ChatterBank7 mins ago
Altruism
21 Answers
Is there really no such thing as a purely altruistic act?
One of my colleagues said that it has been proven.
Surely it's a subjective matter and depends onth person who is carrying out the act?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Headless Rat. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a self-fulfilling statement rather than something that's "proven".
Any altruistic act can be interpreted as being motivated by someones desire to improve their own image of themselves.
That doesn't mean that's true.
Perhaps they meant to say" it's been proven that it's possible to be infinately cynical of other people's motivation and to use that to excuse your own selfishness"
Good timing on the question, as I was just reading about this subject yesterday on the BBC science website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm
Seems to be proven that humans (as well as some apes) are capable of altruistic acts that are not self-motivated.
if you do something because you think it's the right thing to do, then of course you will feel some sort of satisfaction at your own behaviour, but I don't think that can be enough to mean that it isn't altruistic. For the same reason, I don't think that expectation of heavenly reward invalidates the idea of altruism - that would mean religous people could never be altruistic, and that doesn't make sense.
i don't think there can be such a thing as an altruistic act.
All things that we do are because of selfish reasons.
We save a child from drowning, at the risk of our own life, because we can and because WE don't want that child to drown.
"i want" is the selfish reason for everything that we do.
That doesn't mean being selfish is wrong. Being selfish helps benefit the evolution of society.
At the risk of repeating myself, recent scientific research HAS proven that humans (and chimpanzees) are capable of purely altruistic behaviour and actions.
I.E. Actions that serve no selfish or self-motivated purpose.
Please click on the above link for details.
(Interestingly enough it has examples of the type of altruistic �acts� and �tests� that �jake-the-peg� is looking for to prove or disprove the theory).
So in answer to Headless rat�s original question, you can �prove� that your colleague is in fact incorrect.
I.E. Actions that serve no selfish or self-motivated purpose.
Please click on the above link for details.
(Interestingly enough it has examples of the type of altruistic �acts� and �tests� that �jake-the-peg� is looking for to prove or disprove the theory).
So in answer to Headless rat�s original question, you can �prove� that your colleague is in fact incorrect.
The study means what you want it to mean really - it most certainly does not prove anything. There are any number of reasons why the children/apes would help - to attribute it to altruism is rather naieve.
I personally believe, as has already been said, that as all acts are motivated by personal gain, even if that gain is a feeling of happiness or security, that no act can be altruistic. As the action is performed through a personal desire of the feeling it is not motivated by altruism but personal desire. I'm afraid the logic is 'inescapable'.
I personally believe, as has already been said, that as all acts are motivated by personal gain, even if that gain is a feeling of happiness or security, that no act can be altruistic. As the action is performed through a personal desire of the feeling it is not motivated by altruism but personal desire. I'm afraid the logic is 'inescapable'.
EL D, assuming we�re prepared to dismiss the findings of several scientific researches on the subject of altruistic behaviour in favour of your �personal belief�, can you elaborate on your claim �there are any number of reasons why children/apes would help�?
A list, rather than a bland unsubstantiated sweeping statement, would be useful.
I have followed the point you make but I�m afraid, at the moment, your �inescapable� logic escapes me.
In addition, �the study means what you want it to mean�, actually, no it doesn�t, it set out to attempt to prove or disprove a theory, and has reported its findings. If you�re not prepared to accept them, that is of course, your choice. Although, I think your accusation/insult of naivety would be more convincing if it was spelt correctly
A list, rather than a bland unsubstantiated sweeping statement, would be useful.
I have followed the point you make but I�m afraid, at the moment, your �inescapable� logic escapes me.
In addition, �the study means what you want it to mean�, actually, no it doesn�t, it set out to attempt to prove or disprove a theory, and has reported its findings. If you�re not prepared to accept them, that is of course, your choice. Although, I think your accusation/insult of naivety would be more convincing if it was spelt correctly
haha I'm sure it would stevie. I am curious though, normally you strike me as an intelligent and well considered poster, and yet here you have leapt on really quite flimsy evidence and chamioned it quite vigorously. You show a need for altruism to exist - any reason?
As for the study conducted, my main problem with it is the results are basically a logical non sequitur. The infants show helping behaviour, and it is assumed that this is not through self-interest. Well that is pure nonsense and bad science.
The idea that a tangible reward must be present for self-interest to be apparent is wrong. As social animals, humans and chimps generally defer to authority figures, help those in the immediate social circle, look for approval in their peers - none of this is even considered? The fact that the children/chimps merely performed a helpful act was considered enough. A good scientific experiment reduces as many variables as possible in order to establish a relationship between those remaining - in this case there are so many variables remaining that its pretty much worthless. No attention whatsoever is given to the human element which is the primary driving factor in this age group.
As far as the inescapable logic of altruism, consider the following.
1. A being acts because it desires to act
2. In order for a being to act, it must want to act more than it desires to not act.
3. In order for a being to desire to act more than it does not desire to act, there must be sufficient motivation to act.
