Man qua Man (for real)

[bmacwilliam]

In the past I had argued that altruism was inherent in man and how this view was supported by evolutionary biology/psychology and how game theory was used to support the notion that rather complex altruistic behaviours were evolutionarily beneficial and that altruism was as much a part of being human as selfishness.

Well, now we have the physical proof.

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052701056.html

Bob

[Wolf DeVoon]

generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex

Just what I need, primitive animality. Let's have indiscriminate sex with everybody. Or a Million Man free lunch with free beer.

:getlost:

Edited June 4, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Brant Gaede]

In the past I had argued that altruism was inherent in man and how this view was supported by evolutionary biology/psychology and how game theory was used to support the notion that rather complex altruistic behaviours were evolutionarily beneficial and that altruism was as much a part of being human as selfishness.

Well, now we have the physical proof.

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052701056.html

Bob

Nothing in the article to indicate altruism.

Your idea of altruism, whatever it really is, is not Objectivism, at least. Generosity is not incompatible with self-interest. Let's put it this way: sacrifice is incompatible with self-interest. Leave "altruism," whatever that is, out of it. Food and sex represent self-interest. So does generosity. Does sacrifice make the brain go gaga? (Doesn't mean you can't eat too much food (Barf!] or have too much sex [Ouch!] or be too generous [bummer!].)

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

In the past I had argued that altruism was inherent in man and how this view was supported by evolutionary biology/psychology and how game theory was used to support the notion that rather complex altruistic behaviours were evolutionarily beneficial and that altruism was as much a part of being human as selfishness.

Well, now we have the physical proof.

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052701056.html

Bob

Nothing in the article to indicate altruism.

Your idea of altruism, whatever it really is, is not Objectivism, at least. Generosity is not incompatible with self-interest. Let's put it this way: sacrifice is incompatible with self-interest. Leave "altruism," whatever that is, out of it. Food and sex represent self-interest. So does generosity. Does sacrifice make the brain go gaga? (Doesn't mean you can't eat too much food (Barf!] or have too much sex [Ouch!] or be too generous [bummer!].)

--Brant

Altruism in this context is still defined as doing something for others at a cost to oneself. Sacrificing a higher value for a lesser one.

"One experiment found that if each time a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating."

Although the experiment in question was on humans, they mentioned this one and it illustrates what they mean by altruism well. This is consistent with Rand's idea of altruism. I agree we must be careful with definitions, but this does directly counter Rand's idea of altruism. In the rat case, this is extreme and tells us that we are in fact dealing with an acceptable definition of what altruism is. We ARE NOT talking about simple generosity.

"Greene said it is not "handed down" by philosophers and clergy, but "handed up," an outgrowth of the brain's basic propensities."

BINGO!! My thoughts exactly - well said. This indeed throws a big wrench into Rand's ideas.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Rand also argued a black/white situation where if you valued any type of altruism as a moral 'good' then you were evil, no different than the totalitarian communist/socialist dictators that she so despised.

This was a clear false dichotomy. Valuing altruism DOES NOT mean that self-interest has no value. The rather obvious truth is that we humans struggle with these questions and the inherent competing desires of selfishness and altruism. We constantly weigh our own interest against other's interests and act accordingly. That's what being human is. Either extreme is where the trouble begins.

Altruism is inherent, and therefore cannot be dismissed as evil. As a result, in fact, altruism must be judged as the 'moral' good in at least some situations.

Bob

Edited June 4, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Wolf DeVoon]

Bob, you like altruism. Matus values family and longevity. A third loves his clan.

So what? The thing at issue is self. Not rational self-interest or any other formulation. Does it put me off my food to witness suffering? - yes. Selfish to the bone, I loathe and avoid suffering. I will not visit Darfur or Baghdad. Won't watch local TV coverage of murder and misery.

Choosing self as the central organizing principle and gold standard means loyalty to self. It's a conscious decision, a policy, a discipline that requires thoughtful vigilance. Each and every time the United States as a nation undertook altruistic sacrifice (Vietnam, Great Society, Brady bonds, Iraq) it turned out horribly wrong.

