Altruism

[hmkpoker]

On the surface, I could be pretty easily mistaken for a complete narcissist. It might even be accurate. The foundation for all my "morals" and ethics is entirely self-centered; whatever benefits me the most is "right," and whatever doesn't is "wrong." I don't really see any reason why I, or anyone, would do something that isn't in their own self interest. I think I've at some point said that, between the choice of anonymously activating a death ray to take out a small tribal population of Africa or being killed myself, I'd instantly nuke them to save my own ass.

But...there are some things about me that I think are genuinely altruistic. I know I'd definately give my life to save my brother or my sister, quite possibly my mother or father, and my ex-girlfriend (I definately still love the girl, we just weren't right for each other so the sex had to end).

Anyone that frequents the Politics forum probably knows that I am very, very pro-capitalism. I want money and power, and I want to kick the ass of the business world to get it. But when I think about what I want to do with the power, I want to invest it in something that gives back and helps people; like some kind of organization that helps get people on their feet and teaches them how to be productive and fend for themselves. Seems like a pretty good cause, at least to me.

I don't really understand why I'm motivated to do these things, but I know I am. I mean, I'm an atheist, so in my view, I'm going to die or whatever either way, so ultimately it won't really matter much after I'm dead, and as for the taking a bullet for someone thing, this would basically be the end of the gravy train for me. I'm also pretty sure it's got nothing to do with socialized morality either; Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and Gandhi can all go suck a dick for all I care.

What I think happens is, as we develop intellectually, we become aware of an increasingly broader sphere of social existence, and it is this that best reflects our "self." When I think about how I'm benefitting "myself" by choosing self-sacrifice, I don't think "well, a world where I didn't do X would be horrible and I wouldn't want to live in it," I just think that it's the most beneficial thing for the big-cosmic-whatever that I'm growing to be more and more a part of.

Sorry, I'm tired and this is rambly and bloggy, but I figured it might be able to start some decent conversation.

[chezlaw]

Its all self-centered but we can distinguish between two different types of things that we want.

Some of the things we want are because we care about others as well as ourself, and some just because we care about ourself. These can be labeled unselfish/selfish or alturistic/selfish etc.

and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

chez

[cambraceres]

Sounds like Atlus Shrugged, just paraphrased and confused.
I'm against altruism, it goes against natural laws, man. Unfettered capitalism works because one's self interest is balanced by everyone else's. Generally the system will thwart one's attempt at complete victory because others are trying to better themselves as well. In this way a balance is reached, and almost all have enough food, water, and general sustenance.

I do not believe that your view has contains any philosophical acumen . If you want to help people then by all means do so. My problem is when people ask others to do the same.

Altruistic tendencies may indeed make you feel good inside, and this is a potential benefit, anything outside of this is shadow and appearance. This view of Altruism being of benefit to the overall system of our dynamic world is misguided at best, and criminal at worst.

Allow the natural, static laws of man to regulate this place, because whether you like it or not, you can do nothing else.

Cambraceres

[soon2bepro]

While I agree with most of what cambraceres said, I most definitely don't agree that everyone looking out for their own interests is a sort of society that will work today. It's quite clear that it doesn't (doesn't work optimally, this 'balance' isn't there).

Maybe when human beings are developed enough as intellectual individuals, but not today. We need morals and ethics and we need altruism (when I say we, I mean society).

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe when human beings are developed enough as intellectual individuals, but not today. We need morals and ethics and we need altruism (when I say we, I mean society).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see what you're saying, that too many are incapable of making it on their own and can only care for themselves with the help of others. And if we take this away then the losses to society as a whole (manual laborers, other random grunts) would be too much to shoulder and still produce sufficiently.

If this is not your meaning then I will delight in clarification and enlightenment.

I still do believe that everyone working for themselves does bring about an acceptable system for the whole.
This system works in the animal world, also in economics. Well it would work better in economics if government would keep their money grubbing hands off of private business.

My point is that this law is natural, and does not need a higher plane of intellect to work properly, it can't work improperly, human nature would not allow it, en masse.
And en masse is all that matters for a whole society.

Oh crap, got to go do work!

Cambraceres

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite clear that it doesn't (doesn't work optimally, this 'balance' isn't there).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. What is the basis for deciding whether this balance is there? Does everyone have to have a pony? A look at evolution suggests that tooth, fang and claw is the law we came from. (Although I'm not sure how useful this is as evidence, we are all still alive, and there are 6.5 billion of us...seems to me like some sort of balance would need to be there for that to happen)

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
Its all self-centered but we can distinguish between two different types of things that we want.

