Ask Dr. Helen: Doing Unto Others
Today the topic is self-interest, first as it relates to certain male/female relationships and then as it relates to altruism. David emails the first question:
Dr. Helen,
Can you explain to me how the guy in Ohio who is alleged to have killed his pregnant girlfriend has managed to impregnate at least 4 different women, none of who he appears to have been married to at the time? As a guy I just cannot imagine a woman wanting to sleep with a creep who is a serial sperm donor. Do they have no self-respect?
Some women who like these sorts of guys may have too little self-respect, too much or a combination of both. What do I mean by this? The common reason people come up with when women hook up with men who are trouble–such as prisoners–is that the woman herself has some type of low self-esteem. It’s possible, of course. She may not have gotten enough nurturing and admiration from a father figure and has been desperately seeking that acceptance ever since, yada yada yada. Or it actually could be that she has too much self-esteem, that is, she sees herself as the “special one” who will rescue this troubled guy and help him rise above his sorry ways and she can feel special and altruistic about the part she played in his redemption. She may actually crave the excitement of the chase in the same way that a man chases after the unavailable woman who ignores him.
Or perhaps it is some combination of low self-esteem on the part of the woman who feels she doesn’t quite measure up and yet, if she gets this man who has shown himself to be a serial breeder to want to be with just her, she will feel that she is the winner she thinks that she should be deep down.
Of course, it could be that the chase of the serial sperm donor is less about getting the man and more about beating the competition. It is in the woman’s self-interest to get the guy to commit to her, even if she does not really want him. Why? Because she can then feel that she has beaten out the other women vying for this guy’s attention and won the challenge. My guess is that if he did commit to her, she might not want him for long.
Speaking of self-interest, another reader emails:
Dr. Helen,
Do you think there is such a thing as altruism?
Let me answer this question with a couple of quotes by Robert Heinlein from %%AMAZON=074348844X The Notebooks of Lazarus Long:%%
Never appeal to a man’s “better nature.” He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.
If tempted by something that feels “altruistic,” examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then if you still want to do it, wallow in it!
In my experience, most people are motivated by some sort of self-interest when they engage in an altruistic act. I used to have discussions with a psychoanalyst I knew who said, like Heinlein, that no one really does anything unless it is in their self-interest in some way.
People always point to Mother Teresa as a symbol of altruism but Christopher Hitchens points out that her underlying motives for helping the poor might include proselytization for religious fundamentalism and taking large amounts of money for her efforts. Neither reason seems terribly altruistic.
Some studies on altruism have found people to have darker natures than was ever imagined.
In Reason Magazine, Steven Landsburg points to a study in which university students were given envelopes with ten one-dollar bills and told to give whatever they wanted to a stranger in the next room. As an economist would predict, the participants gave little or no money to the stranger. If the students thought that the experimenter knew who they were, they gave more money as they thought they were being judged. However the students willingly gave the most money to strangers when the experimenter was matching their contributions three to one.
In the words of University of Rochester economist Mark Bils, “That’s a pretty ugly instinct. It scares me to think I’m living in the same world with these people.” It’s not like they’re taking from the rich to give to the poor; they’re just randomly taking from some people so they can give to others. It’s hard to imagine their motive, unless they just plain enjoy the capricious exercise of power, bestowing good fortune on some and bad fortune on others without any need for a rhyme or reason. In a world where people get a kick out of being arbitrary, no property right is ever safe…
Taken at face value, the Cox experiments suggest that the reason we have a redistributive tax system is not because people want to help the poor or the unfortunate or the incapacitated; it’s because people enjoy moving other people’s money around just to make mischief.
Does all of this mean that I think no one is truly altruistic? I can’t say that. I do think most people are self-deceptive about their true motives when they are driven to do things to “help” people but I have seen too many cases that seem to be true altruism. For example, what about living organ donors who give to strangers or acquantances? What about the firefighters and police who gave their lives on 9/11? Was that altruism or was there underlying self-interest there that perhaps we don’t know about? I will leave that for you, the reader to ponder.
I do think that it is important as Heinlein says, to examine your motives and be honest with yourself when doing what you consider to be altruistic acts.
After all, maybe our serial sperm donor, above, thought that he was being altruistic, sharing his excellent sperm with many needy women. I suspect, though, that his true motives were different.
—
Drop a line in the comments and share your thoughts on any of the questions above. Or if you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question-if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.
This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.
Good God! Your first paragraph is a perfect explanation of what makes Miss Hillary tick.
As for those firemen running into burning buildings, I do think it’s an evolutionary survival thing having to do with avoiding shame and capturing honor among one’s chosen peers. In today’s parlance it comes down to “feeling good about oneself.”
It would be better for our society were we to stress codes of behavior over feelings. Where codes of duty and honor are spelled out and understood, their demands are less subjective and more specific than just “feeling good” about “doing good”. The ideal should be to implant in a person the concept that “a good/honorable person is one who behaves thusly. I wish to define myself as a good/honorable person, therefore I will compel myself to behave accordingly”.
Sissy,
Yeah right. There are no heroes. Just animals or machines driven by uncontrollable impulses.
What a cold world you live in. But hey you are so much smarter and rational than everyone else so it doesnt matter.
(sar. off)
Ayn Rand comes to mind:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx
Well, we certainly know when we’re being less altruistic, don’t we? By implication, that means there are times we are more altruistic.
If we try to measure it out as an all-or-none item, we will certainly find some self-interest in the best of us, and scraps of altruism in the worst of us. That doesn’t make altruism non-existent. People who make the argument that there is always some self-interest create a false standard, insisting that only pure altruism is any altruism at all.
We are most of us aware that there are motives of self-congratulation, avoidance of shame, and showiness in our good acts. That does not make them entirely base and contemptible, though, does it? We know our limitations. We try to reach higher.
Turn the question on its head. Isn’t there great psychic reward and self-congratulation to be able to tear down the motives of others?
“Just animals or machines driven by uncontrollable impulses.”
Peggy,
Your sarcastic attack on Sissy would seem to bear out that insight of yours.
It should be noted that Mother Teresa would probably be the first to point out that her actions were not completely free of self interest.
There is always self interest–that’s how we’re built. It’s part of what it is to be human. But that doesn’t mean that those self interests are first in our minds when we help people. Altruism in its pure form is not really something we can achieve. Mostly, though, we should recognize that gaining something from helping others doesn’t diminish the good we do. And if someone does something for us that we appreciate, we should be happy that they also get something out of it. Happiness is not a zero sum game.
The idea of complete selflessness is a distraction–taking us away from actually acting for the good of others.
