Settling the debate on Altruism

[Selene]

I know that is why I think when I welcomed you, I used your first name.

Angela as a guy would have to be a real mean gangster to survive in the US as a guy! lol

Adam

[Xray]

I know that is why I think when I welcomed you, I used your first name.

Angela as a guy would have to be a real mean gangster to survive in the US as a guy! lol

Adam

In Germany too.

[Rich Engle]

I think the windup on evolutionary psychology, particularly the empathy component, is evolutionary/survival based.

That is because so often the "selfless" act actually is not so; it is done to perpetuate, to keep civilization ongoing. If you look at the big acts (outside of zealots, and mindless folks, at least). It is often a conscious, feelingful act. It is taking one for the team.

I haven't run into hardly anyone who identifies themself as an altruist. It is more of a general description; it is caged in that way. Yes, there are those who are confused and subscribe to the basic greater good thing, but they do it undefined. So in that respect, I guess if you find a real altruist, they are likely to be kind of a dumbass.

Again, a term widely used in the circles that over-includes a number of other ways that have nothing to do with the term's intent, at least the contemptuous way it is normally used.

[Xray]

I think the windup on evolutionary psychology, particularly the empathy component, is evolutionary/survival based.

That is because so often the "selfless" act actually is not so; it is done to perpetuate, to keep civilization ongoing. If you look at the big acts (outside of zealots, and mindless folks, at least). It is often a conscious, feelingful act. It is taking one for the team.

I haven't run into hardly anyone who identifies themself as an altruist. It is more of a general description; it is caged in that way. Yes, there are those who are confused and subscribe to the basic greater good thing, but they do it undefined. So in that respect, I guess if you find a real altruist, they are likely to be kind of a dumbass.

Again, a term widely used in the circles that over-includes a number of other ways that have nothing to do with the term's intent, at least the contemptuous way it is normally used.

Every action can be traced back to self-interest as the motive. 'Altruism', is a misnomer, a fallacy. Fighting altruism is like Don Quijote fighting the windmills.

Who here believes altruism does exist? I invite everyone to present examples of what they think is a truly altruistic action, and guarantee you I'll trace it back to the self-interest motive guiding the action.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

"The evidence indicates multiple centers of feeling in the brain, associated with various aspects of self (self-image, conscience, will, etc.). Locating all brain functions related to feeling & self in a single "circuit" not only entails the fallacy of the homunculus, it doesn't leave much for the rest of the brain to do."

Would you agree or disagree with this last statement?

Adam

That's an interesting quote, though I'm sure I don't understand all the implications the author implies. I agree with is the idea that we may have multiple circuits that run different self-images and/or different feelings, rather than a single set of "feeling circuits" or a single set of "identity circuits." In fact, there is so much evidence to suggest each individual has multiple brains. Why, the most common example is John Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus! Here's a set of identities that seem to think different, perceive different, are motivated differently, and feel differently... yet you read it, and you begin to think - wow, I'm a bit of both at different times. My belief is that we have parallel stuff going on in the brain all the time, parallel identities, and we sort of manage the crowd... listen to this one or that one more often (like the part that wants to work, or the part that wants to affiliate), etc. Of course, you could just conclude I'm crazy and leave it at that.

Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

No, I think you are accurate in that there are "voices" in everyone's head and a decision to act or not act is the result of the one voice that emerges, if the person dedicates them self to finalize the more rational voice, they take more life sustaining paths.

Makes sense to me.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I think the windup on evolutionary psychology, particularly the empathy component, is evolutionary/survival based.

That is because so often the "selfless" act actually is not so; it is done to perpetuate, to keep civilization ongoing. If you look at the big acts (outside of zealots, and mindless folks, at least). It is often a conscious, feelingful act. It is taking one for the team.

I haven't run into hardly anyone who identifies themself as an altruist. It is more of a general description; it is caged in that way. Yes, there are those who are confused and subscribe to the basic greater good thing, but they do it undefined. So in that respect, I guess if you find a real altruist, they are likely to be kind of a dumbass.

Again, a term widely used in the circles that over-includes a number of other ways that have nothing to do with the term's intent, at least the contemptuous way it is normally used.

Every action can be traced back to self-interest as the motive. 'Altruism', is a misnomer, a fallacy. Fighting altruism is like Don Quijote fighting the windmills.

Who here believes altruism does exist? I invite everyone to present examples of what they think is a truly altruistic action, and guarantee you I'll trace it back to the self-interest motive guiding the action.