Some of the things we want are because we care about others as well as ourself, and some just because we care about ourself. These can be labeled unselfish/selfish or alturistic/selfish etc.

and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it also be that for those we care about, we extend our notion of self?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're changing the focus of causation.

Do I have sex because evolution deemed reproduction necessary to carry on the genetic information of the species...or because I'm really horny and I want to [censored]?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have sex because evolution deemed reproduction necessary to carry on the genetic information of the species...or because I'm really horny and I want to [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's because the hooker needs your $10 to buy some crack.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're changing the focus of causation.

Do I have sex because evolution deemed reproduction necessary to carry on the genetic information of the species...or because I'm really horny and I want to [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what your objection is.

The point is that we behave in a way some call alturistic because we want to (I was just pointing out that why we want to can be explained with or without god).

Pure alturism would be doing something for someone else when we don't want to. It doesn't seem to me that this is what you were talking about. and its not obvious that its even possible.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its all self-centered but we can distinguish between two different types of things that we want.

Some of the things we want are because we care about others as well as ourself, and some just because we care about ourself. These can be labeled unselfish/selfish or alturistic/selfish etc.

and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it also be that for those we care about, we extend our notion of self?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is is the same thing? We care about others to the extent we extend our notion of self to them. I'm not sure, maybe its just a slightly different meaning to 'self'.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Pure alturism would be doing something for someone else when we don't want to. It doesn't seem to me that this is what you were talking about. and its not obvious that its even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we behave in a way some call alturistic because we want to

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do we want to? Most other behaviors are rooted in self-benefit; how can a rational person elect self-sacrifice?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its all self-centered but we can distinguish between two different types of things that we want.

Some of the things we want are because we care about others as well as ourself, and some just because we care about ourself. These can be labeled unselfish/selfish or alturistic/selfish etc.

and its nothing to so with theism/atheism. There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it also be that for those we care about, we extend our notion of self?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is is the same thing? We care about others to the extent we extend our notion of self to them. I'm not sure, maybe its just a slightly different meaning to 'self'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "self" is a more abstract concept than we give it credit for.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pure alturism would be doing something for someone else when we don't want to. It doesn't seem to me that this is what you were talking about. and its not obvious that its even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we behave in a way some call alturistic because we want to

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do we want to? Most other behaviors are rooted in self-benefit; how can a rational person elect self-sacrifice?

[/ QUOTE ]
Rationality can only be used to decide how best to achieve what we want, otherwise rationally there's no reason to do (or not do) anything.

From an evolutionary perspective its fairly obvious why we want others to survive, somteimes more than we want our own survival.

That's it.

chez

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
But...there are some things about me that I think are genuinely altruistic. I know I'd definately give my life to save my brother or my sister, quite possibly my mother or father, and my ex-girlfriend (I definately still love the girl, we just weren't right for each other so the sex had to end).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily "genuine altruism" (of course depending on the definition). I'm not sure why Chez is dancing around the issue but relatedness is often the answer to "altruism" seen in nature.
Look at the people you'd want to save at cost to you. Close relatives. Granted, the ex-girlfriend isn't related to you but with the sex, etc. there could have been some kind of a pair-bond formed there. Makes perfect sense evolutionary (as in pre-birth control).

Evolution has wired us up for these kinds of things. It's part of the foundation of why we are successful. There's terrific literature on the social aspects in primates (including humans of course, but also other great apes) that suggests they are hard-wired for certain types of cooperation, catching cheaters, awareness of social debt, and yes - many behaviors that we would call "altruism" within their social group (which almost inevitably is a bunch of interrelated critters).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't necessarily "genuine altruism" (of course depending on the definition). I'm not sure why Chez is dancing around the issue but relatedness is often the answer to "altruism" seen in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to dance around the issue. It all seems very simple so I'm not sure were you see a problem.

Relatedness is a measure of shared genes so its in the interest of our genes to behave in an 'alturistic' way to those we are related to. Its also in the interests of our genes to behave in an 'alturistic' way to those who are important to the survival of those we are related to - spouses being the best example.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But...there are some things about me that I think are genuinely altruistic. I know I'd definately give my life to save my brother or my sister, quite possibly my mother or father, and my ex-girlfriend (I definately still love the girl, we just weren't right for each other so the sex had to end).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily "genuine altruism" (of course depending on the definition). I'm not sure why Chez is dancing around the issue but relatedness is often the answer to "altruism" seen in nature.
Look at the people you'd want to save at cost to you. Close relatives. Granted, the ex-girlfriend isn't related to you but with the sex, etc. there could have been some kind of a pair-bond formed there. Makes perfect sense evolutionary (as in pre-birth control).