If it is the gene that is selfish, then individuals who possess that gene might behave altruistically if that behavior increases the probability of the perpetuation of the gene. Hence, soldiers, policemen, firemen, etc. may risk their lives for others altrustically, due to a selfish gene. Similarly, if a meme is selfish, people like Mother Teresa may behave altruistically to perpetuate the meme.
So “proselytization for religious fundamentalism” is a bad motive in itself? Not where I come from. As for the altruistic conundrum, Martin Luther (I think it was) put it this way (I’m citing from memory): A beggar asks for money. I put a coin in his cup. As I walk away, I think, did I give him that coin for good motives or bad? If I decide I gave for the wrong motive, what am I going to do? Go back and take the coin away from him?
In various organizational behavior classes I taught, I taught that Mother Teresa was the most selfish person of our age. The simplified logic was that she was Catholic. Catholics believe that they attain Heaven thru good works in this life. Heaven is the greatest reward conceivable. Mother Teresa was working harder than anyone for the highest reward for herself, i.e, she was the most selfish person of our time.
P.S. “Altruism” was defined as self sacrifice without expectation of reward.
It might help to make a distinction between altruism and self-sacrifice. In the former, it’s easy to have a win-win situation. In the latter, not so.
It seems the best way to prove there is not real altruism is to cherry pick sources to show how those who seem to express it don’t. Start with a premise then look for anything that might be scraped up to show how it’s true.
Christopher Hitchens, I dare say, is likely not the best interpretor of Mother Theresa, nor any other altruistic person. It’s hard to sell books with the title Religion Poisons Some Things, but Helps Others, and Really those who are most Committed to It Seem to be Doing Generally Good Works For People I Personally Can’t Stand to Even Think About. Not only would that not fit on a book cover, it’s just not very catchy, even if true. It’s much easier to stand out by being naively rejecting.
Those with particular traits always want to see those traits in others, especially if the traits aren’t flattering.
Our ego always wants to protect us from realizing that, yes, there are people better than us. We can’t have that because then we’d have to be honest with ourselves, and maybe even, horrifyingly, let go of that selfishness that restricts are becoming whole people.
The ego so much likes to wallow, and to do that insists everyone else must be in the same muck and mire.
from Things Benjamin Franklin Said;
Would you persuade, think of interest, not of reason.
from Things Benjamin Franklin Said;
Would you persuade, think of interest, not of reason.
My analysis is this. Giving, as seen in most cultures, is a form of free exchange – when I give to someone, it is to form a bond with them. If they decide to be selfish and not return my gift (which they do not have to) they forfeit my trust, friendship, association. The wise man gives first, in regards to this, and gives to those who value people. This way he both ensures people are either beholden to him, connected to him, or are possibly giving back to him more than what he gave. (Of course, the returned gift is not really the point, as it perpetuates the debt.)
But, there is another kind of giving, one that does not expect a return. I think that also everyone has this impulse, to help another without their knowledge and with no certain return at all. Instead of the calculus of the first kind of giving, the second kind is done ‘so that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.’ My notion is that people have an urge, a desire to give freely as well as be given freely to. If when I give freely it seems like I’m receiving a service in return, I’m unsatisfied. If I am given to and then feel as though I am paying for it or have paid for it, I am unsatisfied.
Religion – the organized kind – may in fact deal with these desires. This is true altruism, that is doing well for the sake of well being done.
To pretend that because we give people birthday gifts we are altruistic, or giving to charity for tax returns – we fool ourselves as Heinlein said. This doesn’t mean that there are those who give freely no matter what (even when there is possible self interest.) Those people, however, are likely the most happy and free, provided that they also possess a sense of moderation.
And then, there’s a satisfaction in rejecting self-interest as a motive. But then, we’re basically talking about virtue for virtue’s sake, I.E, real altruism.
If we assume that virtue is automatically unpleasurable and vice the reverse, we’re mostly ensuring we don’t understand either.
This is due, I think, to the fact that pleasure and pain, reward and punishment in the material world are not always associated with how good or bad we are. Some men who rob banks get rich and escape. Others are permanently ruined.
So, my point is, plausible self interest does not automatically rule out altruistic intent; it only calls it into question.
It is my opinion that the competition of those natures, the one to self and the one to others, are what create the difficulty in discerning selfishness. And then there is even a nature oriented toward God, which makes it even more complex.
Makes me glad I don’t have to work with people’s minds.
A major motivational factor of the police and firemen in 9/11 might have been the strong desire of men in close association with other men engaged in a dangerous activity coupled with a sense of duty to have the respect and honor of their buddies. A good man never wants to be seen as having let his buddies down when the going got tough. Such men willingly sacrifice their own lives rather than suffer this form of ultimate shame. That’s why marines in Iraq have thrown themselves on live grenades. They act without thinking. They humble the rest of us.
I am currently a volunteer firefighter and I can tell you that there is a strong self-interest in being a firefighter. The primary of which is that you are respected by your peers and by society. Being known as a firefighter is like having an “I’m brave” card to play in almost any relationship. I was once in a bar with my wife and a female friend of hers from college, my wife told her I was a firefighter and the friend gave me a piercing look and said, “That’s hot.” Believe me I don’t get that sort of reaction without the “I’m Brave” card.
There is a level of altruism involved as well. With all things, the luster of being a firefighter fades. With my wife the luster lasted from the time I got my first uniform shirt to the first time I got out of bed at 3AM to fight a fire. Also, your self image is called into question the 19th time you have a run to ol’ Mrs. Smith’s house because she can’t get off the toilet (believe me it happens all the time).
There are a lot of people who get into firefighting out of self interest. It is an exciting job, it is well respected, the pay is pretty good for the level of training required. A large number of these self interested firefighters stay in till the luster wears off. A year or two and they have gone on to some easier, less stressful job. The true altruism is in sticking with the commitment you have made.
It can be argued that any altruistic act is somewhat selfish in that, regardless of other motives, we do the act because it makes us feel good. So we are performing the act for at least one selfish gain, a good feeling that is solely (thus selfishly) ours. We generally don’t voluntarily do things that make us feel bad.
I would agree with what some of the others have said, but would phrase it a little differently: many times, we act altruistically to maintain our self-image.
If you think of yourself as good, or heroic, doing things that reinforce that feels good. And if you’re in a group situation where those sorts of actions are expected (i.e. the military, the fire department), then acting in a way that meets with the approval of your peers feels good, too.
Sorry this sounds so insufferably pedantic.
I realize that i am up against the naturalist amen choir around here but I’ll try anyway.
It is assumed by those who have a vested interest in the idea that all religions are basically the same, that Christianity teaches that good nice people who do good and nice things earn their way into heaven.
