Is altruism an illusion?
I would like to consider the possibility that every human action is the byproduct of selfish motives.
It may seem to us like this is clearly false. People donate to charities in order to help out the needy and sick. Parents take care of their children while putting their lives below theirs. And a courageous soldier may put his life on the line in order to save his comrades. How can these examples be selfish?
On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions. If somebody didn't donate to a charity then they would be guilt-ridden by not doing anything. In addition, parents would want the best for their children because they cannot stand the pain of having their lives ruined. And for the brave soldier? He would also be unable to live through the loss of his friends. In all of these situations, it can be argued that there is an ulterior motive behind these actions and that they were thus never really selfless to begin with.
What do you guys think of this? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
It may seem to us like this is clearly false. People donate to charities in order to help out the needy and sick. Parents take care of their children while putting their lives below theirs. And a courageous soldier may put his life on the line in order to save his comrades. How can these examples be selfish?
On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions. If somebody didn't donate to a charity then they would be guilt-ridden by not doing anything. In addition, parents would want the best for their children because they cannot stand the pain of having their lives ruined. And for the brave soldier? He would also be unable to live through the loss of his friends. In all of these situations, it can be argued that there is an ulterior motive behind these actions and that they were thus never really selfless to begin with.
What do you guys think of this? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Comments (42)
Definitions derive not from word analysis, but from usage.
I can understand where you're coming from, but it seems like if we ask a soldier why he saved his comrades, he wouldn't disagree that he did so because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. In other words, the guilt that he would face if he let his friends die is something that makes dying in their place more preferable. And it could be argued that this sort of thinking applies to every person who wishes to help others. The idea that they provided assistance to avoid guilt sounds just as appropriate as saying that they did so because they wished to help.
On a related note, it can also be argued that perhaps the motivations of our seemingly selfless actions can be subconsciously geared towards our self-interest as well, despite our own seemingly conscious selflessness. I am not sure if this would mean that altruism is an illusion, but this is a point I've heard as well from those wishing to argue for psychological egoism.
Quoting Hanover
But my question has to do with whether or not there are actual examples of people doing something solely for the benefit of others and not their own interest. In other words, are all actions done out of concern for oneself?
I think its clear that all actions are driven by self-interest.
But Hanover is suggesting something I did not consider.
Quoting Hanover
Saving someone who wants to be saved becuase you wan't to save them constitutes "selflessness".
Saving someone who does 'not' want to be saved, because you want to save them constitutes "selfishness".
Selflessness does infact exist and take place all the time, given that it satisfies the interests of both you and the other person.
Thats what I take from this discussion. Before; I thuaght seflessness was defined as an act of doing something purely becuase it benefitted another(impossible). But it's really "doing somthing that benefits another on behalf of the fact that it satisfies your own interests.
Sure, but they're not what we would consider selfless. If I trip over a wire and save you from electrocution, I did something for you and nothing for me.
Psychological egoism is pretty much rejected by most moral philosophers and moral psychologists. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn't make it selfish. Selfishness isn't defined in terms of desire-satisfaction, it's defined by the contents and orientation of desires. Motivation is the determinate factor here.
Right, so as you were saying, it would have to be by accident, because people don't do things they have no interest in doing, you have to have sufficent interest in order to be driven to voluntarily them in the first place.
By "self-interest" I mean anything that benefits you or prevents harm on yourself.
Come on. Are all conscious decisions that we make done out of concern for oneself?
How couldnt they be? Unless we accidentally "tripped over a wire" like Hanover said. If you do something voluntarily, its becuase you had an interest in doing it, satisfying that interest is a self serveing motive.
If you found this to be true, would it bother you? If so, why?
You're creating a tautology here. If I do what I want to, then I'm selfishly doing what I want, even if what I want is to save your life from a burning house. If I didn't want to save you, I wouldn't have.
My point is that you're misdefining the word.
Even if the soldier would feel guilty if they didn't perform their action, was that what was on their mind when they saved their comrades? Were they thinking "Oh dear, my friends are going to die and it would be such a pain if I have to deal with the resulting guilt" (which is the sort of thinking they'd have if they were really being self centred) or were they more concerned with the fact that their friends are actually in danger? In addition, wouldn't the fact that they felt guilty be a signal that there is more to their decision to save their friends other than the pain that comes from this guilt?
I don't see how I am creating a tautology. A conscious decision to do what you want doesn't necessarily mean that what you want is in accordance with your own self-interest. If the things that you want are to your own benefit (either by acquiring pleasure or avoiding harm) then that means it's selfish and if not then it's selfless. Doing what you want to do is compatible with the latter, but my question is if there are any true cases of such behaviour.