Evolution has wired us up for these kinds of things. It's part of the foundation of why we are successful. There's terrific literature on the social aspects in primates (including humans of course, but also other great apes) that suggests they are hard-wired for certain types of cooperation, catching cheaters, awareness of social debt, and yes - many behaviors that we would call "altruism" within their social group (which almost inevitably is a bunch of interrelated critters).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I understand how evolution would hard-wire us for such a thing, it just seems different from the other things we're hard wired for. With sex, it's like A) I get horny, B) I know sex will result in great personal benefit, so C) I do it. With altruism, I'm going to die...but the greater-social-whatever is going to benefit. I think this reflects a change in "self" identity, kinda.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
It all seems very simple

[/ QUOTE ]

To some - not to others if they haven't been exposed to it before.

[Zygote]

rduke is on the money. another way of looking at this would be to realize that you feel most sympathetic (or a need to protect) those closest to you. Why do people have an easier time hurting a fly than hurting a dog? simple, people can relate more to the pain of a dog. the same goes for why you would feel more sympathy for a human versus a dog and more sympathy for human you know versus one you dont.

You could basically say the closer another being is to you genetically, the more sympathy you feel. Ofcourse you must recognize your similarities before experiencing most sympathy. Thats why humans you interact with and understand are the most likely candidates for sympathy. If the closer gentically we get to you, the more pain you feel then watching yourself being hurt would, therefore, be the ultimate pain. Understanding the defense mechanism that protects 100% you is simple. So in reality, depending on how close another is gentically to you, will dictate the magnitude of pain you feel (the magnitude your defense mechanism is targeted).

If you watch a movie with 10 different personalties and watch them all go into equally painful scenorios, i'd bet the personality you relate the most to will be the one that causes you the most sympathetic pain. and the lesser you relate to the rest, the lesser the pain.

So why is this the case?

Lets say you know someone is going to hurt someone close to you. This idea is likely to bother you for two reasons. One, you may value that person as an asset to your life and, therefore, prefer their safety. Secondly, your brain may just be tricked into thinking you were experiencing the pain. Think about it. Our brains can be tricked into thinking we're having sex by just looking at two-dimensional pornography. I was playing tony hawk pro skater the other day and when the game charcter took a nasty spill, my body flinched and felt temporally disturbed. So if someone whose pain you can easily relate to is being hurt then your brain is likely just being tricked into thinking that the pain is happening to you.

On the other hand, your brain may just recognize the possiblity of someone like you being hurt and, therefore, fear the same possiblity might plague you. so if you rid the pain of those like you, you are likely to be in an environmnet that can't hurt you.

Whichever explanation or mix of explanations from the above applies is irrevelant because none of them are altruistic in nature. I can't think of any altruistic ones that can apply with current evolutionary models or account for all social phenomenon. The best way to think of things would be to realize that all species interaction can be explained by some means of contract theory. In this sense, all exchanges are done by love, trade or force (sometimes mixtures), and love just means that two beings have identical ends by coincidence.

[MatthewRyan]

There is no true Altruism; and that is a sad reality.

You see, there is nothing a person will do that in some way does not benifit them. Ex. giving your life to save your brother/mom/ex/etc is not altruistic beacuse you gain the satisfaction of saving them: in other words, you did not do something for nothing.

I cannot think of one example of altruism. Not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benifit.

-Matt

[dragon14]

[ QUOTE ]
think I see what you're saying, that too many are incapable of making it on their own and can only care for themselves with the help of others. And if we take this away then the losses to society as a whole (manual laborers, other random grunts) would be too much to shoulder and still produce sufficiently.

If this is not your meaning then I will delight in clarification and enlightenment.

I still do believe that everyone working for themselves does bring about an acceptable system for the whole.
This system works in the animal world, also in economics. Well it would work better in economics if government would keep their money grubbing hands off of private business.

My point is that this law is natural, and does not need a higher plane of intellect to work properly, it can't work improperly, human nature would not allow it, en masse.
And en masse is all that matters for a whole society.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've read this type of quote repeatedly in Objectivist works when I was younger. One thing I noticed about Objectivism is that the same theories are expounded again and again yet no one ever backs their theories with data.

The top exponents of Objectivism are:

Ayn Rand--fiction writer and philosopher whose "philosophy"was largely derived from her own fictional work "Atlas Shrugged". Had long-term affair with Nathaniel Branden who was 25 or so years her junior.

Barbara Branden--writer and M.A. in Philosophy. All essays and biographies in her career are about Ayn Rand. Married to Nathaniel Branden for a time.