I'm not arguing pragmatism, but moral principle. Every time I thought of and for myself, the job at hand was clearly defined. Doing 'good' for others is like buying Christmas gifts, guessing what they might like to have. Go ahead. Try to guess what's good for Darfur. US military intervention? UN peacekeepers? Free food, shelter, and clothing? Secession from Sudan? Regime change in Kartoum?

I think you should just give it up. Objectivists don't care what you choose to do, if anything, about the welfare of others.

W.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, you value altruism. Matus values family and longevity. A third loves his clan.

So what? The thing at issue is self. Not rational self-interest or any other formulation. Does it put me off my food to witness suffering? - yes. Selfish to the bone, I loathe and avoid suffering. I will not visit Darfur or Baghdad.

Choosing self as the central organizing principle and gold standard means loyalty to self. It's a conscious decision, a policy, a discipline that requires thoughtful vigilance. Each and every time the United States as a nation undertook altruistic sacrifice (Vietnam, Great Society, Brady bonds, Iraq) it turned out horribly wrong.

I'm not arguing pragmatism, but moral principle. Every time I thought of and for myself, the job at hand was clearly defined. Doing 'good' for others is like buying Christmas gifts, guessing what they might like to have. Go ahead. Try to guess what's good for Darfur. US military intervention? UN peacekeepers? Free food, shelter, and clothing? Secession from Sudan? Regime change in Kartoum?

I think you should just give it up. Objectivists don't care what you choose to do, if anything, about the welfare of others.

W.

I understand what you're saying. I am not arguing for altruism as the moral ideal. I only point out that altruism is indeed inherently part of what we are. The problem I have is the 'Objective' part of all of this.

Rand argued very cleary against the evils of altruism. She used her idea of the nature of man to 'Objectively' defend her position. I argue that clearly her idea of what man is, is actually quite wrong and therefore so is a whole boatload of downstream conclusions.

If Objectivists care about the truth, they should care about Rand's errors and what they mean.

Bob

[Dragonfly]

I think it's time to remove all the confusion about "altruism" by referring to my earlier post on the subject.

[bmacwilliam]

I liked that post but...

"Barbara uses the term as defined by Comte and Rand, in which it is described as moral obligation, while Bob uses the term in the descriptive sense, "

Are you saying that Rand's idea of altruism did not separate the concept of altruism by itself and altruism as a moral obligation? The concept and its moral imperative are lumped together?

Bob

[Dragonfly]

Are you saying that Rand's idea of altruism did not separate the concept of altruism by itself and altruism as a moral obligation? The concept and its moral imperative are lumped together?

My impression is that she used the term only in the sense of a moral obligation. When she referred to that what is implied by the biological term, she called it benevolence or she circumvented it by redefining it as the pursuit of a greater value (as in the example of the mother sacrificing her life to save her child, or a loved one). Her basic definition of altruism is:

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

[bmacwilliam]

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Regardless of why she combines the two concepts of altruism on its own and the totally separate concept of altruism as the moral imperative ( I can think of a few reasons), it's still dead wrong according to her own logic.

Probably the most important question is why she jumped over the obvious question of whether or not man should be morally obligated to serve others AT ANY TIME. As if, by the mere moral requirement of putting another's needs ahead of yours occasionally, that made you an instant slave, incapable of self-interested behaviour.

Why is it that we as humans, almost universally look harshly upon the wealthy man who NEVER gives to charity? Because we've been brainwashed into the evil altruistic mindset? Of course not, every culture at every time in man's history has valued charity and generousity. The question is why? The answer is that the science tells us that it's built right into us. This also then makes an altruism-free mindset (Rand's) contra to man qua man.

She then is forced to jump through all sorts of nonsensical hoops to defend the indefensible.

Bob

[SaulOhio]

The fact that some pleasure center of the brain is stimulated when someone does something nice for another person is not itself proof that altruism is hardwired into us. There are other explanation of why acting in such ways causes us pleasure. It may be that the test subject is philosophically convinced that altruism is a moral ideal, so they feal pleasure in knowing they acted in a way they believe to be moral. Or, they understand the selfish basis of benevolence, and their pleasure comes from acting morally by THAT standard. Or the simplest explanation is that what is hardwired into us is not altruism, but vicarious enjoyment. That may not even be hardwired, but a learned behavior, a product of our need for a benevolent sense of life. Being able to see happiness in another person helps us to appreciate and understand the happiness we experience first-hand. Seeing another person suffer reminds us that it is possible for US to suffer. Its a reminder that life isn't perfect, all sunshine and roses, which is why we don't like to see others suffer. Helping another person who is in pain is our means to deal with such vicarious suffering, and is thus selfish, not altruistic.