You'll trace it back to a tautology: It begins and ends in the organism, therefore it's self-interest.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The above is just an example of the conflict between the subjective and objective ideas of self interest. The conflict exists because one denies the existence of the other. This artificial ideological conflict isn't an objective value save for it's examination for understanding. Objectively speaking not everything goes--means altruism. Subjectively speaking anything can go except the objective. Objectively speaking we can create a society of freedom. Subjectively speaking we cannot. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are objective values, but all values have to be experienced subjectively. Otherwise the objective values are just intellectualizations which may be true or false but not felt. This is why artists--one reason--tend to be left-wing. Tending to experientation and creation they never develope critical thinking skills so they tend to associate with like kind. While a few ended up serving Naziism most prefer the left and since they generally don't have the de-grace of having to live under communism they can essentially embrace it without having to suffer for it.

--Brant

[Xray]

The above is just an example of the conflict between the subjective and objective ideas of self interest. The conflict exists because one denies the existence of the other. This artificial ideological conflict isn't an objective value save for it's examination for understanding. Objectively speaking not everything goes--means altruism. Subjectively speaking anything can go except the objective. Objectively speaking we can create a society of freedom. Subjectively speaking we cannot. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are objective values, but all values have to be experienced subjectively. Otherwise the objective values are just intellectualizations which may be true or false but not felt. This is why artists--one reason--tend to be left-wing. Tending to experientation and creation they never develope critical thinking skills so they tend to associate with like kind. While a few ended up serving Naziism most prefer the left and since they generally don't have the de-grace of having to live under communism they can essentially embrace it without having to suffer for it.

--Brant

Please give an example of what you call a "subjective idea of self-interest", and "objective idea of self interest."

This artificial ideological conflict isn't an objective value save for it's examination for understanding.

Where has it been said that a conflict is an "objective value"?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are objective values, but all values have to be experienced subjectively.

Life is a biological phenomenon. Valuing it or not lies in the mind of the valuer.

"Liberty"alone without precising it further is an empty word shell only. Politicians btw are masters at throwing those rethorical baits at the public.

"Freedom for the people" "values of society " - you name it. They know that people will fill these empty phrases with their personal "sense".

As for "pursuit of happiness". A burglar rummaging through drawers is in pursuit of happiness too. So his pursuit is an objective value?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Life is a biological phenomenon. Valuing it or not lies in the mind of the valuer.

Xray,

This implies that the mind is not biological.

Anyway, for science on some automatic values in infants, all of which indicate an automatic valuing of life, see this thread:

The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, the questions you ask basically ignore what I've been talking about and I have no further interest in engaging you. I can deal with nitpicking, but not with nitpicking only. I don't think you are after what you said was "truth." I merely think again you are a highly sophisticated troll. I come to this decision by reading what you asked Uncle Jim, ignoring everything he had said previously about his position on objective values. I have my issues with him, but he is not invisible to me. That's virtually all he's been talking about.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Xray, the questions you ask basically ignore what I've been talking about and I have no further interest in engaging you. I can deal with nitpicking, but not with nitpicking only. I don't think you are after what you said was "truth." I merely think again you are a highly sophisticated troll. I come to this decision by reading what you asked Uncle Jim, ignoring everything he had said previously about his position on objective values. I have my issues with him, but he is not invisible to me. That's virtually all he's been talking about.

--Brant

Brant -

My diagnosis is slightly different from yours. That is, I assume that when you say "you are a highly sophisticated troll" to Xray you are imputing intentionality on her part. I'm not certain that Xray sees that what she is doing amounts to nothing more than the playing of word games.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, the questions you ask basically ignore what I've been talking about and I have no further interest in engaging you. I can deal with nitpicking, but not with nitpicking only. I don't think you are after what you said was "truth." I merely think again you are a highly sophisticated troll. I come to this decision by reading what you asked Uncle Jim, ignoring everything he had said previously about his position on objective values. I have my issues with him, but he is not invisible to me. That's virtually all he's been talking about.

--Brant

Brant -

My diagnosis is slightly different from yours. That is, I assume that when you say "you are a highly sophisticated troll" to Xray you are imputing intentionality on her part. I'm not certain that Xray sees that what she is doing amounts to nothing more than the playing of word games.

Bill P

That's worse; I can enjoy a troll, not a twit.

--Brant

[Xray]

Xray, the questions you ask basically ignore what I've been talking about and I have no further interest in engaging you. I can deal with nitpicking, but not with nitpicking only. I don't think you are after what you said was "truth." I merely think again you are a highly sophisticated troll. I come to this decision by reading what you asked Uncle Jim, ignoring everything he had said previously about his position on objective values. I have my issues with him, but he is not invisible to me. That's virtually all he's been talking about.