Nathaniel Branden--psychologist specializing in psychological theories based on the fictional work "Atlas Shrugged".

Leonard Peikoff--Barbara Branden's cousin and philosophy professor. Most of his published works in philosophy refer to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

Essentially the popularization of Objectivism in the 1950's and 1960's was based on the works of fiction writers and philosophy and psychology majors. These philosophers and psychology majors (most of whom were in their 20's and 30's) presume to tell everyone how perfectly everything would run if pure laissez-faire capitalism were adopted and the government were reduced to essentially nothing more than defense. Of course this is all only backed up by Ayn Rand's writings and nothing else.

Unfortunately none of these Objectivists manages to provide any data or facts to support their beliefs. They may turn to the theories of Austrian economists but they can't provide anything except dogma.

A more recent Objectivist, economics professor George Reisman,continues this trend in Objectivism in his works. He is supposed to be an economist but his books do little but pump up Ayn Rand and the Austrian economists. Objectivists make many claims about how everything would improve if we would get rid of the government but it's all theory.

My favorite Ayn Rand economic theory comes in "The Fountainhead". Roark has dynamited a public housing complex because his design was not used???? He somehow is found innocent although he has destroyed (millions?) of public property.

Roark manages to state in the book that he could build better public housing than is currently available and at half the cost???? What is this claim except completely baseless? If only the government would get out of the way, Rand implies, then top architects would save us all money with their innovative designs.

In Atlas Shrugged Rand implies that brillant inventions such as an engine which runs forever on no source of chemical or electric power would have been invented if government simply would get out of the way.

In Atlas Shrugged Rand seems to imply that entire companies will fall apart in days without a few key men running them. Those men are apparently so desirable that one woman keeps desiring to be raped by them. Yet at the same time, Objectivists seem to believe that while the average man in the street can't survive without John Galt and his pals the mentally ill and the poor would do just fine without any governmental assistance.

As Objectivism was very influential in Libertarianism the same problems crop up in Libertarian thought. Drugs, the tax code, crime, etc., would all magically cease to be problems once the government gets out of the way.

Such thinking is often mere fantasy. Essentially many problems are fairly difficult to erase or reduce. Modern life is fairly complex. That's why the government has continued to grow over time.

The private sector does not offer magical solutions to difficult problems. If Ayn Rand, George Reisman, or a libertarian candidate claim to have all the answers to problems then why don't they present the facts? My answer is that they do not have any facts. That is fine with their believers but not fine with me.

Altruism is desirable to one's family and friends foremost, and to society at large secondly.

Howard Roark states that "Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor."

Life is more difficult for some people than others and it's worthwhile for society to help them out. Anti-social objectivist attitudes that they are being "forced" to help the poor require that the government continue to be the mechanism by which the weak and the poor and the mentally ill are helped.

[madnak]

Aren't bats altruistic even without interrelation?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't bats altruistic even without interrelation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about the reciprocity they're famous for?

[madnak]

Yes.

[Rduke55]

Then that's not altruism.

[madnak]

Because of the expectation of reciprocal gain, you mean?

[Rduke55]

Exactly. Think about it as delayed mutualism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It all seems very simple

[/ QUOTE ]

To some - not to others if they haven't been exposed to it before.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to be clear, sorry if I wasn't.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no true Altruism; and that is a sad reality.

You see, there is nothing a person will do that in some way does not benifit them. Ex. giving your life to save your brother/mom/ex/etc is not altruistic beacuse you gain the satisfaction of saving them: in other words, you did not do something for nothing.

I cannot think of one example of altruism. Not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benifit.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you think its sad. We help others because it gives us satisfaction. 'Unselfish' people derive lots of satisfaction from helping others and 'selfish' people derive little.

The idea of helping people when you derive no satisfaction from it, doesn't really make sense.

chez

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no true Altruism; and that is a sad reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's only sad if the person helped is somehow harmed by the altruism. What do the starving care if the person that feeds them gets satisfaction from it? If the provider didn't get satisfaction from their actions then there is less gained overall.

[madnak]

I'm defining altruism as a lack of "selfishness" according to the view of, say, game theorists. And reciprocal altruism certainly qualifies according to that standard. Because even though the evolution of reciprocal altruism had to do with the potential to coerce other individuals into reciprocal action, the implication of that coercion isn't strictly necessary in any specific case.

The sharing between bats seems to resemble an "at will" model, even if a "tit for tat" kind of model is responsible for the evolution of the behavior.

[cambraceres]

Dragon you are misguided, Objectivism is hard to understand.
I don't claim to understand it, although I admit alot of my views come form these writings.

