Settling the debate on Altruism

[Dragonfly]

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??

No, that whole lemming story is just an urban legend.

[bmacwilliam]

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."

No, I'm not missing that at all. The central point I make that you're not addressing is Rand's insistence that if one is not driven by exclusive selfish goals, then you're driven by exclusive "enslavement to others". The point that she misses is that it's perfectly acceptable to argue that man's true nature is partially altruistic and partially selfish. Perhaps one should strive for selfish means but not exclusively. Perhaps 'the' code is a 'balance'. We could argue all day about where that balance is, but this view is much more defendable in an evolutionary sense that Rand's.

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?

The fact remains, what you're missing, is that proclaiming selfishness as a proper "fundamental code" is just as absurd - every bit as much - as claiming altruism is the proper code. The answer is in the middle ground. It is evolutionarily negative to be too far to either extreme. Is it just a coincidence that admitting the truth destroys her politics? No way.

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.

True - completely. Do you see now why that's not relevant though? Either extreme is as nonsensical as the other Michael.

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

Ellen defends Rand on the basis of Rand's ignorance on the subject of evolution. She was clearly ignorant - fine. However, she was of keen intelligence - on that we agree I'm sure. She was far too intelligent not to understand and clearly know that even the smallest shred of 'mandatory' altruism as a facet of a moral paradigm would completely destroy her political worldview. She was too smart not to be actively avoiding the truth and this has inescapable personal moral implications for someone pretending to be driven by truth, reality and rationality.

And also, the naked fact remains that she made definitive, and in her mind unassailable pronouncements on the nature of man and how he is and how he should conduct himself morally without ever understanding or even ATTEMPTING to understand from whence he came and the forces that shaped this nature.

What does that fact alone say about arrogance?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, I'm not missing that at all. The central point I make that you're not addressing is Rand's insistence that if one is not driven by exclusive selfish goals, then you're driven by exclusive "enslavement to others".

Bob,

This "exclusively driven" business is a misrepresentation of both Rand's writing and her ideas. (And I am one who criticizes her for several issues of scope.) I am interested in a quote from Rand if you have one that backs your claim up.

Frankly, the "code of values" definition of ethics is fundamental to Rand's thought and that alone debunks your "exclusively driven" speculation. Deny that "code of values to guide man's choices and actions" (specifically the ones "that determine the purpose and the course of his life") is Rand's definition of ethics, and that altruism is a system of ethics, if you will, but it's there in writing.

And also, the naked fact remains that she made definitive, and in her mind unassailable pronouncements on the nature of man and how he is and how he should conduct himself morally without ever understanding or even ATTEMPTING to understand from whence he came and the forces that shaped this nature.

What does that fact alone say about arrogance?

Nothing per se, as far as I can discern. Anyway, setting aside my doubts about the many unassailable thoughts you claim to know about in Rand's mind, you are wrong about her attempts "to understand from whence he [man] came and the forces that shaped this nature" from the written accounts I have read. She simply focused on the parts you do not focus on.

I do agree that Rand was arrogant at times, but not with the same situations at the same times, and for the same purposes and in the same ways as you state. It is not easy to judge Rand correctly if you are perpetually angry.

And anyone can become angry—that is easy...

(Small hat tip to Aristotle...)

Michael

[Xray]

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.

What is is the gene benefit for a John Doe, who, on impulse, jumps after another person, a stranger, who has fallen from the train platform onto the rails, risking the danger of the approaching train killing both himself and the other person?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

I am reasonably sure that you did not take the time to see what he was saying.

John Doe or Jane Doe or non-gender specific Doe does not calculate any of those considerations.

It is as close to a reflex as blocking a punch, duck tuck and roll, not looking directly at the sun.

It is the really hard wiring.

I do not even think, but my right arm immediately goes to my right to break the forward motion of my passenger, even though I know that there is an excellent seat belt and air bags.

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

I am reasonably sure that you did not take the time to see what he was saying.

I did take the time with Bob's most interesting post, rest assured. What interests me in that context - if it is that hardwired, then why don't all people jump down and save another person in such an emergency? For most people clearly DON'T.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

See what I mean, Post #222 above in this thread:

"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"

And I am asking the same question you are and I am not claiming his point, we are arguing and testing the same words I hope.