--Brant

But has your reply addressed my points and question, Brant? I had posted:

"Every action can be traced back to self-interest as the motive. 'Altruism', is a misnomer, a fallacy. Fighting altruism is like Don Quijote fighting the windmills.

Who here believes altruism does exist? I invite everyone to present examples of what they think is a truly altruistic action, and guarantee you I'll trace it back to the self-interest motive guiding the action." (end quote)

I prefer specific, concrete examples since they serve as illustration of the issue in question. From you reply in # 208, I still don't know whether you think altruism exists or not.

I'm an advocate of individualism, but find that Rand's (who also adcovates individualism) selection of alleged "objective" values is very arbitrary.

The life of a human individual is not a static condition. It involves a vast array of ongoing evaluations, valuations, choices and actions. Ergo, by logical inference, "life as an 'objective' standard" proposes to set an "objective standard" of food, drink, socializing, entertainment, and virtually every aspect of an individual's life. Call it what you will, but to my way of thinking, dismissing personal preference does not fit well under the label, individualism.

As for Uncle Jim, I addressed his post in detail. I don't agree with many points he made, for example, when he speaks of "values properly functioning humans" seek to gain, retain and maintain." (end quote) [# 118 in the Objectivist Ethics cardinal vaues thread]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...4630&st=100 ).

But what IS a "properly functioning" human?

(P. S. If I were troll, I'd long since have vanished from here. Trolls don't want to get into detailed discussions, since they have zero interest in getting to the core of a topic.)

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I have given some thought to your question of whether altruism exists.

It certainly does exist as an ethical doctrine Compte came up with. But before continuing, let's limit some of the meanings. Wikipedia does a wonderful job:

Altruism - A general multi-discipline discussion of deliberately benefiting others.

Altruism (ethics) - The moral obligation to benefit others over the self.

Altruism in animals - Self-explanatory.

When you claim that you can prove selfishness is always at root in an act of altruism, I wonder which altruism you mean. Ayn Rand was writing against the ethical doctrine of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others as the good.

As an ethical doctrine, it is possible to practice altruism (especially if you are supposed to be mankind's savior and you allow yourself to be crucified over nothing), although you have to choose to practice it and I suppose an argument could be made that if you choose anything, you are being selfish. But that sidesteps the evil of sacrificing yourself.

Outside of that, just because there are technicalities in implementing an ethical doctrine (which I see more as switching meanings in mid-argument), that is irrelevant to judging whether the doctrine is evil or not. People still constantly preach altruism as a greater good and try to practice it—and they use it to gain power over others.

I will apply your manner of logic to another value: conquering the world. Is that even possible? Supposing it were possible, how is any one person going to rule the world once he does? The logistics alone deny this possibility.

Yet some people engage in the attempt to attain it and they do a pretty good job of mobilizing massive military forces and making a huge mess of things. Conquering the world is an evil doctrine. Just because it cannot be fully functional does not mean that it is not attempted and it cannot cause a hell of a lot of needless damage.

Altruism as an ethical doctrine is the same.

Michael

[Xray]

Life is a biological phenomenon. Valuing it or not lies in the mind of the valuer.

Xray,

This implies that the mind is not biological.

I don't put mind outside biology. For no mind can exist without a biological body to perform the thinking.

But a human mind can attribute subjective value/disvalue to things.

Anyway, for science on some automatic values in infants, all of which indicate an automatic valuing of life, see this thread:

The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion

Michael

I wouldn't call them "values". It's a biological program. It's biology, not philosophy.

Thanks for the link, Michael. Interesting discussion between you and Steve Shmurak there!

(Gotta run - I'll address your # 215 post later).

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, the questions you ask basically ignore what I've been talking about and I have no further interest in engaging you. I can deal with nitpicking, but not with nitpicking only. I don't think you are after what you said was "truth." I merely think again you are a highly sophisticated troll. I come to this decision by reading what you asked Uncle Jim, ignoring everything he had said previously about his position on objective values. I have my issues with him, but he is not invisible to me. That's virtually all he's been talking about.

--Brant

But has your reply addressed my points and question, Brant? I had posted:

"Every action can be traced back to self-interest as the motive. 'Altruism', is a misnomer, a fallacy. Fighting altruism is like Don Quijote fighting the windmills.