I suppose the best way to describe why I feel this way is that it is the best generaliztion I have seen in a philosophical sense. I have found that exaustively elucidating something is hard, if not impossible.

Abstract priciples and moral precepts can not always have points A, B, and C to back them up, and still have other points to validate A, B, and C themselves.

It would be nice if Philosophy functioned like classical science, but it doesn't. We must do the best with what we can be sure of, and objectivism SEEMS to fulfill this succinctly

Cambraceres

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm defining altruism as a lack of "selfishness" according to the view of, say, game theorists. And reciprocal altruism certainly qualifies according to that standard. Because even though the evolution of reciprocal altruism had to do with the potential to coerce other individuals into reciprocal action, the implication of that coercion isn't strictly necessary in any specific case.

The sharing between bats seems to resemble an "at will" model, even if a "tit for tat" kind of model is responsible for the evolution of the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with you here. It's clearly not altruism. The bats do keep track of debt when they give up part of their blood meal and will not give more if they are not "paid back" by the individual. Not sure if that fits into your specific case model but that's the way it goes.
Every animal behavior book I've seen makes a clear distinction between reciprocity and altruism. Often using this very example to demonstrate the difference between the two.
And I'm not sure about the "at will" portion because I see noncompliance with the "contract" as having liablility because of the finite size of the colony, cheaters will eventually have no one to get a bloodmeal off of.

[dragon14]

cambracerers,

I read a lot of objectivist works when I was in college. Eventually I even read Reisman and Peikoff thinking that a more recent book would provide the backup for the works of Rand.

Alas I was disapointed to see that the newer works were just rehashed. I remember hearing an audiotape of George Reisman where he was asked what books one should read. He replied the Austrian economists and Ayn Rand's works.

Albert Ellis in his 1968 book "Is Objectivism a Religion" basically sums up the failings of Objectivism to produce any facts. At one point in the book (I'm paraphrasing but very close to the actual text) Rand is quoted as stating that "every economic problem is due to governmental interference with the economy...let those who disagree check the facts" Ellis replies ..."but she(Rand) offers no facts."

If one is trying to improve mankind with a new economic or philosophical program it's one thing to come up with the theory, another to test it in a practical way. Atlas Shrugged is an extremely well known work. Shouldn't someone have come up with some practical applications or analyses of it's theories by now if its' theories hold any water?

My criticism of Objectivism follows for Libertarianism as Objectivism is a major reason for Libertariaism increased popularity over time. It's one thing to state that one has the answers, another to prove it.

At my job I repeatedly complained about how a process at work was being done poorly and if improved would yield significant income gains. Eventually I was appointed to improve that process. At that time it was put up or shut up. I worked on the problem and our income for the year increased 33%.

In my case I could back up my theory, how come the Objectivists can't do the same?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Albert Ellis in his 1968 book "Is Objectivism a Religion" basically sums up the failings of Objectivism to produce any facts. At one point in the book (I'm paraphrasing but very close to the actual text) Rand is quoted as stating that "every economic problem is due to governmental interference with the economy...let those who disagree check the facts" Ellis replies ..."but she(Rand) offers no facts."

If one is trying to improve mankind with a new economic or philosophical program it's one thing to come up with the theory, another to test it in a practical way. Atlas Shrugged is an extremely well known work. Shouldn't someone have come up with some practical applications or analyses of it's theories by now if its' theories hold any water?


[/ QUOTE ]

the Machinery of Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812690699/sr=8-1/qid=1141921559/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3370534-9860612?%5Fencoding=UTF8) - Doesn't include Rand's metaphysical grounding, but shows the practical implications of removing government and the economic effects.

[madnak]

But in the specific case one bat is making a genuine sacrifice for another bat. It's "+EV" for the donor over time, but it's still a matter of giving something up in order to help another individual.

I suppose it's not altruism in the same snese of bees or cell colonies, but it seems to fit the traditional definition of altruism better than the kind of "hive mentality" that kind of altruism stems from.

A mother sacrificing her life for her offspring is not an example of strict altruism either, since the mother is ultimately working to secure her own reproductive fitness.

[Lestat]

I think you might also be applying simple logic. I think we all realize on some level that there is a greater cause than just ourselves as individuals. It is an evolutionary trait to propagate our species. I probably would not choose the death ray over my own life, if I felt the surviving African population would effect collectively more good than I could in my lifetime.

Some of what you feel is likely no more than simple math. A +EV decision for your species. It's why astronauts, firefighters, policeman, soldiers, are willing to give their live's in the line of service if necessary. It doesn't always mean your a good guy. Just that you're a product of evolution.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might also be applying simple logic. I think we all realize on some level that there is a greater cause than just ourselves as individuals. It is an evolutionary trait to propagate our species. I probably would not choose the death ray over my own life, if I felt the surviving African population would effect collectively more good than I could in my lifetime.