4. Motivation is derived from pain and pleasure; a being must gain more pleasure than pain from an act to enact it.
5. Since desiring and attaining pleasure is a selfish act, all acts are selfish.
As for the study conducted, my main problem with it is the results are basically a logical non sequitur. The infants show helping behaviour, and it is assumed that this is not through self-interest. Well that is pure nonsense and bad science.
The idea that a tangible reward must be present for self-interest to be apparent is wrong. As social animals, humans and chimps generally defer to authority figures, help those in the immediate social circle, look for approval in their peers - none of this is even considered? The fact that the children/chimps merely performed a helpful act was considered enough. A good scientific experiment reduces as many variables as possible in order to establish a relationship between those remaining - in this case there are so many variables remaining that its pretty much worthless. No attention whatsoever is given to the human element which is the primary driving factor in this age group.
As far as the inescapable logic of altruism, consider the following.
1. A being acts because it desires to act
2. In order for a being to act, it must want to act more than it desires to not act.
3. In order for a being to desire to act more than it does not desire to act, there must be sufficient motivation to act.
4. Motivation is derived from pain and pleasure; a being must gain more pleasure than pain from an act to enact it.
5. Since desiring and attaining pleasure is a selfish act, all acts are selfish.
Your right about one thing EL D, the concept of altruism is of interest to me, and as such, I have been studying the arguments, for and against, for some time.
In terms of (some) of the examples you present, you are actually (and forgive me, but I suspect unknowingly) putting forward many of the counter arguments that are traditionally used to reject the idea of altruism. Points 3, 4, and 5, however are pure nonsense, I�m sorry but you need to read them again. I�m happy to go over them with you if you insist upon it.
However, to elaborate on the theory you�ve put forward. The opposite position of �altruism� is known as �Egoism� and is, as you suggest, the rejection of the principal idea that humans can act or behave in a manner that serves them no personal gain.
Without getting too heavily into the age old philosophical debates (my answer would run for too many pages), the crux of the matter is this:
In order for our species to exist, it is necessary that individuals co-operate and help one another for the common good: from cavemen hunting together, and sharing the food, to parents feeding their children, and the millions of ways that modern man gains mutual benefit from others.
In terms of (some) of the examples you present, you are actually (and forgive me, but I suspect unknowingly) putting forward many of the counter arguments that are traditionally used to reject the idea of altruism. Points 3, 4, and 5, however are pure nonsense, I�m sorry but you need to read them again. I�m happy to go over them with you if you insist upon it.
However, to elaborate on the theory you�ve put forward. The opposite position of �altruism� is known as �Egoism� and is, as you suggest, the rejection of the principal idea that humans can act or behave in a manner that serves them no personal gain.
Without getting too heavily into the age old philosophical debates (my answer would run for too many pages), the crux of the matter is this:
In order for our species to exist, it is necessary that individuals co-operate and help one another for the common good: from cavemen hunting together, and sharing the food, to parents feeding their children, and the millions of ways that modern man gains mutual benefit from others.
The evolution of a society, consisting of purely self-interested members would not have occurred. Simply put, a species based on self-motivation (or selfishness as you put it) without altruism, would eventually die out.
Imagine an elementary society of organisms. Co-operative (altruistic?) members interact with each other, each contributing resources and each drawing on the common good. Now imagine a rogue �free-rider� (egoist/selfish) member who draws a favour ("you scratch my back") and later refuses to return it.
Clearly free riding (or selfish behaviour) is always going to be beneficial to those individuals at a cost to society, therefore, how is it possible for altruistic members to avoid being pushed out of the evolutionary process?
Over many generations, one obvious answer has been for co-operators members to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them.
In this evolutionary struggle, the free-riders would perish or, in the end, adopt aspects of co-operation? In other words, evolution will produce organisms that will be programmed to carry out altruistic acts.
The studies recently undertaken have demonstrated that �altruistic� behaviour is part of the human behavioural mechanism, �hard-wired� into our natures, just like laughing when happy, and crying when sad.
The answer I have posted is not about whether we help others, to make our selves feel good, gain satisfaction, brownie points with God etc, simply that we are programmed to do so, whether we like it or not.
Imagine an elementary society of organisms. Co-operative (altruistic?) members interact with each other, each contributing resources and each drawing on the common good. Now imagine a rogue �free-rider� (egoist/selfish) member who draws a favour ("you scratch my back") and later refuses to return it.
Clearly free riding (or selfish behaviour) is always going to be beneficial to those individuals at a cost to society, therefore, how is it possible for altruistic members to avoid being pushed out of the evolutionary process?
Over many generations, one obvious answer has been for co-operators members to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them.
In this evolutionary struggle, the free-riders would perish or, in the end, adopt aspects of co-operation? In other words, evolution will produce organisms that will be programmed to carry out altruistic acts.
The studies recently undertaken have demonstrated that �altruistic� behaviour is part of the human behavioural mechanism, �hard-wired� into our natures, just like laughing when happy, and crying when sad.
