Altruism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Although not technically an authority on the issue, Wikipedia defines altruism as:

“Selfless concern for the welfare of others.”

However, it has also been said that all men do exactly what they want, according to the strongest inclination of their will at any given moment.

I do not think anyone here would even try to refute the idea that man is a selfish being at his very core. It seems to me that no human is truly capable of performing a completely altruistic act.

Unless someone is literally dragging you with their hands, no one is really capable of making you do something that you truly do not want to do. A mother cannot force her child to attend school against his wishes. At best, she can motivate him to attend school by presenting to him the consequences that would occur should he choose to do otherwise. At the end of the day, the child may not particularly desire to attend school, but in comparison with the alternative (most likely, parental discipline), the child dislikes the former choice the least. Either way, he is still making his own decision.

The same concept seems to explain how all humans work – both adult and child, alike. Work is not a particularly enjoyable way to spend one’s day, but it is the only practical means by which an object of even greater desire can be achieved: the obtaining of money.

I feel that it would be accurate to say that we will always do what we think is going to bring us the most pleasure for the least amount of risk. We may intellectually know that smoking can cause long-term health problems, but it is nonetheless much more gratifying to smoke a cigarette now, and “deal with the health issues later.”

In some cases, what we think will be most pleasurable also happens to be what is “best” for us in the long run.

So, with this in mind, is any person capable of doing something out of complete selfless-ness? If I find a wallet full of cash lying on the sidewalk, and choose to return it to its owner, am I not still doing so for the sole purpose of the satisfaction that I will receive when I see the owner’s face light up? Or, at the very least, am I not still returning the wallet for the “good feeling” that is experienced when I feel that I have “done what was right”?

So, in a sense, I am still only returning the wallet for my own sake. The owner may actually be the larger beneficiary of the act, but either way, it was my own interests that prompted me to return the wallet in the first place.

Is man unable to separate himself from his innate selfishness? What are your thoughts or comments on altruism? Is it possible for anyone to ever do anything that is completely altruistic? :slight_smile:

Or am I just rambling on like a deluded college student here? :confused:

2

You can’t be the person, hence, complete selflessness is an impossibility, but you can to your best extent help them & it doesn’t have to result in personal gratification.

3

No, it is not possible for anyone to ever do anything that is truly and completely altruistic due to psychological makeup of the mind. Man is psychologically egoistical, meaning that he will do everything in order to bring pleasure or benefit himself. This is reinforced by the understanding that the primary drives of the human psyche are individual survival, racial survival, and social interaction (and these notions are further reinforced by biology). Everything we do is based solely off of those drives, and as long as they are satisfied, there is room for helping others.

Those who seem to transcend these drives on a literal level do not do so on a metaphorical level. One may get the picture of pious priests or deprived Buddhist monks not fearing for their own lives, but it seems that many get past this with the idea of life after death. The racial survival and social interaction factors are to be interpreted as the mentioned people see fit – racial survival maybe translating into ‘spiritual survival’ and social interaction being solely with God (or nature). Maybe an atheistic scientist comes to mind (pardon for the bad examples). His personal survival may lie through being recognized and having children… but the point is, the psychological drives are not transcending.

Anyways, generally speaking, the supposedly altruistic man develops a philosophy of what is ‘good’ (or receives one from another source), and goes about practicing it for reasons ranging from self-improvement to becoming closer to God. These are both selfish reasons, though another may receive benefit from the actions begotten. For the same reasons one may continue to do well, but after a time, his philosophy of living becomes strongly ingrained, and any deviation from it results in guilt. The reason that this man is willing to give you the shirt off his back in seemingly unbearable conditions is because he will get an annoying nagging feeling if he doesn’t – one that will be sated once his good deed is committed. This reinforces his philosophy and makes him feel good.

So yes, it’s in the feeling. Some people feel good when they have attained material wealth, and others when they have gained spiritual wealth, but both are wealth and are both benefit channels for the ego. There is no altruism, only egoism that comes with our psychological drives.

4

One of my favourite threads on ILP

5

The main problem that most people seem to identify in this thread, as gainsaying the possibility of a truly altruistic action, is the idea of self-fulfillment (i.e., the sense of personal satisfaction at having done something irrevocably “good”.)

However, from a deontological sense, this notion is absurd. It relies on the premise that one is not able to go beyond what is essentially a perception of the moral experience. Obviously, a “good” action is good, regardless of how it affects the actor – whether in a positive way, say, in experiencing satisfaction; or in a negative sense, where, for example, the moral proprietor loses everything.

If one is able to reduce “good” into a societal duty (which most moralities do anyways,) than the idea of altruism becomes quite accessible because it is not dependent on emotional detachment from the activity, but rather, on the dutiful attachment to it. That is to say, if one puts himself above – so to speak – what the action means to him, and instead focuses on what the action means to the greater good of the collective, than an altruistic action has occurred. What matters is the moral action itself, not the personal response to it (in a moral, or altruistic, action the individual is subverted, so lingering on his response is irrational.)