As I've accused you of a tautology, the disproof would be for you to hypothesize the very example you seek. That is, if you can't imagine a hypothetical case of conscious, non-accidental selflessness, then what you are looking for exists in no possible world and is thus a contradiction. To assert its absence would be a tautology. So you tell me, using your definition of "selfless," when does it occur?
Any time someone wants something that isn't to their own benefit. Compare I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs. I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so. The definition itself should be clear enough for imagining what it is like. Or is there something that you find impossibly unclear here?
The problem is not in imagining it, it's whether or not we can give any example of its actual occurrence that I am questioning. I really don't know how I can be more clear on that.
That doesn't sound reasonable because then you face a regress. Why do you want to satisfy that desire? Because it will satisfy some other desire in you. And why do you want to satisfy that other desire? Because it will... and so forth. So either the buck stops somewhere or else we have to have an infinite chain of reasons.
Or here's another way of putting it: You're saying that I want to do x because it would satisfy my wanting to do x. That sounds circular.
Thanks for the link. I'll set aside some time for it tonight, so I'll get to you then if I have any thoughts.
My initial objection to your inquiry was that you were searching for a tautology, and here you're just recognizing my objection.
The question is: When is an act not selfish?
My response is not to look at this analytically, but simply to ask in which instances do we call something selfless. Saving kids from fires, rescuing the drowning, etc. are all such instances. It's not significant to me whether the rescuer were a passerby who would have had a strong sense of guilt had he ignored the victim or whether it was a paid emergency worker for hire. In either case, they saved another, and in both cases they had underlying motives, in both cases they were heroes, and in both cases they were not selfish..
Your inquiry has, however, been to try to derive that which is selfless from analyzing terms as opposed to simply looking for instances of term use. I first pointed out that all acts occurred for a reason except for those that were accidental, which meant that you'd be left with the absurd conclusion that the only selfless acts would be those like tripping over a wire to save people. You then wished to correct me by asking when were conscious acts selfless, and by conscious, you meant intentional.
You distinguished between two sentences:
#1: I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs.
#2: I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so.
The problem is that #1 is an incomplete sentence. There is some reason you want to save someone because, tautologically, every intentional act has a corresponding intent. In order to find an act without an underlying intent, you must look for accidental or random events, not the sort we're at all interested in here.
So, to your question, when does #1 occur, asking very specifically as you have when do you intentionally save someone from a burning house for no reason, I'd say never, but that's based upon a logical problem in trying to explain how one can act intentionally for no reason. That just doesn't make sense. If you acted intentionally, you had a reason, and that reason formed the basis of your intent.
I think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population.
Seriously, have you never just done something to help someone because you put yourself in their position, felt compassion, and saw there was something you could do? Not to avoid guilt. Not to make them grateful. Just because you like other people and want them to be happy. We are humans. We are social animals. We are built to like each other. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.
Dawkins would refute that a "purer" altruism is not possible in humans, and does so explicitly in the later (I think) editions of "The Selfish Gene" as a response to all the hoohaa. I think he says that human beings can transcend their genes in a sort of gestalty way.
Okay, I just got to reading it. I do agree that the very existence of guilt itself would imply a deeper desire that may not be selfish, which was what your Feinberg paper and @Mr Bee earlier had pointed out. It sounds more likely that those desires are what influenced their action rather than some secondary guilt avoidance. At least, that is where I stand ATM, though I'll be open to hearing other people's opinions if they disagree.
It is also interesting to note that selfless actions comprise more than just the usual cases of helping others. A person may for instance act based upon curiosity and strangely enough even on hatred for another person, especially if such malevolence is self-destructive. These cases too can also be considered "selfless", as they are not in the best interests of the individual.
I disagree that intentional acts must always have underlying reasons to them. If I were to have the sudden urge to jump on one foot and someone asks me why I did it, I would say "I don't know, I just wanted to do so". It's an intentional act clearly, but it was made on impulse.
You may say that I wanted to jump on one foot due to wanting to satisfy my desire to jump on one foot, but again, I should point out that such reasoning would lead to a regress. The idea that we wanted to do X to satisfy our desire would lead to an infinite chain of desires and wants. Indeed, that was even a point that @?????????????'s linked paper makes on Pg. 8. The point here is that there is nothing wrong, so far as I can tell, with saying that I simply wanted X for its own sake.
Finally, the two sentences I gave were in order to demonstrate a selfless conscious decision, but it seems like you were too focused on the fact that #1 was an intentional act that lacked any reason, which I feel misses the point of what I am saying. If you want an example of an selfless intentional act that has a reason, then it is very simple to provide one. Compare "I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so" to "I want to save someone from a burning house because it is the right thing to do". If you still think that the latter is somehow impossible then please tell me what is wrong here.
My understanding of the word "intent" is that it refers to an action with a goal, while your jumping on one foot apparently doesn't have one. Isn't there a difference between "voluntary" and "intentional?"