Who here believes altruism does exist? I invite everyone to present examples of what they think is a truly altruistic action, and guarantee you I'll trace it back to the self-interest motive guiding the action." (end quote)

I prefer specific, concrete examples since they serve as illustration of the issue in question. From you reply in # 208, I still don't know whether you think altruism exists or not.

I'm an advocate of individualism, but find that Rand's (who also adcovates individualism) selection of values very arbitrary.

The life of a human individual is not a static condition. It involves a vast array of ongoing evaluations, valuations, choices and actions. Ergo, by logical inference, "life as an 'objective' standard" proposes to set an "objective standard" of food, drink, socializing, entertainment, and virtually every aspect of an individual's life. Call it what you will, but to my way of thinking, dismissing personal preference does not fit well under the label, individualism.

As for Uncle Jim, I addressed his post in detail. I don't agree with many points he made, for example, when he speaks of "values properly functioning humans" seek to gain, retain and maintain." (end quote) [# 118 in the Objectivist Ethics cardinal vaues thread]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...4630&st=100 ).

But what IS a "properly functioning" human?

(P. S. If I were troll, I'd long since have vanished from here. Trolls don't want to get into detailed discussions, since they have zero interest in getting to the core of a topic.)

Well that's better.

Every action can likely be traced back to perceived self interest. Whether it's in the objective self interest of the organism is another matter.

Altruism exists in the sense that human rights exist. They are ideas. Ideas make the human world go 'round, especially ideas like these. Morality is about control, social control if you will, and altruism is the morality of enslavement as opposed to self-interest, the morality of freedom and individualism.

Rand's selection of some values may have been "arbitrary" except by your lights they must have been in her self interest.

"Choices" implies one can make wrong choices or there are objective standards (values).

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

There's altruistic behavior, then there are self-proclaimed altruists. Of the latter, many of them practice knee-jerk and carte blanche-like. Of these, many of them were just nurtured into it; it was instilled in them somehow. They do not always fully or even a little bit understand why they are doing it--they just consider it "moral."

On the other hand, a well-researched altruist might practice, consciously, shameless self-sacrifice, and know it, because that is part of their value system. Their value system just happens to be effed up, and for that matter their epistemology is effed up, because they react without discernment, discretion--it's a dogmatic behavior there. Often, they will not act truly in their interest (survival, say), without doing the math--they are notorious foot-shooters.

As far as the other things being brought up, they seem to be round and round biological determinism type stuff and that makes me yawn.

[bmacwilliam]

Ayn Rand was writing against the ethical doctrine of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others as the good.

Right, but in my opinion, deliberately sidestepping the issue that being altruistic sometimes might be a good thing - false dichotomy going on big time. Meaning that being altruistic part of the time could be 'the' good. It is not all or nothing, a false dichotomy. We now know that evolution clearly has built altruistic tendencies into man (and animals). This is hardly debateable anymore. It's genetically hard-wired.

Altruism in this sense is defined as behaviour that confers a survival disadvantage to the initiator and a survival advantage to the recipient - it is not in self-interest in any way. This is basically the same definition as Rand's, just substituting "benefit' for 'survival advantage'. One could argue that this behaviour is gene-self-interest, but certainly not personal self interest. There are many examples of altruistic behaviour to clear personal detriment, but often in exchange for gene-benefit, or at least a modern day analogue of gene-directed behaviour.

You (meaning people in general) simply have to understand that we (and every other living creature that has ever lived) are gene replicating machines and not survival machines. This changes one's viewpoint in extremely important ways and explains an enormous amount of behaviour both human and animal. This is also why Rand is so wrong on this and other points. Her view is entirely a political one and is certainly not connected to human nature (qua man) in any meaningful scientific truthful way.

Rand making any comment whatsoever regarding 'qua man' or human nature with zero background in evolution - the very thing that MADE us - is as absurd as pretending you're passing definitive judgement on a book that you haven't even read.

In fact, in my opinion, it says a great deal about the moral character about the person who's doing this. Either they know they're full of crap and profess their nonsense anyway, or for some other unknown reason they're so blinded by arrogance they cannot see how ridiculously absurd it is to pretend they can make any sort of intelligent comment on the subject let alone a definitive judgment.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Selene]

Bob_Mac:

Sensible argument:

"Altruism in this sense is defined as behavior [sic] that confers a survival disadvantage to the initiator and a survival advantage to the recipient - it is not in self-interest in any way. This is basically the same definition as Rand's, just substituting "benefit' for 'survival advantage'. One could argue that this behavior is gene-self-interest, but certainly not personal self interest. There are many examples of altruistic behavior to clear personal detriment, but often in exchange for gene-benefit, or at least a modern day analogue of gene-directed behavior."