But this is not true. Christianity turned the idea of doing good for reward on its ear. It teaches that our reward is already been given as a free gift regardless of our personal goodness. All we have to do is accept it. Consequently, this faith teaches that reward can neither be increased nor decreased by our altruism. It is what it is. Instead, this faith teaches that good works are a sign of an internal reality, of that acceptance of the free gift. In other words in Christian thought and belief, good works are acts of spontaneous and sincere gratitude overflowing out of a believer in response to a gift already given. The idea is that our good deeds can not earn us that which is already free for the asking.
This gratitude and responsive love is what motivated Mother Teresa. We can second guess her all we want. But that is how she understood herself. That is how Christians understand themselves.
I have to say that it is a very ugly idea to claim that someone outside of the person or group in question knows better what motivates that person. It means never having to really listen to anyone or take them serioudsly. It means living in a world that is informed only by one’s own biases. All you will ever see in the world is yourself.
I would much rather take a person at their word and learn a different perspective than to dismiss them as someone who doesnt really know what they are talking about.
That’s what I mean when I speak of treating people as machines or animals driven by impulses beyond their consciousness. Saying that all of our behavior boils down to evolutionary mechanisms is a way of saying that noone has anything to really to say to us. No one is special. Nothing about their lives or ideas need disturb us. Its all perfectly explainable. It all fits perfectly into a comforting system of thought hermetically sealed against any mystery, nobility or heroism. All are just machines obeying their evolutionary programming.
Like I said, what a cold world that must be to live in.
As soon as I read the words “a study in which university students” I tune out.
At 48 I am very different from my university student self.
Experiments done on university students are like experiments done on rats. Sure they’re both cheap and easy to find but the results do not always scale properly.
Dr. Helen, with all due respect you are over-intellectualizing things when you suggest women have sex with bad men due to: 1) low self esteem or 2) high self esteem or 3) rescue fantasies or 4) wanting to beat the competition.
Let’s speak plainly. Women like bad boys. Women are excited by bad boys. They’re thrilled by bad boys. It’s an animal thing, not a rational thing.
After they’ve been knocked up and knocked around too often or after the bad boy leaves them for a younger chick, then some of them start looking for a nice guy to help pay the bills.
Debunking altruism, of course, is rewarding because, if there is no such thing, we don’t need to worry about being altruistic.
Also, coming up with plausible explanations is not the same thing as demonstrating truth. There may be many plausible explanations for what seems a particular altruistic act, but all of them may still be false.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend on this one. He said, “Everything we do, we do for ourselves.”
I tried to dis-prove his comment. And I lost.
When it comes down to it, I am motivated by guilt, happiness, love, impulse, or morals ingrained in ME. I might feel empathy for somebody else’s plight, but I react to that because in the end, it sates a feeling I have in myself.
If we were un-affected by those feelings, and an expected emotional reaction, then I think we would have little incentive to do something about an external situation.
Josh
I think the real point is that the question here isn’t “Can someone do a truly altruistic act,” but rather “What is altruism?” Why is “self-interest” a dirty word? What is so dirty about it? The interest? The self? Sure selfishness is a vice, but is it such a vice that we have to run the other way screaming? Oh! Screaming — that’s a word that begins with s. Perhaps we should ban the letter s.
Of course! You are only motivated to do things that you are motivated to do. Duh. Literally, that is all that self and interest when put together refer to. The real question here is a lot harder to articulate — is everyone being selfish? Or, something like that, except we don’t really know what that means, do we? We already know that people only do things that they are somehow personally motivated to do, the question is how to separate “good” personal motivations from “bad” ones.
Taking it for granted, then, that selfishness is a vice, what all is entailed in selfishness? Is just anything you do that benefits you “selfish”? Of course not (blah blah blah). We hardly need to wax too philosophical to get that far, I think. But then, to really settle the matter of just where the vice begins is sufficiently philosophically vague that there are infinitely many borderline cases that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So, to really nail it down “once and for all” is really quite impossible. Instead one just has to pick particular cases that are interesting for some reason to them and deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Joni’s syllogism proving the selfishness of Mother Theresa breaks down at its second statement. Those who think that official Catholic doctrine maintains the redemptive power of “good works” are mistaken. Both Catholics and non-Catholics seem to share this misperception. I won’t bore anyone with the official Catholic doctrine on salvation since I am an extremely lapsed Catholic. That being said, Mother Theresa’s altruism (as any other oerson’s) is open to debate. I just wanted to point out the widely belived fallacy in the syllogism.
Here is another idea which you might possibly need to hear.
Re: the study on altruism.
It doesnt seem to occur to anyone here that humans could very well be in the process of transcending their baser animal natures. There are shining examples among us in history of those who have begun to break out. Naturally, the bulk of humankind lag behind these leaders and demonstrate an obstinancy towards change, and therefore represent a drag on the process. Any study done without taking into account anyone known for exceptional altruism is quite naturally going to find that humans are selfish.
BTW, Tell me why it should be assumed that there is no such thing as altruism based on a random selection of college students??? We are talking about half-formed adults here. And that is the final word on a half-formed species?
The Eastern Orthodox have a concept called theosis, whereby human beings undergo a process of becoming more like God and less like our base nature through communion with God who is the ideal of everything good that we would ever want to be or possess. The idea is not unheard of in other religions but the Christian emphasis on the idea that servanthood is the ultimate expression of godliness gives it a unique twist. In other words, the goal of transcendence is not to leave the world, or material nature behind but to become its perfect loving servant. I believe this is the working understanding of all the Christian saints known as such for their charity, that they are transcending the norm and thereby doing their part to uplift the world out of selfishness.
I think there is some evidence that this process has been helped along by such saints of altruism. Giving alms was at one time rarely praticed. It is now something of a norm even if most people just do it because it is expected of them. That is a change even if it merely represents a single step. C.S Lewis spoke about the concept of playing at something in order to grow into it. In other words, this phase where most people give because it is expected of them, may very well be followed some day by a pioneer generation which will largely reject charity as formality and will instead raise charity to a new level, a higher norm.
I mean who are we to think that what we are now as a race, much less a tiny random sampling of same, is all that we will ever be? Who are we to say that we will never be more than what we are today? Who are we to say that we are nothing more than our evolutionary past and that exceptional people are not instead representatives of the future? We simply can’t.
I think it is a huge mistake to assume that we can.
Randian Firefighter,
Truer words could not be said. Thanks for the inside perspective.
What about Heinlein’s story about the woman with her foot caught in the railroad tracks? Was her companion being altruistic? Or the stranger?
Ayn Rand took on this phony concept when it wasn’t cool.