Some of what you feel is likely no more than simple math. A +EV decision for your species. It's why astronauts, firefighters, policeman, soldiers, are willing to give their live's in the line of service if necessary. It doesn't always mean your a good guy. Just that you're a product of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good points.

[cambraceres]

I cannot say that I follow objectivist theory, I can't prove it and am not arguing for it. I am merely stating my opinions, and many of them do mirror objectivism.

I don't believe anyone can take a totally abstract theory and validate it for all cases. It may work in one society but not another. Just because something works doesn't mean it will again, or that it "should" have in the first place.

Unfortunately for a rational being, this means we can only look at the indicators as to which path to cut through the confusing forest. These indicators, these intuitions lead me to believe there is much to learn from Rand, not from any of her followers, they are just that and pedantic ones.

Rand said "Feeling be damned!" If she hadn't said that, or I hadn't though about what it means, this would be a different conversation.

much love,

Cambraceres

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the specific case one bat is making a genuine sacrifice for another bat. It's "+EV" for the donor over time, but it's still a matter of giving something up in order to help another individual.

I suppose it's not altruism in the same snese of bees or cell colonies, but it seems to fit the traditional definition of altruism better than the kind of "hive mentality" that kind of altruism stems from.

A mother sacrificing her life for her offspring is not an example of strict altruism either, since the mother is ultimately working to secure her own reproductive fitness.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, my point is that the bat is not making a genuine sacrifice. It's expected to be returned.
You stating that it's still giving something up to benefit another individual completely ignores a major point (that's essential for this behavior to emerge) about the behavior.
When we are talking about the ultimate reasons for the evolution of these traits we need to be specific on what altruism is. It's performing an act that reduces the fitness of the performer and benefits the receiver. Irrespective of time, etc.
This behavior does not fit because it is also +EV for the performer.
Again, think about it as delayed mutualism.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pure alturism would be doing something for someone else when we don't want to. It doesn't seem to me that this is what you were talking about. and its not obvious that its even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we behave in a way some call alturistic because we want to

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do we want to? Most other behaviors are rooted in self-benefit; how can a rational person elect self-sacrifice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe already pointed out, but for many people self-sacrifice satisfies a distinct need. This self-sacrifice even extends to the level of martyrdom.

[JMAnon]

Couldn't your self-sacrifice decisions really be nothing more than self-interested pain avoidance? I sure would feel crummy if I had to watch a loved one die while knowing I could have saved him or her. Many people would selfishly chose to die rather than undergo extreme pain (whether physical or emotional), because death is the more pleasant option.

You may also have a selfish, narcissistic desire to be a hero. Maybe, for you, the pleasure of saving a loved one knowing that you would be revered as a hero, would outweigh the pleasure of living as a schlub who watched his sister die.

Maybe you don't really know what you would do in either scenario. Are you really sure you would sacrifice your life or that you wouldn't save the villagers? It is a very easy thing to say what you would do when not actually facing a decision, but quite something else actually to pull the trigger.

[moorobot]

Ok, explain the self-benefit of the simple example of a person jumping on a grenade in order to save his fellow troops. This person dies. That's it-no increase of genetic/reproductive fitness, no happy smiley feelings for a good deed done well-he's dead, he can't help his own offspring or create anymore etc. Undoubtedly, some of the people that have done this (not to mention other acts which involved practically instant death for the sake of others when the person sacrificing themselves was not in imminent danger) that often would, correctly or incorrectly, have believed that they had some chance of surviving by jumping the other way- and certainly kamikaze pilots could have just avoided being in the army, etc.
So they are dead-they never "fulfill a need", strictly speaking, because at the precise point that their altruistic goal is completed they no longer exist-essentially equivalent to an indvidualing desiring to touch a rock in order to fulfill a need. However, when this person gets within three feet of the rock she dies. If this person falls lifelessly on top of the rock she will have no recollection or knowledge or feeling of having touched the rock-has she then "fulfilled a need"? Altruism=real, despite the contemporary popularity of the view to the contrary.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There's good evolutionary reasons why we should care about others so the source of this sort of alturism can be explained without god


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this just another way of saying what is is right? Which brings us back to Hitler. He was just a product of evolution.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no true Altruism; and that is a sad reality.

You see, there is nothing a person will do that in some way does not benifit them. Ex. giving your life to save your brother/mom/ex/etc is not altruistic beacuse you gain the satisfaction of saving them: in other words, you did not do something for nothing.