Most of your criticism of Rand's moral philosophy doesn't make much sense to me. What conclusions did she make that were so indefensible?

[BaalChatzaf]

generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex

Just what I need, primitive animality. Let's have indiscriminate sex with everybody. Or a Million Man free lunch with free beer.

:getlost:

How about non-primitive animality? Animals is what we are. We are behaviorally not that far from our chimp and bonobo cousins which is not surprising considering how many genes we all share.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 18, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Matus1976]

There are other explanation of why acting in such ways causes us pleasure. It may be that the test subject is philosophically convinced that altruism is a moral ideal, so they feal pleasure in knowing they acted in a way they believe to be moral. Or, they understand the selfish basis of benevolence, and their pleasure comes from acting morally by THAT standard. Or the simplest explanation is that what is hardwired into us is not altruism, but vicarious enjoyment. That may not even be hardwired, but a learned behavior, a product of our need for a benevolent sense of life.

I was going to say the same thing, these types of scientific experiments always confuse cause and effect and are always acting on the implied premise that humans are without volition, something I expanded on in this essay

The Abdication of Volition

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/dickey..._Volition.shtml

In this case, if someone experiences pleasure at a altruistic act, pleasure is by definition, in a properly functioning brain, an emotion brought out by the achievement of a value. Valueing altruism then would necessarily invoke a pleasure response when someone was altruistic. The fact that a human mind has physical manifestations of emotions (regions of the brain lighting up in fMRI's, etc) certainly does not prove, to anyone but the most conceptually lacking researcher, that the emotion or pattern of response in question is a fundamental component in the 'nature' of man. If the brain is a physical object than it must have physical responses and changes.

That being said, I wouldnt doubt that there is some genetic inclination to altruism especially in small groups and amongst organisms sharing genes. In a small group altruism will selfishly make you much more likely to survive, only in larger groups of intelligent rational organisms, I would guess a hundred or more, would a market based division of labor be a more succussfull survival strategy, and all organisms which exhibit 'altruism' they are able to recognize each other and also exhibit reciprocity, so this is not 'altruistic' behavior in the usage that rightly Rand attacks.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Matus1976

[tjohnson]

We are behaviorally not that far from our chimp and bonobo cousins which is not surprising considering how many genes we all share.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Speak for yourself.

[SaulOhio]

That being said, I wouldnt doubt that there is some genetic inclination to altruism especially in small groups and amongst organisms sharing genes. In a small group altruism will selfishly make you much more likely to survive, only in larger groups of intelligent rational organisms, I would guess a hundred or more, would a market based division of labor be a more succussfull survival strategy, and all organisms which exhibit 'altruism' they are able to recognize each other and also exhibit reciprocity, so this is not 'altruistic' behavior in the usage that rightly Rand attacks.

And if there IS some evolutionarily programmed altruistic behavior in humans, that doesn't mean thats how we SHOULD act. One basic principle of evolutionary biology is that it is the environment that determines which inherited traits will promote an organism's survival. As the environment changes, so must the organism, in order to survive. We need to figure out on our own what kinds of behaviors will promote survival.

And none of what I have seen has convinced me that we have any genetically programmed predisposition to certain kinds of behaviors. That we do act in a certain way, or that certain parts of our brains become more active when we do, doesn't prove it. What you would need to do is identify the genes responsible, sequence the protiens they code for, and demonstrate how they influence the development of the brain and its neural pathways to influence behavior.

Even then, like I said, the fact that we have a predisposition to act in certain ways is not evidence that we should. It might be an evolutionary remnant, like a vestigial organ, that is at best unnecessary, or even a disadvantage, and our ability to use reason overrides it most of the time anyway. Reason remains our best survival trait, and if we do have any instincts, they should not be trusted because they are leftovers from a past that is long gone.