Furthermore the "he" was Bob Mac

Adam

Edited May 1, 2009 by Selene

[Dragonfly]

Ellen defends Rand on the basis of Rand's ignorance on the subject of evolution. She was clearly ignorant - fine. However, she was of keen intelligence - on that we agree I'm sure. She was far too intelligent not to understand and clearly know that even the smallest shred of 'mandatory' altruism as a facet of a moral paradigm would completely destroy her political worldview. She was too smart not to be actively avoiding the truth and this has inescapable personal moral implications for someone pretending to be driven by truth, reality and rationality.

I think there may be another explanation, namely self-deception. She may have been dimly aware of the weak points in her arguments, but repressed them as being some details that should be worked out later and gradually came to believe that she had solved them. No doubt this was reinforced by the fact that she avoided real arguments with respectable and knowledgeable opponents who would've put her on the spot. She never put her arguments really to the test, which is a form of evasion. In the same way she may have convinced herself that no one really helped her or that she made only minor corrections in We the living, even while it was obvious to anyone who knew the facts that this was not true. She was a great rationalizer who could convince herself and that may also be an explanation for her unrealistic view of Frank as a hero, a John Galt on strike.

[Xray]

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??

No, that whole lemming story is just an urban legend.

Correct.

This article for example debunks the lemming myth:

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

[Xray]

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

The lemming issue is obviously a myth created by the Disney filmmakers way back when.

Very interesting article debunking the myth:

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

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.

It is true that gene reproduction is the primary, but interlinked with survival, since it is necessary

to achieve gene replication. The biological program in a newborn is directed to survival of the individual to enable the individual to later replicate his/her genes.

With humans and most living beings (there are exceptions: some spiders for example immediately get eaten by their offspring) the survival program keeps active even after the being has long since passed the gene replicating phase.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

The two can't be separated since survival is necessary to achieve gene replication. The biological program in a newborn is directed to survival of the individual to enable the individual to later replicate its genes.

With humans and most living beings (there are exceptions: some spiders for example immediately get eaten by their offspring) the survival program keeps active even after the being has long since passed the gene replicating phase.

What you say is true, as far as it goes. However evolution is driven by reproductive success, not individual longevity. Nature does not care about her children after they have ceased to go upstream to spawn (metaphorically speaking, of course).

The arena of biological improvement is reproduction, not living a long time. A species that lives a long time but does not reproduce is doomed to extinction.

That being said, it should be noted that humans may be the first species that figures out how to reproduce its self by other than basic natural means. We may be the first species that manufactures its offspring. If that is the case, then longevity and cleverness will have greater weight in the scheme of things than they do now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The two can't be separated since survival is necessary to achieve gene replication.

Xray,

Finally here is something you said that I agree with 100%.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is evolution God?

Or is it the meaning of life?

Michael

[Xray]

What you say is true, as far as it goes. However evolution is driven by reproductive success, not individual longevity. Nature does not care about her children after they have ceased to go upstream to spawn (metaphorically speaking, of course).

The arena of biological improvement is reproduction, not living a long time. A species that lives a long time but does not reproduce is doomed to extinction.

You and Bob Mac are of course correct on that: the genetic reproduction program is primary.

That being said, it should be noted that humans may be the first species that figures out how to reproduce its self by other than basic natural means. We may be the first species that manufactures its offspring. If that is the case, then longevity and cleverness will have greater weight in the scheme of things than they do now.

The highly developed brain of humans allows them many choices other species can't make. Choosing death over life for example. Or going against the biological program of gene replication by deciding not to reproduce at all. Or via birth control, separating sexuality from its biological purpose (producing offspring).

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So genetic reproduction is God?

Or genetic reproduction is the meaning of life?

Michael

[Xray]

So genetic reproduction is God?

Or genetic reproduction is the meaning of life?

Michael

Genetic reproduction is what it is. Here is an example of a non-meaningless tautology.

It's a biological fact. Natural law in action.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

And individual life is also a biological fact.

Why denigrate that fact, seeing that you yourself are only one individual life?

For the evolution of the human species, your specific individual life may not be all that much (you were reproduced from others and you may or may not reproduce yourself depending on what you do), but your one individual life is all you've got. Once it is over, you are over.