Libertarians and Atheists will have the most trouble understanding this concept. People who follow Jesus’ teachings and see evidence of God’s plan on earth will be altruistic for Him. Explains why a lot of s**t jobs have historically been done by nuns. Nursing the dying, etc. We make time and find the money to try to make the world better – and by better I mean to reduce suffering, not just to LOOK like you are a good person- those people are “do-gooders’ and don’t help anyone when the day is done.
Randian Firefighter,
Truer words could not be said. Thanks for the inside perspective.
Dr. Helen-
another thing that comes to mind when discussing the concept of altruism, is self-actualization. Of the people who are known or suspected of being truly self-actualized, you find a lot of altruism. I am not sure but I read somewhere that MLK JR, Ghandi, Pope John Paul II and Jesus are considered to be on that list. WOuld like to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks!
Dr. Helen,
I don’t believe it was Mother Teresa who nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize, but when it did happen, she had already been living in the slums of Calcutta for decades, serving the poorest of the poor; those with nothing to give her in return.
To casually dismiss a lifetime of service and sacrifice, spent mostly in anonymity, because Christopher Hitchins said so, is shallow analysis in the extreme.
What’s in it for the G.I. who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies? It’s happened in Iraq just as in previous wars. Is it the money? I think not…
Respectfully,
Tom Armstrong
Altruism factors majorly into that life sustaining relationship we call friendship. It is an ingredient which is better termed as “solicitude” or “spontaneous benevoloence”.
Out of this transaction of spontaneous compassion with the other, self-esteem is boosted and consolidated. Self-esteem can only build up in response to the other extending towards me, and the other extending towards me is rooted in the principle of benevolent inclination. Solicitude is the stuff that universal human rights are made of. The obverse side of solicitude is rejection, abuse, malice.
The ancient Chinese sage Mencius (4th century BC), illlustrates what this solicitude means, in practical terms:
This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man who suddenly notices a child about to fall into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favour of the child’s parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbours and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself.
I really have to wonder about the validity of that study. In my experience, people are more willing to be generous if they have a compelling reason to do so. Do you give cash to every stranger who walks up to you on the street with their hand out? Of course not; you make a judgment call. Sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t, but a lot depends on presentation. Why would you give cash to a total stranger you will never see, when the only thing you know about them is that they showed up for the same study you did?
And for that matter, the fact that you showed up for a study where you might get $10 is telling as well, is it not? If you need or want it that badly, are you very likely to generously give some to the other guy?
The trick about altruism is that only the giver knows why they give. So ask yourselves this: have you ever given something with no expectation of receiving anything aside from the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you know you’ve done the right thing?
And why is it considered bad to receive something – even just a private feeling of happiness or self-respect – for doing a good turn for someone else?
One thing missing from this discussion (I may have missed it) is that self interest is not necessarily a bad thing.
I accept the premise that we always act in our own self interest, even when we do good for others. Even if I do good for the wrong reason, I have still done good. I define good as attempting to advance myself and my society so that more people have the opportunity to create happiness for themselves. Evil I define as acting in one’s (or noone’s) self interest with disregard for the outcomes to others rights, privileges, property. I’d include feelings, but there are some people whose feelings should be disregarded, but not because we want them to feel bad.
In trying to create a world where people can be happy, I feel much better about the world as well as my self. Atruism can then be defined as a measure of how much effort a person can put in to making the world a better place AND taking care of themselves as well. There is no point in having a better world if we are going to be miserable doing it.
The thing I resent about definitions of altruism that define our self interest as outside it, is that it then makes it impossible to achieve, and a blunt instrument on anyone who tries to have some spark of generosity toward others.
To redefine it in useful terms then, altruism is the extent to which we try to help others along with ourselves. The good we do for others may far outweigh the good we do for ourselves. I’m a results oriented guy. If, at the end of the day, the world is a better place on my account, I’m happy.
“Libertarians and Atheists will have the most trouble understanding this concept. People who follow Jesus’ teachings and see evidence of God’s plan on earth will be altruistic for Him.”
First of all — don’t act like libertarians are irreligious just because there is one group of atheist libertarians out there. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out, now, you have just begged the question. “They do it for Him?” Well, did they do it because they want to? Then, they did it for them. Or, are you suggesting that they somehow did something they didn’t want to do? How exactly did that happen? Did something take control of their body for a moment?
Of course, this is kind of a cheesy “gotcha”. All it shows is that we can’t talk about this in quite so sloppy a manner. Nevertheless, the idea that there is a “higher purpose” goes with the sloppy manner of speech. Your “higher purpose” is nothing more than your own personal desire to go to heaven when you die. There’s nothing higher than your own crass self-interest in that. Trying to be like Jesus because you think He’s cool as many Christians do is a little better. But, the highest possible motivation is just a direct irrational desire to do it. This is essentially Kantian (though Kant wouldn’t say it is irrational). The “highest purpose” is actually just the pure desire to do good. Who knows why you have that desire. Maybe you have just been doing it for so long, it has become a habit. Maybe you just have a strong sense of honor, and so feeling obligated you begrudgingly do your duty to help the less fortunate as you may have been helped before. Who knows why, but clearly the direct motivation to do good is a greater sign of virtue than the alternatives such as “I help the poor so my god will let me into heaven when I die”.
This question, like many philosophical questions, is simply a sematic argument. Saying that “nobody ever does anything altruistically – it’s always for a reason” simply is arguing that cause and effect exists. Yes, the reason why people perform acts of altruism is because they want altruism to occur. If the argument is “nobody ever does anything altruistically – it’s because they think they will gain personally”, this again ignores the fact that the expected “gain” might simply be a good feeling or a nearly imperceptible improvement in one’s own quality of life because the general welfare has been improved.
What people *want* this to mean is “all charity is a sham” – probably because this is a helpful route to vague attacks on society or religion.
Well, self-interest to me seems like an argument for self-justification more than anything. If no-one is unselfish, than you’ve got nothing on me for being selfish. Like the above commenter said, it’s just a covert attack to denigrate all altruism. The real question that should be asked is, “Did it actually DO any good?”
ALL altruistic acts are ALWAYS motivated by self serving reasons. Such acts are done only to build up one’s ego by using the act as “proof” of one’s personal value. This does not mean that the act is done with a conscious deception in mind or that the act does not result in a genuine benefit for the recipient(s). Those who claim that they do things for purely altruistic reasons are really just saying that they are “better” than those people who did not act similarly in a given situation.
The Ohio guy had slept with A, B, and C, before he slept with D. If D knew nothing else, she could conclude that he must be attractive. After all, A, B, and C slept with him.
IIRC many of these altruism studies suggest that one thing people like is to believe themselves virtuous. So they undertake actions likely to reinforce that belief. Robin Hood could be sure it was right to steal, because he gave some of the money to the poor.