[BaalChatzaf]

And if there IS some evolutionarily programmed altruistic behavior in humans, that doesn't mean thats how we SHOULD act. One basic principle of evolutionary biology is that it is the environment that determines which inherited traits will promote an organism's survival. As the environment changes, so must the organism, in order to survive. We need to figure out on our own what kinds of behaviors will promote survival.

Ah! Shudah, Wudah, Cudah. I love discussing this.

There are two versions of should/ought. One is objective, the other subjective.

The objective version: If the end E is sought, then one should/ought use means M, where M is certainly, or probably produce E. This is a straightforward end-means evaluation. State the end E and see what means M will or could possibly bring about E.

The subjective version: You should do X because if you do so I will be so darned pleased. This is the soft-headed, soft-hearted version of should/ought. It is based on a dippy - "Now play nice!" attitude that does not take -facts- into consideration.

One -should- take all actions to bring about a selected end. As to which ends to strive for, that is another question.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

The fact that some pleasure center of the brain is stimulated when someone does something nice for another person is not itself proof that altruism is hardwired into us. There are other explanation of why acting in such ways causes us pleasure. It may be that the test subject is philosophically convinced that altruism is a moral ideal, so they feal pleasure in knowing they acted in a way they believe to be moral. Or, they understand the selfish basis of benevolence, and their pleasure comes from acting morally by THAT standard. Or the simplest explanation is that what is hardwired into us is not altruism, but vicarious enjoyment. That may not even be hardwired, but a learned behavior, a product of our need for a benevolent sense of life. Being able to see happiness in another person helps us to appreciate and understand the happiness we experience first-hand. Seeing another person suffer reminds us that it is possible for US to suffer. Its a reminder that life isn't perfect, all sunshine and roses, which is why we don't like to see others suffer. Helping another person who is in pain is our means to deal with such vicarious suffering, and is thus selfish, not altruistic.

Most of your criticism of Rand's moral philosophy doesn't make much sense to me. What conclusions did she make that were so indefensible?

"It may be that the test subject is philosophically convinced that altruism is a moral ideal"

Nonsense. The most important part, the critical point of the whole discussion (yes, that would be the point you omitted) was the PRIMATIVE nature of these reactions. Some people enjoy auto racing, others hate it - that's a learned/taste situation. That's not what's going on here. Primative reactions akin to food, pain, and sex are of very high biological significance. These things are universal. They are what we are with very few exceptions.

Here's the quote from the original article:

"Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

You Wrote:

"Most of your criticism of Rand's moral philosophy doesn't make much sense to me. What conclusions did she make that were so indefensible?"

Rand based her "qua man" nonsense on a totally wrong premise. Altruism is very much of what "qua man" is. Rand rejected this and is therefore wrong in all of her downstream ethical arguments. So, to answer your question, basically ALL of them.

In another post you wrote:

"And if there IS some evolutionarily programmed altruistic behavior in humans, that doesn't mean thats how we SHOULD act. "

Of course we should. Rand's argument is that we should act "qua man".

I get quite amused when people, especially it seems those with very little exposure to the natural sciences, irrationally cling with a deathgrip to this mistaken notion that we are somehow "magically" above or immune to millions of years of evolution, insisting that we are cognitively and emotionally immune to the very thing that built and shaped our cognition and emotional capacities - just foolish.

Bob

Edited July 19, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Please, let's do this according to the Principle of Charity. Rand did not exercise this principle when discussing other philosophers and that was an error. This even led her to be outright wrong at times in describing their thinking and she has constantly been called on it. If we use her system in judging her works where there are possible vague meanings, we commit the same error.

We have already discussed ad nauseum that she meant "man qua man" as being (like Roger Bissell said) a living entity that needs to think and produce in order to survive. That is not nonsense. Calling it such is attributing another meaning, one in your own head and the worst possible one, to her words. If you want to be better than Rand (and your constant mocking of her indicates that), you must not commit her mistakes.

I do agree with you about the folly of ignoring the animal side of human beings that developed through millions of years of evolution. This is an error I see committed by Objectivists time and time again, even to the point of denying that these characteristics exist.