I cannot think of one example of altruism. Not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benifit.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ] It does not, strictly speaking, follow from the fact that there "is not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benefit" that altrusim does not exist (btw-I deny your premise but even granting it the conclusion does not follow). The reason is the fact that another possible action could exist that leads to an even greater positve benefit for the actor yet the actor chooses the less self-beneficial action instead. I could make up any example to illustrate this distinction, but say you donate $100 dollars to charity. You may gain warm happy feelings from this action, but you would have gained even more of a selfish benefit from adding an extra five inches to your television set. In economists terms, spending the 100 on the television would have maximized your utility, even though donating to charity also added to your utility relative to staring at the pretty dollar bill.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]

But why do we want to? Most other behaviors are rooted in self-benefit; how can a rational person elect self-sacrifice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some ways:

If the pain of losing a loved one outwieghd the expected future pleasure of living without the loved one.

If the instantaneous psychological pleasure of knowing one is heroic or saving a loved one outweighs all of the expected future pleasure of living.

If the pain caused by surviving and being thought a failure/dishonorable/unpatriotic outweighed the expected pleasure of living.

[MatthewRyan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no true Altruism; and that is a sad reality.

You see, there is nothing a person will do that in some way does not benifit them. Ex. giving your life to save your brother/mom/ex/etc is not altruistic beacuse you gain the satisfaction of saving them: in other words, you did not do something for nothing.

I cannot think of one example of altruism. Not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benifit.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ] It does not, strictly speaking, follow from the fact that there "is not one example of an act done for another in which the actor does not gain some positive benefit" that altrusim does not exist (btw-I deny your premise but even granting it the conclusion does not follow). The reason is the fact that another possible action could exist that leads to an even greater positve benefit for the actor yet the actor chooses the less self-beneficial action instead. I could make up any example to illustrate this distinction, but say you donate $100 dollars to charity. You may gain warm happy feelings from this action, but you would have gained even more of a selfish benefit from adding an extra five inches to your television set. In economists terms, spending the 100 on the television would have maximized your utility, even though donating to charity also added to your utility relative to staring at the pretty dollar bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

moonrobot, altruism is not about opportunity costs.In your example a benifit was still recieved, and that is the key.

I belive you are missing the point here. And the point is that alturism is not possible and not concievable for humans.

[Rduke55]

Well, the thing is I think there is actual altruism in life due to some traits we evolved for other purposes.
The thing is, when people think about evolution of traits, they never think about the context from which they arose. Many of our strangest habits and motivations make perfect sense when you think about why and when they may have evolved.

A simple example I always think of (and maybe someone else could give a better one) is drug addiction. Someone could say - "Hey, why do we have that circuit that makes us more likely to become addicted to drugs? Drug addicton is clearly a fitness reducing behavior. I can't imagine why that circuit evolved."

But when you think about what that circuit does (reinforces fitness-promoting behaviors) then it makes perfect sense when you think about it in an evolutionary perspective. It evolved during a time where animals didn't neccesarily have access to drugs that "hijack" the reward pathways (cue someone talking about "But it's from the earth man.").

A lot of our irrational behaviors in economics and society work this way. Neuroeconomics has this as one of its foundations.

For your grenade example it could be that the expression of altruism (real altruism in the sense you're sacrificing for non-relatives) is due to how we were wired up during the beginning of species (not to long ago in evolutionary time) when we were at the small-band-of heavily-interrelated-individuals stage. You may be able to imagine how important it was to form close bonds that may result in selfless behavior there. It's the same "wiring", instinct, etc. that gets misused (misused in the evolutionary sense) that today seems maladaptive, and very well may be, but there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it evolved.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, explain the self-benefit of the simple example of a person jumping on a grenade in order to save his fellow troops. This person dies. That's it-no increase of genetic/reproductive fitness, no happy smiley feelings for a good deed done well-he's dead, he can't help his own offspring or create anymore etc. Undoubtedly, some of the people that have done this (not to mention other acts which involved practically instant death for the sake of others when the person sacrificing themselves was not in imminent danger) that often would, correctly or incorrectly, have believed that they had some chance of surviving by jumping the other way- and certainly kamikaze pilots could have just avoided being in the army, etc.
So they are dead-they never "fulfill a need", strictly speaking, because at the precise point that their altruistic goal is completed they no longer exist-essentially equivalent to an indvidualing desiring to touch a rock in order to fulfill a need. However, when this person gets within three feet of the rock she dies. If this person falls lifelessly on top of the rock she will have no recollection or knowledge or feeling of having touched the rock-has she then "fulfilled a need"? Altruism=real, despite the contemporary popularity of the view to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said people that jump on grenades to save war buddies are rational? They may simply (and probably irrationally) value the instantaneous pleasure of knowing they will be saving their buddies over the expected pleasure from the rest of their lives. Or maybe their lives just suck and they rationally don't expect to have much pleasure in life. Hell, for many people, life is -EV on the pleasure/pain chart, so they may prefer to die.