This is why people are so easy to persuade that whatever happens to benefit them is virtuous. They can then satisfy their self-righteousness and greed simultaneously. Who will object to a deal like that, if the only cost is to believe, whilst voting, that black is white, and 2 and 2 make 5.
Similarly, A is easily convinced that B is privileged in some way. A can then demand that something belonging to B should be given to A, and know that he is merely demanding justice. Even better if things are taken from B’s group and given to that of A, because A is now merely trying to help his fellow disadvantaged members of his group.
This is why every distinguishable group in the Western world is convinced that it is discriminated against.
How else to justify their greed?
Peggy:
Don’t go home mad. Believe it or not, I think you’re onto something:
Approval amongst the members of one’s group is all important for the psychological bonding that can mean the difference between survival and extinction, but some groups have more to feel good about than others, especially in this politically correct, self-esteem-without-effort era. We hold within us the potential for both extreme evil and extreme good . . . It all depends upon what we do with our human nature.
Well, except for peggy and a few others, this discussion seems to boil down to a question of motivation. I cheerfully identify myself a an honestly selfish person. I *never* do anything I don’t want to.
Having said that, I have two reasons (motivations) for doing what appear to be altruistic/charitable acts: 1) I like an uneventful society, and such acts (especially when they appear random or altruistic or charitable) tend to increase the calmness of the societies in which I find myself, and; 2) arrogance or sense of self-worth in that I am totally convinced that I can replace that which I give away without having to worry about it.
Coldly selfish, peggy? Absolutely. Mechanical or anaimalistic? Who cares.
I had a friend (*serious* Catholic) who was concerned with the state of my soul. I asked him whether he would prefer that I do the right thing for bad reasons (motivation) or the wrong thing for the right reasons (motivations)? He was conflicted but terribly tempted to go with the second choice.
A Mennonite Elder (who was only about 25) explained it to me many years ago. He said, “the Bible says ‘judge not, lest ye be judgeds.’ This means that the state of your soul (or motivations) is in the realm of God’s understanding, not Man’s. It also says, ‘by the fruits of their labors (behaviors) shall ye know them.’ It is good to be a fruit inspector.”
I think we’re spending too much time worrying about motivations when we should be concerned with behaviors and outcomes.
Very interesting question:
Personally I give A Lot away, way more that the national average as a percent of what I make, both time and money. I truly enjoy it because I am friends with a lot of the people I help out. I also enjoy the bi-cultural aspect of it. In many ways I am a different person when I living at my house in Nicaragua and speaking and thinking in Spanish. I am sometimes amazed at the difference and I find it fascinating.
In addition, there is a great deal of ego satisfaction (and I’m not sure this good) when I walk into a village and every kid goes around spreading the word “Tom is here, Tom is here”.
I started doing what I do in Nicaragua to atone for being such a complete little shit to the poor while I lived in Peru as a child. Now I have over atoned, and am looking for ways to pull back from my philanthropic activities. I have now at least have limited them to just one community.
Except: Another problem now is that I have learned how to get things done down there and have gained a reputation as someone who can solve problems with the government, importing equipment duty-free; and all of the cross cultural probems the other do-gooders run into with the people they are trying to help – they are always calling me for advice. When they call, I try to just give them advice, but if the problem sounds interesting I tend to get roped in. That is an ego thing too, because I enjoy being the hero. And also, I the back of my mind, I am sizing up the foeriegners I help with problems there as potential investors in my real estate development busness here in the U.S. And people here in the U.S. who have never been to Nicaragua but who know what I do there, have a tendency to be larger investors in the syndications I put together here.
It’s truly a joy to see the smile on the face of a child you have helped, but there is a little voice in the back of my head that is always that that the gods will ultimately reward me with money, eithther directly through investors, or indirectly by the Latin business tactics I have learned there.
Re the Jessie Davis Murder and the ex-cop Cutts.
Dr. Helen I think you got nearly everything wrong here.
Look at who Cutts was in context of his social status and appeal to the women who were all blue-collar, working women with not much education etc.
Women will share high-status men with others, over not sharing men of equal status to themselves.
You can see this over, and over, and over again in every socio-economic status group. Look at Mayor Tony in LA. He had: Mirthala Salinas, the Telemundo exec, his wife, the Korean Fashion Designer, the LAPD officer, various lobbyists, totalling about 6 different women off and on, all of whom knew about each other. Or Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers and Elizabeth Gracen at the same time (Gracen was Miss Arkansas and TV’s Highlander “Amanda” in the 1990′s).
The old trade-off for women to choose stability, loyalty, amiability etc. so that a man would support her through pregnancy is gone, and it’s gone world-wide. Welfare state payments AND world-wide rising incomes for women (a good thing) allow women much more freedom to pursue what they want. Which is …
Men of higher status than their own.
Not much else matters.
Of course the corollary to this is that a few high-status men get most of the women, and the lower-status men at each socio-economic class lose out and have none.
To me this accounts for the huge rise in misogyny. Men with wives and daughters, or even girlfriends they are thinking of marrying, cannot afford misogynism (and Natural Selection would tend to eliminate it). Men who want wives or girlfriends but through lack of high status (only a few men by definition can have it at any level) can’t achieve that will substitute porn for a while but in the end exhibit misogynistic impulses, particularly in political and cultural fields where individual responsibility is diffused through the group.
Yes Cutts impregnated four women, all of whom knew about each other (Davis had one kid by him, conceived another with him when he killed her). All were quite pretty and attracted male attention. But Cutts character, integrity, personality was irrelevant, only his status mattered.
[Popular culture only makes this worse, look at any "chick-flick" and see the catering to status desire among women in selection of men.]
In one sense, it impossible to act completely selflessly, because we always can identify rewards for acting selflessly, if nothing more than the reward of being held in high-esteem by ourselves and others.
I think that a distinction might be made between acting selflessly and receiving an appropriate or natural reward and acting with ulterior motives. For example, two men might act lovingly towards a woman, one expecting that he will be loved in return (an appropriate reward) and another because the woman will give him money. The first man’s loving acts are viewed favorably, even though he receive a benefit from his actions. The second is viewed as acting selfishly because he is acting with ulterior motives by seeking something other the natural reward for his affection.