I have been doing a bit of reading on instincts and, when applied to human beings, the general definition that most appeals to me is something like "a genetic inborn pattern of behavior common to the species that can be supplanted by learned behavior." This is in my own words and is a composite of what I have gleaned but, at least, it is what I mean by instinct. Empathy and an urge to aid other members of the species in emergencies, for example, are inborn and they can be supplanted by other learned urges.

(Also, although this is another subject, different members of the species are born with differing degrees of intensity and deficient members are born at times.)

The learned urges are where ethics comes in. Many of the situations we encounter with the development of knowledge, production and society require responses that are more appropriate than instincts can provide. Sometimes what came prewired is even destructive and needs a consciously chosen replacement. A good example is to channel our physical aggressiveness and competitiveness to other members of the species into sports and eliminate them from places like the workplace, eating places, etc. The way we are brought up, I seriously doubt many strong males will even want to walk into a restaurant, push the weaker people out of the way, grab the first appealing food in sight and start scarfing. Yet this is probably what would develop without specific learning to the contrary when he is raised. A gentleman has had that inborn aggressiveness tamed by sports and/or supplanted by other desires elsewhere.

This is a long subject and, with the Principle of Charity, it can be discussed intelligently to the benefit and enlightenment of all. Calling others and Rand foolish and so forth as the main point of a post is merely cutting loose with an urge that would be better served by watching professional wrestling on TV.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

We have already discussed ad nauseum that she meant "man qua man" as being (like Roger Bissell said) a living entity that needs to think and produce in order to survive. That is not nonsense.

Fine. I'll agree that that above is indeed not nonsense.

However, her ethical conclusions including her grand exclamations of pro-selfishness and anti-altruism is overy simplistic, based on false or incomplete assessments (and I'd argue deliberately so - but that's another issue) of man's nature, and is indeed nonsense.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Any thought from any thinker is nonsense where the worst possible meaning is attributed to their words. The beauty of the Principle of Charity is that it allows a person to discern the wisdom behind the thinking of another, while making room for correcting ambiguities and errors.

It's a value choice. What do you prefer: to bash Rand or learn something meaningful from her without swallowing the whole kit and caboodle? Both are available and you choose what nourishment you feed your mind.

Michael

[SaulOhio]

Bob_Mac: You are mistaken to assume I have little knowledge of evolutionary science. That was, in fact, my major in college. I do not deny that evolution may have programmed us with tendencies towards certain behaviors, but as I said, we cannot trust them. They are relics of our savage past, as Michael said. We need to examine our behavior rationally, and root out anything that is out of date, counterproductive, even destructive. Most examples of altruism I am familiar with, it is used as an excuse to perpetrate attrocities, justify government policies that have proven impractical (not only immoral by the egoist standard), and lay guilt trips on good people, in order to gain power over them.

As for the man qua man thing, if there is some inborn tendency towards kindness, this is not necessarily altruism, especially if we derive physical pleasure from such actions. Many of the thinkers who argue for altruism claim that even such pleasure contaminates the purity of an altruist act. What is being described in such experiments is not altruism, but benevolence. If you haven't, I suggest reading David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism.

[Dragonfly]

It is Rand's peculiar and unbiological definition of altruism that is causing endless confusion in these discussions. I'll refer therefore refer again to this post on the subject.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Dragonfly

[SaulOhio]

It is Rand's peculiar and unbiological definition of altruism that is causing endless confusion in these discussions. I'll refer therefore refer again to this post on the subject.

Rand didn't make up that definition. She was using the definition used by philosophers before her.

The biological definition is relatively new, and does not apply to discussions of human ethics.

[BaalChatzaf]

It is Rand's peculiar and unbiological definition of altruism that is causing endless confusion in these discussions. I'll refer therefore refer again to this post on the subject.

Rand didn't make up that definition. She was using the definition used by philosophers before her.

The biological definition is relatively new, and does not apply to discussions of human ethics.

Ethical systems appropriate to humans are constrained by human biological nature. A workable ethics for humans would not do for ants, for example. Ants, bees, wasps cannot be individuals as are humans for biological reasons.

Biology should be at the center and core of all philosophical discourse pertaining to humans.

Whatever we are or do if not biologically determined is biologically constrained. We are meat machines.

Ba'al Chatzaf