However, assuming that we all have roughly the same altruistic survival gene which proceeds in species saving behavior [at the loss of one gene spiral in the one human], why do some units choose to sacrifice or risk death to save a random unit, like a child unit that is drowning.

There are numerous examples of similar animal behavior.

And where the hell do the lemmings fit in - I just wanted to mention those strange little creatures.

Excellent way to state the issue though.

Adam

[tjohnson]

You (meaning people in general) simply have to understand that we (and every other living creature that has ever lived) are gene replicating machines and not survival machines. This changes one's viewpoint in extremely important ways and explains an enormous amount of behaviour both human and animal. This is also why Rand is so wrong on this and other points. Her view is entirely a political one and is certainly not connected to human nature (qua man) in any meaningful scientific truthful way.

Very astute post, IMO. I would like to say, however, that man is more than simply a gene-replicating machine due to his ability to pass information from one generation to another through language. I believe some call this meme replicating? Korzybski calls it time-binding.

[bmacwilliam]

However, assuming that we all have roughly the same altruistic survival gene which proceeds in species saving behavior [at the loss of one gene spiral in the one human], why do some units choose to sacrifice or risk death to save a random unit, like a child unit that is drowning.

There are numerous examples of similar animal behavior.

And where the hell do the lemmings fit in - I just wanted to mention those strange little creatures.

Excellent way to state the issue though.

Adam

Children are of enormous value to parents in an evolutionary sense because they have virtually unlimited gene replicating potential through all potential future generations. All this potential is lost if a child dies. We therefore have an enormous protective inclination toward children that decreases with kin distance but probably never completely disappears. I suspect the impulse to save other, non-related children, could simply be a bleed-over from the extremely powerful kin-directed tendencies of the same nature.

As far as lemmings go? Well, evolution does go in weird directions sometimes. I guess a side effect of strong following instincts that helps them in some or most cases, every once in a while leads them off the cliff??

[bmacwilliam]

You (meaning people in general) simply have to understand that we (and every other living creature that has ever lived) are gene replicating machines and not survival machines. This changes one's viewpoint in extremely important ways and explains an enormous amount of behaviour both human and animal. This is also why Rand is so wrong on this and other points. Her view is entirely a political one and is certainly not connected to human nature (qua man) in any meaningful scientific truthful way.

Very astute post, IMO. I would like to say, however, that man is more than simply a gene-replicating machine due to his ability to pass information from one generation to another through language. I believe some call this meme replicating? Korzybski calls it time-binding.

Well, wrt to the future I can agree. But this ability is so recent in an evolutionary sense that it almost plays no part in our past "construction", however important it might be to our future.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Altruism in this sense is defined as behaviour that confers a survival disadvantage to the initiator and a survival advantage to the recipient - it is not in self-interest in any way. This is basically the same definition as Rand's, just substituting "benefit' for 'survival advantage'.

Bob,

This is the point where you make the same mistake almost everyone who criticizes Rand on altruism makes. The two components missing from your meaning are "volition" and "code."

Rand was not talking about single instances of altruistic behavior in the animal sense, nor about automatic behavior handed down by evolution. She was talking about a conscious code of values to instruct volition. From VOS, "The Objectivist Ethics," p. 13:

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

Choice (volition) in Rand's meaning involves the conceptual level.

Altruism is not practicable as a fundamental code of ethics. Can you make a full-blown code out of fundamentally putting the interests of others over yours? That you eat for others? That you sleep for others? That you exercise for others?

Religion has been trying for centuries. The only practical result has been a proliferation of more and more religious cults who have finally discovered "the real truth" based on altruism. And wars have been fought for centuries over which "others" should be the beneficiaries. Ironically, some of the bloodiest and most brutal wars and genocides were carried out in the name of altruism.

Your opinion of Rand's moral character is duly noted. But it doesn't need to be repeated a whole bunch just to antagonize those who disagree with you. (And I believe you know who you antagonize and why.) Anyway, I doubt you will convince many people around here that Rand knew she was full of crap and dishonestly preached the crap despite this, or she didn't know she was full of crap because she was too blinded by arrogance to see it for some unknown reason.

There are other alternatives, but I don't expect you to see them—or agree with them if you did. So I will leave it at that.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

If someone declares themself an altruist, then it exists as a doctrine of some sort. From my experience, these self-proclaimed usually haven't worked out enough understanding of basic philosophy to really understand at least the why of what they are declaring.