Man qua Man (for real)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From what I just read, the philosophical definition for altruism was used before the biological one. According to the article in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), Biological Altruism, this term was first used in the biological sense by Darwin in 1871. It most definitely means something different than the philosophical use of the term. From the article:

In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

There is a good online discussion of altruism as philosophy in the article at New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, Altruism, which dates the term to 1851 by Auguste Comte, and spread to the English language by George H. Lewes in 1853. What I found interesting was that Comte's premises are based on epistemology (placing feeling, not thought, as "the normative principle of human conduct," then dividing feelings into personal and egoistic). From the article:

His ethical theory may be epitomized in the following propositions.

1. The dominion of feeling over thought is the normative principle of human conduct, for it is the affective impulses that govern the individual and the race.

2. Man is under the influence of two affective impulses, the personal or egoistic, and the social or altruistic.

3. A just balance between these two is not possible, one or other must preponderate.

4. The first condition of individual and social well-being is the subordination of self-love to the benevolent impulses.

5. The first principle of morality, therefore, is the regulative supremacy of social sympathy over the self-regarding instincts.

Does anyone know of any earlier references to these two usages?

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

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

We are a certain kind of meat machine. We are the kind of meat machines that generate and sustain our continued existence by thinking and producing. It is biologically determined that we are constrained to act in such ways--or to rely upon similar actions of other such meat machines--if we want to continue existing as this kind of meat machine.

(Man, I could go for a nice non-thinking/producing steak right now!

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

There's no earlier usage for philosophical altruism than Auguste Comte's. Comte invented the word altruisme. He made it a key part of his social vision for mankind (which involved a highly regimented collectivist society, complete with an established Religion of the Great Being, Humanity, of which he aimed to be the first High Priest).

Comte's reasons for preferring altruism over egoism are accurately rendered in that encyclopedia article. Whoever wrote it has actually waded through the four massive tomes that Comte called his System of Positive Polity. Oy vey!

Ayn Rand almost certainly learned about Comte from Isabel Paterson, during 1941 or 1942. Before that time, she referred to the moral tendencies that she opposed as Christian, or Communist, or selfless, but hardly ever as altruistic.

In 1865, John Stuart Mill (who had sent money to Comte to support his work, but didn't at all care for the System of Positive Polity) published a series of magazine articles about Comte, which were then compiled into a book. Mill strongly disliked Comtean altruism, but pulled his punches, claiming that altruism (in a sense left pleasantly undefined) was good but that Comte had gotten carried away with it.

I'll have to check the Darwin quotation, but 1871 probably is the very beginning for biological altruism. Herbert Spencer firmly established the "biological" usage in 1879 when he published the first installment of his Principles of Ethics. Spencer considered pure altruism to be either impossible or suicidal, but instead of directly blasting Comte (alluded to in his text, but not named) he pushed instead for a balance between altruism and egoism. Obviously considering intent irrelevant, Spencer claimed to find altruism even in an "infusorium, or other Protozoon," at least when it reproduces.

I wrote about most of this in my article on "Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand" (JARS, Spring 2006). I'll send you a copy for my "corner."

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wrote about most of this in my article on "Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand" (JARS, Spring 2006). I'll send you a copy for my "corner."

Robert,

This is an excellent idea. If you like, I will format it for you, send it back and you can post it under your own name.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Robert:

>(Mill claimed) that altruism (in a sense left pleasantly undefined) was good but that Comte had gotten carried away with it.

Rand is the Comte of self-interest.