If you’re interested in some data on the issue, Dale Miller had a nice paper in American Psychologist in 1999 on the norm of self interest. It’s available here: http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/millerd/docs/1999amerpsyc.html. Miller’s basic point is that most people are not selfish, but they believe they should appear to be, in order not to stand out. That is, most people are not selfish but respond to the “norm” that humans are self-interested. See also Miller’s work with Holmes & Lerner on the exchange fiction – that people will give more to charity if they get some trinket in exchange, so that they can unlock their compassion without feeling that they are doing something weird. Here’s a brief intro: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/ob_whypeoplegive.shtml
Being altruistic is central to being human. It reflects the extent to which humans understand other people by internally reproducing those people’s mental states. That is, we are able to live in society because we are pretty good at figuring out what someone else is feeling or planning to do. That skill involves internally simulating the other person’s feelings or plans using our own mental resources for feeling and planning. So, other people’s subjective states are available to us much more than was once supposed. See for example Vittorio Gallese’s very interesting work on mirror neurons and “intentional attunement”. There’s a brief intro here: http://www.interdisciplines.org/mirror/papers/1.
We are an altruistic species.
Funny thing: any time I start feeling altruistic, I take a moment to ponder my motives, because I find altruistic people automatically suspicious.
But I do have one puzzling habit: I donate blood fairly often, despite a lifelong fear of needles. It started at the 1976 World Science Fiction Convention in Kansas City, where all registered blood donors were invited to attend a party and meet Robert Heinlein (a pal of my Mom’s.) Not only did I get to meet the man and shake his hand, all attendees at the party received a little pin. My mother remarked, “if you’re going to wear that, I hope you’re planning on donating blood again sometime.”
Thirty years later, I still give blood several times a year (although I misplaced the pin years ago, so I rarely get an opportunity to mention it.) I don’t suppose it’s because of any overwhelming passion for helping my fellow human beings, but because of an irrational desire to please two people (Heinlein and Mom) who are too dead to notice.
Oh well; who needs to be rational all the time?
After spending a lifetime trying to understand, among other things, the problem of evil, I have only a few thoughts to offer. One of them is that altruism, as Ayn Rand has said in considerable detail, not a good emotion. Having said that, I’m not inclined to criticise those who wallow in it, as long as they don’t resort to using guns and fear to cram it down my throat.
Another thought is that it’s very likely impossible to pigeonhole motivations. This thread contains a number of possibilities, and most of them may be correct for some individuals and not others. Doubtless some women want the Bad Boy, mixed with, perhaps, other motivations at differing levels. Nearly everyone wants to be valued, and preferably loved. Other women may just have poor self-esteem for the most part, and so on. The human mind can vary rather according to genetic heritage, then further from wildly varying environments.
I regret that I lack the patience to spell out a concrete set of examples, but those with sufficient intellect and education will have no trouble coping with this abstract description.
I will close by saying that, on the other hand, enlightened self-interest by no means is altruism, and is one of the highest achievements of the man or woman who wishes truly to live in light.
Two points:
I wouldn’t be looking to Hitchens to explain Mother Teresa’s motives.
I’d be looking to Mother Teresa. Hitcher’s motives are transparent enough; to impugn the work of MT.
And as regards the organ donor. I had a friend who was going to donate an organ to a virtual stranger. All his friends understood this to be a self serving act where he became the hero as well as the victim. We felt he was watching us watching him be self-sacrificing.
And sometimes you help people when no one else can.
Who would not rush to the aid of a fallen person? A choking person? A crying baby?
I do not have time to think about ego or self-interest or anything else.
I seem to be acting on instinct.
What if one said, “The lower mind always acts selfishly”? It is up to the higher mind to provide the right carrot or stick, or so to speak – self-reward or self-discipline. You are more than just that desirous ego.
However the students willingly gave the most money to strangers when the experimenter was matching their contributions three to one.
… they’re just randomly taking from some people so they can give to others. It’s hard to imagine their motive, unless they just plain enjoy the capricious exercise of power, bestowing good fortune on some and bad fortune on others without any need for a rhyme or reason.
Some things are so stupid that only an academic could believe them.
Why do company donation matches work? Because donors realize that their money is doing more good. If I can bestow $40 worth of good on a stranger when it’ll only cost me $10, why wouldn’t I if I can help it? If my company were voluntarily offering to match my donation 1:1 or 3:1 or whatever, I’d reasonably conclude that the company could afford it, or else they wouldn’t have made the offer. Why couldn’t the students have made the same analysis? And what of the “stranger”? Was it someone obviously in need? I’m not going to give $10 to a stranger for no reason; I can use the $10 just as much as he can. If the stranger is in need, I’ll be more likely to give it to them; $10 to them is more valuable than $10 to me. I’ll likewise be more likely to give the money away if the choice is between $10 for me and $40 for the stranger, especially if the other $30 isn’t going to appreciably harm the giver (and there was no indication that it would).
Catholics believe that they attain Heaven thru good works in this life.
Try reading Catholic.com sometime if you’re curious what the Church REALLY teaches on salvation. I’ll be busy weeping for the education your students are receiving in the mean time.
Ah, geez………… Mother Teresa?
Come on, the woman’s a saint.
It is good to be prudent, to take care of oneself but it isn’t automatic or guaranteed. Also, genuine benevolence or generosity exists aplenty. Human actions aren’t all motivated by just one “drive.” At times several reasons lie behind what we do and, yes, at times we just care about some other person and have nothing else in mind. All this effort to find a cause of what we do harks back to the scientism of the 16th century (Hobbes). Things, however, are more complicated and also more sensible.
What does love have to do with it anyway? Jesus said, “no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for another”. What were His motives when He died for a sinful people, before any of us were even appreciative, and took our punishment when He had none coming. That He might have an eternity of people that love Him, because He first loved us. There is reward in it even for God, since God is perfect in all His ways, the fact that we receive benefit from laying down our life, or being altruistic can’t be considered selfish, but rather a win-win situation. If God receives blessing, ie not being alone in heaven, then our receiving blessing for being altruistic must be okay. The problem, I think, comes when we require a certain response for our altruistic behaviour, (which then isn’t that at all, but selfish) in other words, no strings attached. If we consider everything to be selfish, we are denying other people the blessing that they may receive for doing something that is not selfish, but just done because it is the right thing to do. Please tell me what is wrong with that! This is not likely profound or complex, but it makes sense to me!
When I was 15 years old I worked at a service station. My boss was a sociopath, a crook a liar, an adulterer, and a thief: but he was very likable. He also taught me something very wise. He said that if you want people to like you, don’t do things for them, get them to do things for you. No body, he said, wants to be around somebody they owe something to. Everyone is happy to see someone who owes them a favor. As evidence, he pointed out customers who bought gas across the street repeatedly after he had given them credit at our station. He said they wouldn’t be back to our station until they had paid their bill and didn’t feel beholden anymore. He was right. This was a long time ago, but I have never come across any evidence that proved him wrong on this point. You can be altruistic by letting people do things for you. It makes them feel better
I think that Pope Benedict’s Deus Caritas Est is probably the best recent case for altruism. He is spot on in that altruism, true altruism is always an act of love but that many languages are impoverished in describing love and mix eros, philia, and agape without understanding what they are conflating. Altruism is an expression of agape love.