Is the purpose of your individual life genetic reproduction? Or is there something else that needs to be on the table?

Michael

[Xray]

We now know that evolution clearly has built altruistic tendencies into man (and animals). This is hardly debateable anymore. It's genetically hard-wired.

As mammals living in groups (Rand would probably not have approved of it being stated like that I suppose ), we depend on the group for survival, and imo the actions we perfom "for others" without exception also serve the purpose of satisfying our own needs.

For example, when my colleague at work asks me if she can bring me a cup of coffee, she is basically doing what a chimpanzee does when it "grooms" another group member. I'm perfectly well able to get that coffee for myself, but her offer is a gesture of appreciation, of affirmation of a bond. On other occasions, I'll do the same for her.

Instead of the artifically constructed opposition "selfishness" vs "altruism", imo "self-interest" is the far more apt word. As opposed to "selfishness" which carries a negative tinge, "self-interest" is neutral.

What is hard-wired is self interest (100%) as an objective identifying characteristic as the motive directing our actions. A mother risking her life trying to save her child from fire is doing this because the child is of immense emotional value to her. That she considers it a value may be explained that it is her offspring carrying her genes, but someone may also jump after their dog in the same situation.

"Self-interest" does not imply wanting to stay alive at all costs. People may choose to die for an idea of whose supreme value they are totally convinced of. Their self-interest lies in promoting that idea, even if it involves their dying for it as martyr.

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.

But as opposed to machines, we can choose to act against the genetic program.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

quote name='Michael Stuart Kelly' date='May 2 2009, 10:44 AM' post='68706']

Xray,

And individual life is also a biological fact.

Why denigrate that fact, seeing that you yourself are only one individual life?

How do you get the idea that I'm denigrating that fact? I merely stated what is, without giving any value judgement on it.

For the evolution of the human species, your specific individual life may not be all that much (you were reproduced from others and you may or may not reproduce yourself depending on what you do), but your one individual life is all you've got. Once it is over, you are over.

Is the purpose of your individual life genetic reproduction? Or is there something else that needs to be on the table?

You mean what I personally value in life? My own philosophy, so to speak? Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You mean what I personally value in life? My own philosophy, so to speak?

Xray,

I'm just trying to keep some perspective on this statement:

... the genetic reproduction program is primary.

If you agree that in terms of your own ethics, your individual life also "primary," we might agree, depending on which "primary" gets more weight and why.

I certainly have no problem putting my own individual life within the context of being a member of a species. But it's like an 80-20 thing for me, where 80% is concern with my own life as an individual and 20% is concern with species related issues.

I put reproduction in that 20%. In fact, most all of my values reflect this approach. This is not the standard Objectivist approach, however (at least in theory).

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I probably should just post something in the book area, but since this discussion centers around altruism, and then things about biology, species, etc...

My sister is a very functional Buddhist, and I have been reading an excellent book she sent me by His Holiness The Dalai Lama called "The Universe In A Single Atom/The Convergence of Science and Spirituality." This is along the same integration path that Ken Wilbur worked in one of his books. The thing here is that the Dalai Lama is making a dedicated effort at dialogue, and put in his time with key scientists. I highly recommend this book. There are a lot of things here, but here's a little tract where he talks relevant to the recent part of the thread, I think (in fact, the book is relevant to many things we have discussed here). What is not shown in this quote but bears mention regards altruism. In the case of Buddhist thought, the highest cultivated value is that of empathy and compassion for other sentient beings, the species with whom we live; to live in that way as much as can be with those, and perpetuate that state of living (that is their highest value but there are clearly many others leading to such a state; essentially it is reasonable compassion, pro-sentient, pro-species position).

...I have noticed that many people hold an assumption that the scientific view of the world should be the basis for all knowledge and all that is knowable. This is scientific materialism. Although I am not aware of a school of thought that explicitly propounds this notion, it seems to be a common unexamined presupposition. This view upholds a belief in an objective world, independent of the contingency of its observers. It assumes that the data being analyzed within an experiment are independent of the preconceptions, perceptions, and experience of the scientist analyzing them.

