Comments on: Ask Dr. Helen: Doing Unto Others

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:28:20 +0000

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.

By: BEC

BEC — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:32:05 +0000

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.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:14:23 +0000

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?”

By: Noga

Noga — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:17:32 +0000

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).

By: moms_always_Right

moms_always_Right — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:56:16 +0000

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.

By: Helen Smith

Helen Smith — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:21:06 +0000

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?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:21:18 +0000

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.

By: PSF

PSF — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:43:45 +0000

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.

By: Crafty Hunter

Crafty Hunter — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:35:04 +0000

“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.

By: Fuzzi

Fuzzi — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:19:21 +0000

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