Sure there is. The jumping on one foot is it's own goal, because you wanted to jump on one foot.
This seems inconsistent with what you said earlier:
Quoting Alec
So, a goal is different from a reason?
"[You] want them to be happy. . ."
Sounds self serving to me.
Human action is a byproduct of several factors, like for example gravity.
My point is that goals don't need underlying reasons.
What do I get out of it? It doesn't make me feel good about myself. I doesn't take away any guilt. I'm not doing it to strengthen the social structure. I'm not hoping he'll like me and help me later. There is no moral content to the act at all.
You are just playing games with language.
I always feel good when I help others, maybe you are broken.
I'll say to you what I said to Jeremiah, you're just playing games with language.
I am sorry but I am not sure what your concern is here.
My point to @Hanover was that I could want something but not have any deeper reason for wanting it. Any actions resulting from that want is geared towards that goal. A goal may be a reason but that does not mean that the goal itself is determined by a deeper reason which was what I had tried to emphasize. If you disagree that it cannot be, then I am open to hearing it.
Quoting Alec
Your argument was that since there's always an underlying fulfillment of personal desire by carrying out a seemingly selfless act, all acts must be inherently selfish. I disagreed, arguing that fulfillment of desire (i.e. doing what you want) does not make an act selfish. In order to determine whether something is selfless, you simply look to the specific act and see if it primarily is directed at helping others.
But here you say:
Quoting Alec
This appears to ignore your initial concern, namely that the fulfillment of personal desire negates the selfless quality of the act. The first example and the second example you give above are indistinct in that regard. Your wanting to do the right thing (and therefore doing the right thing) obviously results in some sort of benefit to you else you wouldn't do it. If you didn't do it, what would be the repercussion? You'd wish you had?
No, I never emphasized any "underlying fulfillment of personal desire" at all. I am confused as to how you came to that interpretation, given that in the very line you have quoted, I was strictly referring to the avoidance of guilt one could achieve by performing a selfless deed:
Quoting Alec (My Emphasis)
Simply put, you're making false assumptions about what I am saying, which explains our disagreement.
I think it depends on the language game one is playing. In one sense, everything is clearly an expression of self-interest. If I sacrifice for those I love, I satisfy my love for them, etc. If I die for my country, I satisfy my intense love for this country, even at the cost of my own death.
But "selfish" is often used to call out a "cheater" in some social system. A "selfish" person is a bad team player. Those who accuse him or her of selfishness are concerned for their own interests. Why bother calling someone selfish unless it interferes with one's interest? Nevertheless, they are prudent to team up and accuse the freeloader of violating a notion of fair play.
Wittgenstein definitely influenced my answer here. As you may know, he advises philosophers to see how words are used in context. If we pluck "self interest" or "selfishness" out of its varied uses and treat it like a static entity, then we get apparent contradictions. We get lost in philosophical debates about an unreal entity (context independent meaning) that philosophers invented in their confusion in the first place.
If it was for promoting the survival of the species, why would those acts be selfish? Acting for the good of others is not defined as selfish by most moral codes.
Also, I'm suspicious of reducing all human motivation to genes. Genes can explain how we evolved abilities like empathy, but they don't necessarily explain the complex behavior that occurs as a result of those abilities, particularly in the kinds of societies humans live in, where culture is a big thing.
Consider your brain. You can come up with evolution stories for how the different faculties of your brain evolved. But none of those explain sitting in a classroom discussing Plato. That's on an entirely different level of explanation (historical, cultural, sociological, meta-cognitive, etc).
It's like saying that Lebron James was born to play basketball. No, he wasn't. Basketball isn't something any human evolved to play, nor is Plato something any human evolved to think about it. Rather, those are complex emergent behaviors because we create culture and can self-reflect, and like to have fun while challenging ourselves.
Is this really why people rush in to save someone from a burning house? Do you think the would-be rescuer sits there and debates with themselves until guilt takes over, and they decide to risk their lives?
That's not what I've heard. People tend to act heroically in the moment, but they can't really say why they did.
Would you want someone to say that they loved and cared for you, but they didn't gain anything from it? That their concern for your well being was not accompanied by any feeling on their part? That it didn't satisfy any desire in them? That they wouldn't feel bad if something bad happened to us?
Consider someone bringing their lover a flower, but explaining that it gave them no pleasure or gain from doing so. Would the lover accept such an offering?
No, not at all. We don't want that from our loved ones.
If you can watch an episode of "Dark Matters: Twisted But True" which is called " Killed by kindness" which deals with this exact question. Your question actually involves a bit of advance psychology as well as game theory so there really isn't a simple answer to it other than that we are in many ways programmed to some degree by our genetic code as well as through social conditioning and it is almost impossible to operate outside of what those two things allow us to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matters:_Twisted_But_True
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price