Underlying this view is the assumption that, in the final analysis, matter, as it can be described by physics and as it is governed by the laws of physics, is all there is. Accordingly, this view would uphold that psychology can be reduced to biology, biology to chemistry, and chemistry to physics. My concern her is not so much to argue against this reductionist position (although I myself do not share it) but to draw attention to a vitally important point: that these ideas do not constitute scientific knowledge; rather they represent a philosophical, in fact a metaphysical, position. The view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is, to my mind, as much a metaphysical position as the view than an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.

One of the principal problems with a radical scientific materialism is the narrowness of vision that results and the potential for nihilism that might ensue. Nihilism, materialism, and reductionism are above all problems from a philosophical and especially a human perspective, since they can potentially impoverish the way we see ourselves. For example, whether we see ourselves as random biological creatures or as special beings endowed with the dimension of consciousness and moral capacity will make an impact on how we feel about ourselves and treat others. In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what it is to be human--art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness--either are reduced to the chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

It is difficult to see how quetions such as the meaning of life or good and evil can be accomodated within such a worldview. The problem is not with the empirical data of science but with the contention that these data alone constitute the legitimate ground for developing a comprehensive worldview or an adequate means for responding to the world's problems. There is more to human existence and to reality itself than current science can ever give us access to.

By the same token, spirituality must be tempered by the insights and discoveries of science. If as spiritual practitioners we ignore the discoveries of science, our practice is also impoverished, as this mind-set can lead to fundamentalism.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Rich Engle

[bmacwilliam]

No, I'm not missing that at all. The central point I make that you're not addressing is Rand's insistence that if one is not driven by exclusive selfish goals, then you're driven by exclusive "enslavement to others".

Bob,

This "exclusively driven" business is a misrepresentation of both Rand's writing and her ideas. (And I am one who criticizes her for several issues of scope.) I am interested in a quote from Rand if you have one that backs your claim up.

Frankly, the "code of values" definition of ethics is fundamental to Rand's thought and that alone debunks your "exclusively driven" speculation. Deny that "code of values to guide man's choices and actions" (specifically the ones "that determine the purpose and the course of his life") is Rand's definition of ethics, and that altruism is a system of ethics, if you will, but it's there in writing.

Are you telling me that Rand would have been ok with a code of values that included any shred of even partial altruism as a moral requirement? Are you seriously asking me for a quote to back up that claim?

And also, the naked fact remains that she made definitive, and in her mind unassailable pronouncements on the nature of man and how he is and how he should conduct himself morally without ever understanding or even ATTEMPTING to understand from whence he came and the forces that shaped this nature.

What does that fact alone say about arrogance?

Nothing per se, as far as I can discern. Anyway, setting aside my doubts about the many unassailable thoughts you claim to know about in Rand's mind, you are wrong about her attempts "to understand from whence he [man] came and the forces that shaped this nature" from the written accounts I have read. She simply focused on the parts you do not focus on.

I do agree that Rand was arrogant at times, but not with the same situations at the same times, and for the same purposes and in the same ways as you state. It is not easy to judge Rand correctly if you are perpetually angry.

I get what you're saying Michael, but here's the problem. The anger and frustration comes from the fact you don't understand why:

"She simply focused on the parts you do not focus on."

Is an absurd thing to say. Making pronouncements about tabula rasa, the standard of value of a man's life and other things without understanding the first thing about evolution is so totally ridiculous and absurd that it ends up in anger and frustration. It is worse than religious dogma Micheal - worse. It's worse because at least most people have an excuse wrt religion that they've been fed bad information during formative years and there is a community involved and so on. Rand pulled her bullshit right out of thin air - based on on nothing - and proclaimed is as fact. Again, it's not all bullshit, I'm talking about the wrong parts.

I do not think it's a coincidence that the wrong parts are what we should expect if she started from the politcal viewpoint and worked backwards. I don't like this either.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

Rand would never have tolerated any bit of altruism, but it was altruism as she defined and used and thought of the term, not as generally understood. She did the same thing with selfishness. Her "dictionary" definition being nowhere to be found except in her own book.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Agree with Brant, again.

You get the simple O-rage... most of this I hear, they cannot even distinguish between spiritualism and organized (ecclesiastical) religion. It is a knee jerk, it is normally from past trauma. That is not the nature of true, current spiritual thinking.

There is a bridge of understanding being built here. Lead, follow, or get the eff out of the way, you know?