The answer I have posted is not about whether we help others, to make our selves feel good, gain satisfaction, brownie points with God etc, simply that we are programmed to do so, whether we like it or not.
Please feel free to deconstruct 3-5.
The point I would make is that through recognition that the common good is also of benefit to the inidividual, the individual obtains personal gain through what you would call altruistic acts and they therefore cannot be purely altruistic. i.e. acts made in the common good are also made for personal gain as you have amply explained above . . .
The point I would make is that through recognition that the common good is also of benefit to the inidividual, the individual obtains personal gain through what you would call altruistic acts and they therefore cannot be purely altruistic. i.e. acts made in the common good are also made for personal gain as you have amply explained above . . .
You�re still trying to attach a rational or emotional motive to something that is behavioural. Animals and children don�t consciously think (i.e. recognise) �If I help this person it may also potentially benefit me and my species in the future�.
The purpose of recent experiments has been to determine if altruism is �instinctive�, or learned (through culture, religion, etc). The report posted, I agree, may not have seemed particularly �groundbreaking� (other than to an �anorak� like me); however, in terms of demonstrating a link from an �effect� to a �cause�, it is example of a significant development.
Historically, the problem with altruism and egoism is that proving or disproving either theory, has been the philosophical equivalent of: �If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it does it make a noise?� The argument just goes round in circles.
If you were arguing that pure altruism cannot exist because it is an instinctive behavioural imperative, than I would probably accept that, as it would be technically correct. However, the arguments you put forward rely on the belief that some sort of �gratification� is gained by acting altruistically, and as such, are easily dispelled. (In particular the points regarding �desire�, �pleasure and pain�).
What I think your pointing towards is that �benevolence�, or �charitable� acts, are �consciously� undertaken by people who will then gain a sense of satisfaction and well-being from the thought that they have done �good�. This is true, but is not the same thing as altruism, which is an unconscious part of the human condition and psyche.
P.S. I'm leaving for Amsterdam tomorrow morning, so no doubt I will have the opportunity to meditate on the subject in more detail over coffee and a cake, I�ll get back to you if I get any further revelations or insights. Good thread though, really made me think.
Hmmmm, good post stevie, and yes I would agree that it is a behavioural action. One thing I will not budge on is that experiement was utterly worthless, it proved nothing unless you assumed the conclusion before the test began. It disproved nothing, it proved nothing. It merely demonstrated behaviour to which a persons own subjective viewpoint could be attached.
In relation to receiving gratification from 'altruistic' acts, then I would argue that people do - it may be hardwired, as you say, but people will ALWAYS act in their own self-interest, whether this makes their gain apparent or not. I would also argue contrary to your claim that pleasure is not the main motivation. Pleasure and pain are the only motivators of mankind at the basest level.
Your definition of altruism states;
'Actions that serve no selfish or self-motivated purpose.'
Those actions simply cannot exist. A being must always by definition be self-motivated, this in turn means that all actions are 'technically' selfish, though I would add that this does not imply that they are always calculated.
Enjoy Amsterdam and enjoy the cakes ;)
In relation to receiving gratification from 'altruistic' acts, then I would argue that people do - it may be hardwired, as you say, but people will ALWAYS act in their own self-interest, whether this makes their gain apparent or not. I would also argue contrary to your claim that pleasure is not the main motivation. Pleasure and pain are the only motivators of mankind at the basest level.
Your definition of altruism states;
'Actions that serve no selfish or self-motivated purpose.'
Those actions simply cannot exist. A being must always by definition be self-motivated, this in turn means that all actions are 'technically' selfish, though I would add that this does not imply that they are always calculated.
Enjoy Amsterdam and enjoy the cakes ;)
�The test proved nothing�?
I can give you quite a long list of what it proved, but as time is of the essence, here�s a couple to consider.
It proved, that humans (and chimps) can help others without being taught to do so by implicit social conditioning, or by religious doctrine.
Small children (or chimps) of that age have no concept of right or wrong, good or evil, let alone an understanding of the �the ten commandments�.
They didn�t help because they hoped for heavenly reward for a start.
Secondly, you are continuing to support a nonsensical premise, �people will ALWAYS act in there own self interest�.???
This is simply, and very obviously an absurd, illogical statement.
I can only assume that you are persisting in claiming it, because you don�t want to concede that the basis of your first post was not clearly thought out (you probably weren�t expecting to have to defend it), and now you feel the need to fight for it to avoid backing down, or admitting an error.
Look again at this statement you made:
4. Motivation is derived from pain and pleasure; a being must gain more pleasure than pain from an act to enact it.
Here�s a quick example and answer: a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade to save his comrades.
How is this acting in his own interests, and more importantly, how is he gaining more pleasure than pain from the act?
(Perhaps If believed your theory he'd thow somebody else on it?) ;)
Before you answer, I don�t claim this is necessarily an altruistic act either (it could be motivated by a number of factors, army training, self-discipline, social conditioning or upbringing etc). However, it certainly is NOT an act in his best interests, nor I suspect is he going to gain more pleasure than pain.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News12 mins ago