Or maybe these self-sacrificers don't think, but act out of a command coded in our DNA that made our species more likely to survive. Self-sacrificers may have been more likely to pass on their genes.

Or maybe they are altruistic in the way you mean.

Whether you call it altruism, an instinct, or a self-interested choice is really just semantics, in my view, because our true motivations are inaccessible (even to ourselves).

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
My criticism of Objectivism follows for Libertarianism as Objectivism is a major reason for Libertariaism increased popularity over time.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% about it's poplularity in the mainstream or amongst the population as a whole, but "ethical libertarianism" (i.e. early Nozick; Rand-the point is to distinguish between the view that libertarianism is intrinsically correct simply because of, e.g., some natural law and/or self-ownership type argument and the view that government is a failure in creating gov't programs/directing the economy but is not intrinsically incorrect in trying to do so i.e. gov't "intervention" is wrong/foolish/a mistake because it has and always will fail to be effective. People who believe in ethcial libertarianism often believe in factual libertarianism too but they are conceptually distinct) is extremely unpopular in acacademia right now-hence an article about how libertarians should act in a democracy, given that so many people disagree with their political philsophy, by a libertarian professor entitled (off the top of my head here) "libertarians (as if the other 99% of the population mattered)". Nozick himself simply abandoned libertarianism in his later works, perhaps because the literature is full of hundreds of unanswerable objections his theory.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

moonrobot, altruism is not about opportunity costs.In your example a benifit was still recieved, and that is the key.

I belive you are missing the point here. And the point is that alturism is not possible and not concievable for humans.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, so you agree that people do not always choose the action that is most beneficial to themselves then? If you want to define altrusim in that way (Anybody who willing chooses to sacrifice their own expected utility in order to benefit others is how I understand altruism, but I realize others come to the table with different definitions) I have much less of a problem saying that altruism is not possible for humans i.e. As long as I can still say that a truly selfish person would have choosen action X, because that action would have maximized his/her own utility, but many people would, can and have choosen action Y, giving up some of their own selfish benefit relative to action X because action Y is more beneficial to other beings then I don't think my position (altrusim exists) is that far off from yours (altruism does not exist). A truly selfish being, assuming rationality, would have choosen every time, without fail, to purchase the television in the example I gave above.


Btw-my previous post was not about opportunity costs. It was about a human being choosing to intentionally perform an action that was beneficial to others despite the sacrifice of his own well being. Let's try this again: someone who is completely egotistical, the opposite of altrusitic, would always choose to maximize their own utility without regard for the well being of others except in so far as their utility. Go back to my original example of tv vs donation: if given the choice between action T, purchasing the Tv, which produces 100 units of utility for him, and action d, donating the money, which brings him 99.9 units, a pure egoist would always choose to purchase the TV. If a person chooses action D, that person is not a pure egoist, and, to that extent, is an altruist. Altruism is about sacrificing some of your well being for others, opportunity cost is about being a more efficent egoist; about deciding what is the best way to create utility for yourself (sacrificing some of your utility in one area for more (selfish) utility that would be gained doing a different activity). An egoist thinking about my two options above via the lens of opportunity cost would always choose to buy the TV.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Who said people that jump on grenades to save war buddies are rational? They may simply (and probably irrationally) value the instantaneous pleasure of knowing they will be saving their buddies over the expected pleasure from the rest of their lives. Or maybe their lives just suck and they rationally don't expect to have much pleasure in life. Hell, for many people, life is -EV on the pleasure/pain chart, so they may prefer to die.

Or maybe these self-sacrificers don't think, but act out of a command coded in our DNA that made our species more likely to survive. Self-sacrificers may have been more likely to pass on their genes.

Or maybe they are altruistic in the way you mean.

Whether you call it altruism, an instinct, or a self-interested choice is really just semantics, in my view, because our true motivations are inaccessible (even to ourselves).

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent reply to my post-however, I don't think I can ever accept the logic implied by any "I know that we don't know" position(s) (and it is a hackneyed topic, so I don't want to debate it either); furthermore, in order to even have this discussion sensically we need to presuppose that one of our motivations is "to find the truth"; otherwise neither of our posts would be of any more than biographical interest. Perhaps science will advance to the point were our "true motivitations" can be discovered empirically someday.