the most lax of all definitions, but it allows for a definition of altruism that is based on what we can observe. By this account, since none can deny that Mother Teresa had a willingness to help others, even to her disadvantage (going among sick people every day of your life is hardly advantageous for yourself), whatever her motivations, she was altruistic. By the same token, the soldier throwing himself onto a mine to save his friends is performing an altruistic action, benefiting his friends to the detriment of himself. The motivations are irrelevant, according to this definition, as long as you are willing to perform the action; and if you DO perform the action without anybody forcing you to, then that implies your willingness to perform it, thereby validating the definition.

So, while I'm willing to grant that the OED's definition cannot be validated since we can never know the true motivations that led a person to commit an action, the CD's definition can be validated just by observation.

Additionally, even if one denies the latter point, not proving that altruism exists doesn't mean the same as proving that altruism definitely doesn't exist. Therefore, we eventually end up in the same kind of discussions as those related to the existence or non-existence of God - meaning that ultimately, it is up to each individual person to choose whether he or she believes in altruism or not.

Very true.

The observation however is still based on the assumption that what you think you see is what is actually happening.

I agree that the definition we're using for this particular explaation is a fairly uncomprehensive one.

After all, a definition must include all properties of a concept, with the understanding that any concept lacking in even one of those properties cannot be considered to be included therein.

So if anything that demonstrates a willingness to benefit other people is altruistic, I could make a case that, for example, terrible things which nonetheless benefitted some people could be considered altruistic.

(Events mighty AllFather? )

--A

Avatar wrote: Very true.

The observation however is still based on the assumption that what you think you see is what is actually happening.

I agree that the definition we're using for this particular explaation is a fairly uncomprehensive one.

After all, a definition must include all properties of a concept, with the understanding that any concept lacking in even one of those properties cannot be considered to be included therein.

So if anything that demonstrates a willingness to benefit other people is altruistic, I could make a case that, for example, terrible things which nonetheless benefitted some people could be considered altruistic.

(Events mighty AllFather? )

Still, that's the only definition we can accept if we agree that we can never know the full range of motivations that led a person to commit an action. But even if you disagree here and believe that motivations should be known, then the OED's definition still says that regardless of any secondary motivations, as long as the primary motivation is to benefit other people, then the action (or the person) is still essentially altruistic.

Of course, many problems here arise from the fact that altruism is a concept, not something we can observe in its essential form. The differences in definitions only mirror the fact that as a concept, altruism is elusive to define. In fact, if I defined altruism as "willingness to act in a way that benefits other people, even to your own detriment, but otherwise hurts no other people" would be a fairly more comprehensive definition, which would take into account the (fair) objection about harming many and benefiting few, and still allow for altruistic actions and altruistic people.

Perhaps I should write the OED editors and send them this definition

Regardless, at this point I'd say that, given the various definitions of altruism, we have three possible conclusions:

1) Altruism might exist because, as long as the primary motivation of an action is to benefit others, then the action is altruistic;

2) Altruism might exist because we can observe people exhibiting a "willingness to benefit others", without delving into motivations;

3) We cannot prove altruism's existence or lack thereof, and therefore it is up to every single person to choose whether he or she believes in altruism or not.

Of course, one could come up with a definition which rules out all those possibilities; but since one can just as easily come up with a definition that allows them (as shown above), then the only possibility to discuss this argument is to base ourselves upon the published definitions of altruism.
And what these definitions point at is that it is impossible to prove that altruism DOESN'T exist. This for two reasons:

1) If you delve into motivations (but NOT speculative ones), then point 1, above, holds true, and therefore altruism DOES exist;

2) If you don't delve into motivations, point 2 (or at least point 3), above, hold true, and therefore it is impossible to prove that altruism DOESN'T exist.

The only way to invalidate everything and to claim that altruism doesn't exist is to agree that motivations matter, and then speculate on hidden, selfish motivations for each apparent act of altruism, regardless of what the person who commits the action describes as his reasons for doing it, or alternately speculating that while the person says his primary motivation was to benefit others, the real primary motivation was to benefit himself. However, this bases the entire thesis ("altruism therefore doesn't exist") on speculations, which makes the whole point moot.