To try to discuss altruism without discussing agape is like discussing taste without touching on umami. Yes, you can hit a lot of very good points but the discussion simply is not complete.
Some types of bats share blood despite the fact that it lowers the individual bat survival.
Could there be a similar attenuated human response. i.e. it promotes band/tribe cohesion?
It could be altruism AND self/group interest.
This is one of the best commentary threads I have ever read. It is just bristling with genuine heart felt opinion and personal observation. At one moment I agree with with the pro altruistic group and then I find valid reason in the self interest argument. Its great reading and very interesting.
I have some observations from my long life that fit into neither category that have caused me to reflect much more on the causes of my actions than I first expected.
I ‘ll try to be brief. Many years ago I was an avid bass fisherman and I would find myself looking forward to my weekends on the lake and devising better strategies for the next excursion on the water. One particular spring weekend I was anticipating an early start in a remote heavily wooded area on a nearby lake . I arrived at the boat ramp very early at the crack of dawn with not another fisherman to be seen. It was cold, cloudy with an extremely high wind . I launched my boat and secured everthing . Poured a cup of coffee and began making my way through some dark timber to reach the main lake .I was running at half throttle and keeping an eye out for stumps and stickups as I threaded my way through the half dark. Ahead I could see the boat lane widen out where the main lake began. I reached down to apply more throttle and as the boat gathered speed I distinctly heard a voice cry out “help”. I thought “what was that”? I glanced around quickly in various directions but I didn’t see anything. I reached for the throttle to apply more power but I hesitated.
On a hunch I pulled the power back and turned the boat around, slowing down rapidly. In a moment I heard the voice again “help me please”. I made my way through the trees and there about 50 yards ahead was a man standing in a tiny aluminum skiff clinging to a sapling not much bigger than your thumb. He was shivering and absolutely terrified .
I shouted at him to sit down and not panic . He had no life preserver nor oar or paddle, nothing but a cheap fishing rod . He lunged at my boat as I drew near and I thought, this could become dangerous. I asked if he could understand me and he replied ,”yes”. “Do you have a line or a rope”? I asked him. He held up a length of clothes line . I noticed his accent at once and determined he was an Arab or a similar ethnicity. He tied the line to his bow hook and I swung by and took the line from him and secured it to a stern deck cleat. I asked him where he had come from and he said the south boat ramp where I had pushed off from 15 minutes earlier. His boat was a very shallow pram type not much more than 8″ deep. Certainly not stable enough for a big ,windy lake. He was still clutching the sapling tightly to his chest so I instructed him to lie down in the center of the bottom of the boat. I advanced the throttle and began the slow trek as we wound our way back to the launch ramp. It was “white capping ” quite vigorously so a minimum speed was all I could generate until I made it safely back to land. At this point I became angry at the circumstances and I knew I would lose an hour or more of prime fishing time because this “yeahoo idiot ” was fartin around in a damn dinky tin boat in the dark of the night. By the time we got to the ramp I was barely able to keep my composure. We pulled his skiff onto the shore line and he made a rush for me to try and embrace me . He was jabbering and crying and then I began to realize how serious HIS situation had been. I told him to get a life preserver and not to stray so far from shore in the future .He tried to kneel in front of me and kept acting hysterical so I took him by the arm and told him calmly,”You’re okay now so use better sense in the future”.
I got back in my boat and once more headed back onto the lake. The fishing was lousy and I had a crummy day on the water. Complete blank.
However, I have had a lot of time to reflect on that day and now nearly 25 years later I can compare that experience to 3 or 4 others I found myself involved with and there are some similarities that make me question who is placing us in these situations. My motives were not altrustic or self serving and I was not happy at the imposition which was thrust upon me.
I wonder who is doing the motivating here?
TO THE COMMENT REVIEWER. THIS POST IS COMPLETELY TRUE AND HONEST AND I OFFER IT AS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. I DO NOT WISH TO EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY MY VIEWPOINTS. I AM A FREQUENT POSTER ON THIS WEBSITE AND IT IS MY WISH THAT MY NAME NOT BE REVEALED TO OTHERS REGARDING THIS POST. THANK YOU. WILLIAM JONAS
I think that you are stuck looking down at the bottomless pit of feelings. Altruism is an action, not a feeling. In Mother Teresa’s case, Christ died for her so she died to herself and lived for others. James 2:18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” That might not fit the definition of altruism, but it sure fed a lot of people.
The general cynicism here depresses me. Do I have a stake when I try to help another person? Yeah. Maybe it’s a sense of debt or nonor or maybe I just can’t walk away & let someonething terrible happen and live with myself.
But I figured out when I was about 17 that any word that ends in “-ism” either obfuscates through lack of meaning or through excess meaning.
If I see someone I care about suffering I’m going to do the best I can to relieve that pain. I’ll let the pundits say their piece later.
Bloody ‘ell.
getting someone for CARING ABOUT is often a resource.
Making gifts is labelled as charity to please own’s self,but we couldn’t do without that
“Russ”, altruism is indeed a feeling. It often is also an action following from the feeling. I’m not certain if it can also be an action not necessarily following from such a feeling. It’s too early in the day to be wracking my brain over such distinctions, although I’ll note that doubtless there are some people who engage cynically in “altruistic” acts to pump up their social rankings in the eyes of politically important people (and I use the word “politically” in the broadest sense).
“William Jonas”, it says something about your character that you realised that ignoring the cry for help, even if it did turn out to be from a self-Darwinising idiot and not an unfortunate caught a situation not of his own making, would have not allowed you to enjoy the earliest morning fishing. Was this altruism? Perhaps. I’ve already commented in altruism in other people. Or it might have been enlightened self-interest … encouraging by implication the “good karma” to go around (in many people, there’ll be an urge to “return the favor” to some other stranger in the future, with a ripple effect that might very well reach you somehow). BTW, I agree with you that “This is one of the best commentary threads I have ever read.”
I think this is enough for now. I won’t turn this into a pages-long response to some other posters.
In 1904 Andrew Carnegie organized and endowed the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission (http://www.carnegiehero.org/I to make awards for civilian heroism in the United States and Canada. Viewed in retrospect, the criteria that have evolved are finely tuned to reward purely altruistic behavior. The criteria generally exclude those who have some moral or professional duty to rescue.
A civilian who voluntarily risks his or her own life, knowingly, to an extraordinary degree while saving or attempting to save the life of another person is eligible for recognition by the Carnegie Hero Fund.
