Kevin's Watch

One (relatively) common image of the motivational struggle in the moral life, is that of a conflict between selfishness and selflessness. The delinquent is always just "looking out for number one" or indulging egocentric hedonistic sentiments, or is coldly, if cleverly, calculating the advance of his or her self-interest, or whatever.

However, once various moral questions are parsed to the level of philosophical detail, does this conflict remain center-stage or is the problem of being a good person, of having good motives, reformulated? Consider first the following example of the "default" of altruism, if you will, from John Rawls:

• ... suppose that in deciding what to do all vote to do what everyone else wants to do. Obviously nothing gets settled; in fact, there is nothing to decide. (AToJ, 2nd ed. s.30, pg. 165)

Abstract altruism can't serve as a basis for a meaningful moral attitude. But now if everyone ought to count equally, then we would say to count ourselves too, so moreover morality has a straightaway place for self-interest. And in Kant, for example, we speak of our obligations arising from our own will, our autonomy--from ourselves. Some reference to the intent or desire or whatever of the self will then factor in to our construction of our moral character in our will. There will even be a sense in which morality is "self-centered."

I suggest (not innovatively, mind you) that the real issue is not self-interest versus the interests of others, or at least this is not always the real issue. The self(!)-righteous fanatic might seem a type of the narcissist, but when I read Hannah Arendt's analysis of the French Revolution (read this among other things), I got an impression that could be expressed like so:

• Who would be the worse STAR WARS villain: a Sith Lord always devoted to the Dark Side, or a fallen Jedi who wanted to limit use of the Light Side only to the Jedi?

The fallen Jedi in the example is not self-interested in the normal(?) sense. Indeed, by acting for the sake of respect for the Light Side of the Force, he or she would seem to be acting on a very good motive in general. And even though the result of limiting the Force to the Jedi would result in the possibility of tyranny on the part of the Jedi, we can waive this fear in relation to the particular Knight of the Order in question, for the purposes of argument thence saying that this Knight exemplifies a profoundly evil attitude towards goodness, one so profound due to the subtlety of its corruptiveness.

Or something like that (Arendt's real-world examples were better but I don't have a copy of On Revolution at hand to cite).

All altruism is inherently selfish.

--A

Avatar wrote:All altruism is inherently selfish.

--A

Hee...you've said that before.
I don't think so. They converge/overlap, have become complex/complicated physically and abstractly.
But---to go all reductive like your statement---this:

First, it has to be noted that the two behaviors precede thought in time/evolution. Precede humanity...precede even mammals.

So, imagine:
Some fish. [I just picked fish cuz of some headlines I saw recently...it probably predates even fish].
So there are two fish that can save [or not save] others.

Some biological/neurological/chemical switch flips [or fails to flip] or signal is sent [or not sent]---and one fish helps. The other doesn't.
Because of the one that did, more fish survive.
That's one point where people often say "see...altruistic helped itself. Now it has more mates/companions/crowd protection. Selfish."
The problem is: that can't be said.
There is no level---not thought, not instinct, not gene or meme, none at all down to the very atoms, at which any knowledge about survival or breeding or any outcome at all can be "known." There is no information about that available, and even if it was, there is no structure that can process that information.
The "selfish" survival/breeding reward is not, cannot be, a cause.
It is a fortunate outcome of the "altruistic" behavior.
The "selfish" fish...which didn't act...ALSO has enhanced survival/breeding options [because more other fish survived, and assuming the predator or whatever didn't decide to go after the solo fish]. But it couldn't know that...it was probably acting [if it had any choice at all] entirely selfishly---and if the other fish hadn't acted altruistically the selfish fish's survival/breeding would have been less likely. [though it couldn't know that].

Altruism isn't hidden/sublimated selfishness...and isn't a branch/fruit of the selfish tree. It is separate and distinct.
The two interact...in cooperation and in conflict...in effects
But they are two different seeds. Two independent causes.

Which relates, Mig, down multiple paths, to your topic [if I'm understanding you correctly].
Because at root, neither selfishness nor altruism is either moral or immoral. They're non-moral.
In that mix of complication is the intentions/outcomes problem...we judge each of them as either good or evil in themselves---but also in relation to each other.
Means/ends is similar, but not identical, to that.
It is all irreconcilable because we must always decide/determine NOW, but we can't know the past or the future, and the causes [such as selfishness and altruism] remain obstinately neutral.
Perhaps that neutrality implies the answer, though: Balance.

Generally, "Sometimes I will focus on self-interest, sometimes I will focus on the interests of others," could be variously interpreted and, as a result, more or less justified. I think the more appropriate starting point is more like, "I will focus on the interests of everyone, period (myself and all others simultaneously)," even if this sounds, on the face of it, to be an extremely demanding intention.

(Or even more pointedly, I wouldn't probably start out from the concept of interest.)

Vraith wrote:
There is no level---not thought, not instinct, not gene or meme, none at all down to the very atoms, at which any knowledge about survival or breeding or any outcome at all can be "known." There is no information about that available, and even if it was, there is no structure that can process that information.

Then can it really be "altruism?"

Or at least, should we not distinguish between "biological" altruism and "human" altruism?

Google defines altruism as "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others" but has a distinction between that and its use in zoology, "behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense."

--A

Avatar wrote: Or at least, should we not distinguish between "biological" altruism and "human" altruism?

--A

We probably should...but doing it might be tricky.
Humans seem to be/use/exhibit both.
Things that are instinctual, and things that are thoroughly thought out/rational. And most is a mix, turbulent and murky.
And we'd probably have to do the same on the other side...
"biological" selfishness and "human."

I think we must make the distinction for the purposes of this discussion, since egotism and narcissism are involved also.

Thus altruism in the human sphere can easily be seen as benefiting the "actor" at least on an emotional level.

--A

This whole problem can be defined, as well as may be, with reference to just the simplistic words "selfish" and "selfless," but I suspect the conclusion to remain the same: that selfishness vs. selflessness is not the real/main/only problem.