* * * * *
The act of rescue must be one in which no full measure of responsibility exists between the rescuer and the rescued. Persons not eligible for awards are: Those whose duties in following their regular vocations require them to perform such acts, unless the rescues are clearly beyond the line of duty, and members of the immediate family, except in cases of outstanding heroism where the rescuer loses his or her life or is severely injured. Members of the armed services and children considered by the Commission to be too young to comprehend the risks involved are also ineligible for consideration.
In addition, there is a requirement that the rescuer “leave a place of safety” to make the rescue. If the rescuer himself is in the same peril as the rescued, there is no award. (Think of a passenger on a runaway train bravely hanging overboard to reattach a brake line.) Likewise, there is no award if the rescuer created the peril. In that case, the rescue would be discharging a moral obligation.
Despite these criteria, we have made over 9,000 awards. In most cases the rescued and the rescuer were strangers. About 20% of the awardees died in the rescue attempt.
We do not inquire into motives, but in almost every case the awardees profess to find their behavior unremarkable. “How could I not help?” is the most common reaction. In fact, most seem to have acted with little reflection.
I must pose a dissagreement with the analysis of said sperm donor, see the reason why he was able to impregnate so many women WAS by being a scumbag.
see, women get hit on EVERY day whether they want to or not… they CANNOT take themselves out of this game.
They think they want a nice guy to sweep them off their feet, but when the nice guy approaches them and says “ohmygod! your soooo beautiful – let me take you out” they say to themselves “great… another needy wuss”
but if a guy comes up, who appears to reject social norms and says something smart-ass, he stands out from the HUNDREDS of needy guys that approached the girl this week… her curriosity is piqued!
i’ve seen MANY non needy, self respecting women (who don’t have daddy issues) go after guys with tatoos and prison reccords for this very reason – they’re sick of mr. let-me-buy-you-a-drink-and-compliment-you-so-you-might-go-home-with-me-when-you-see-how-sweet-i-am
it’s simply, women want adventure and excitement and someone that’s going to help them learn something new about themselves… not more of the same boring normal reality.
but adverturousness can be mistaken for dangerousness and the poor girl ends up with a scumbag instead of the nice guy.
Matt,
And yet, once this “poor girl” (should read grown woman with poor judgment) finds out that this “scumbag” is dangerous, has four kids etc. she stays with him anyway trying to beat out the competition and “save” the guy by trying to get him to change. This goes back to my theory that she is in it for the competition against other women and the feelings of superiority that come with getting a guy who wants many women to be with just her. If she was just in it for the “excitement” and to “learn new stuff about herself” it seems she wouldn’t get pregnant by the guy, have the kid and then try to stay with him. Also, what new stuff is one trying to learn, that one is attracted to scumbags?
Adrian,
Sorry i am late in responding.
I have done things that I feel Jesus wants me to do, simply because I know that to do so will make the world a better place. I have done these things anonymously and with no reward expected (either in credit, money, brownie points, or a spot in heaven). I did them for Him alone. “Love God, Love One Another” and the Golden Rule are my only rules for living, pretty much. If you don’t believe, (atheism), then your altruism is done purely from self-interest, whether the atheist acknowledges it or not. I may have unfairly lumped libertarians in with atheists, which I shouldn’t have done. When I think of a libertarian, I think of an amoral person. I think of a person who has no problem with anything consensual, whether its adultery, the killing of unborn children, prostitution, or other soul-killing behaviors. If there is no soul, why restrain yourself? That is where I mix the 2 together.
Just because people consent to something doesn’t make it harmless. Peole can get worked on by others, and persuaded to consent to plenty of evil things.
Helen: You are underestimating the power of the “bad boy” and the attraction he holds for a “good woman”. Consider Jane Eyre, fully aware that the object of her desire is a dissolute man of the world with a lascivious temper. For all her rigteousness and clear thinking, she succumbs to his appeal from the get go. Fortunately for her, he turns out to be a reformable rake. And she takes the prize of taming that feral virility into a uxorious husband. Her very own shorn Samson. Bronte was accused of having created the ultimate female fantasy, and so she has. Of course the real life woman hardly ever gets to play Jane to a worthy Rochester. (There are some real life stories which might match Bronte’s fiction but so rare they are that I can only remember two examples). Most bad boys are quite unreformable and tend to revert to their old ways as soon as their willing “prey” is securely theirs. But what Bronte explains and shows is how overwhelming and irresistible that attraction is. I guess every woman who falls into that trap expects her powers to be such as to stare down whatever keeps the bad boy from being house trained. It’s the eternal triumph of “the triumph of imagination over intelligence” (as Wilde the wise said).
Is it the altruistic act itself that enhances self-esteem or is it more important that the actor makes sure his/her altruistic action is known to others? I think one way to determine whether a person’s motives are due to altruism or self-interest is to determine whether the actor makes sure other people learn of his/her good deeds. In other words, do you act altruistically when you know you won’t get credit or adulation for doing so.
I believe people often act altruistically. We do so in large ways and small – when we put up our carts at the grocery store so it’s easier for the next guy; when we put cash or change in the Salvation Army bin or the collection plate even if no one is there to see us do it; or when we stop to help auto accident victims on a remote highway.
To me, the more interesting question is “Why do some people seemingly want to discredit the concept that people are altruistic?”
The problem with defining an altruistic act as requiring that the one performing the act receive no benefit is that, if acts of altruism cause the person committing the act to feel good and that is deemed to be rewarding to that person, then the only one capable of performing an altruistic act is a complete misanthrope who feels badly for doing a kindly act for someone. That definition is a little too narrow for my liking. The operating definition should include the non-expectation of reward or the foregoing of a reward (or the relinquishing of something) and at least some degree on anonymity. This gets very circumstatial very quickly.
I believe that those who think that altruistic acts are done because of the good feeling they create in the one performing the act are extreme cynics or just looking for an excuse not to act generously.
I can remember one time when I attempted to perform an altruistic act for a lady online. I was most puzzled by her extreme suspicion and disbelief that I was not trying to get away with something. It was one of the oddest experiences. It wasn’t even something big. No money would have changed hands, I wouldn’t have gotten her name or location, nothing. I decided later on that she was a Randian and that the whole concept of someone doing something solely out of the kindness of his heart was mind shattering for her… (Maybe I’m reading too much into it but her behavior/reaction was just too odd not to comment on it, if only many years down the line.)
Altruism is a tough subject because no matter how much I might deny myself there will always be some small core of my being that has a warm fuzzy feeling when I’ve done something nice for someone else. So in the strictest sense of the word, no there is no such thing as altruism (among the merely human that is.) However to pretend that people never do things just to be nice is to err to far on the other side of the coin.
That said there is much to be said in favor of enlightened self-interest.