There is no agenda attached, it is a faceless inquiry, as in my readings, a well defined philosophical argument of altruism doesn’t seem to be found, so I am wondering if it is a matter of oversight, or blatant cynicism.
Not philosophers in the sense that Nietzsche or Kant are, but I’d say Buddha and Gandhi.
Thanks ci,
But those individuals are necessarily more “faith” based in altruism, than logically centering upon it as an intellectual drive.
The Buddha’s arguments weren’t faith-based. They were based in insight into the illusory nature of identity.
I can’t think of any big-name philosophers who provided a rationale for altruism. This may be because philosophers tend to be egotists. Or it may be because altruism, being part of human nature, was taken as a given.
The rationale for it is easy enough, though: we are a social species whose survival depends on cooperative effort. An impulse to altruism is thus built into our genes by millions of years of evolution, for the best of reasons. It is part of who we are as human beings.
Thanks for the reply Navigator.
From my perspective, I have to reject the Buddha reference, purely from the history of Gautama’s country. He was indoctrinated as a royal, as a husband, as a father, as an individual … into a society that’s very premise of existence is “faith” based.
The second assertion is going to be rejected by opinion and lack of empirical evidence to support genetic altruism. Mainly due to the fact that if it were enforceably a genetic drive, we would be far less likely to stand by idle, as millions across the world are slaughtered and die from the lack of basic life needs. Perhaps a recessive trait, at best.
So, there really isn’t a sophist out there who has attempted to logically dissect altruism?
Curious.
I think that altruism is something like a Graal for modern philosophical speculation, especially that derived from Darwinian evolutionism. Because of the view that engenders evolution, that of individuals acting like rapacious bastards, altruism, especially that pertaining to humans, is carefully put under scrutiny now.
Dawkins addresses the problem at large in his selfish gene book, in an attempt to net some of the opinions bouncing off the walls of science. If I remember correctly altruism is dialectically opposed to selfishness in the race for a stable strategy of evolution. From a scientific view-point, it’s somehow problematic how apparently disinterested altruism has emerged in man - but then again I’m sure it’s not as widespread as to endanger the relevance of Darwinism. 
But he rejected all four of those. Obviously, his faith wasn’t all that strong . . .
Human natural altruism isn’t universal. It applies only to those who are part of our tribe. It CAN become universal, but only if we expand our group-identification to include all mankind, and most people don’t do that, or perhaps are incapable of doing it.
I think the first thing we need to do when we consider altruism is to get rid of Spencher and his “Survival of the Fittest”. Silly notion that doesn’t pan out very well and creates more trouble than it is worth.
From there, it just becomes game theory coupled with Nash equilibrium.
Heck, even dictostelium exhibit disinterested altruism, so it is clearly a selectable trait. If organisms are trying to benefit the group, much more can become accomplished than if they are trying to benefit themselves, possibly at the expense of the group. So, I’d say that altruism is pretty much an outgrowth of collectivism.
Hold the phone mate:
“disinterested altruism” ?
Those are mutually exclusive terms, what kind of definition is that for science or philosophy?
Altruism shows vested interest.
You did it again Xunzi … you lost me.
If I were to sacrifice myself for, say, my cousin that is ‘intererest altruism’ because the survival of a closely-related kinsman, genetically speaking, is pretty damned close to my own survival. For a long time, it was thought that altruism seen in the animal kingdom was exclusively this kind of altruism (with groundhogs being the posterchild for it).
But this didn’t explain why humans seemed (occasionally) willing to sacrifice themselves for a non-related individual. That is ‘disinterested altruism’ and there are now examples of it in several other communal/social species.
You are aware that genetically speaking we are ALL related, with a minimum of appreciable genetic difference?
Caldera volcano, Idaho, 74-80000 years ago ring a bell? Less than 8K hominids left worldwide? Massive reduction in global mammal populations, virtually across the board?
Go ahead Xunzian, you’re the genetic fellow … what is the average difference of mitochondrial DNA in humans globally?
Heck, with the human genome project finished, I don’t even need to talk about mitochondrial DNA differences, I can talk about genomic DNA differences and it is, on average, ~1%.
But it is clearly a significant 1%. If it weren’t, the silly notion of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ on a kinship level never would have occured.
It’s only first and second degree relatives that count, because they have the biggest share of common genes.
The problem with that, X, is that while self-sacrifice for close relatives is biologically sound, it’s not a part of human consciousness. We don’t normally make that calculation. We are altruistic toward those with whom we identify as “us,” and while that is indeed our relatives a disproportionate part of the time, it isn’t always our relatives nor is that where the feeling comes from.
Like most of human behavior, it goes back to precivilized living patterns, for which we evolved and in which we lived for over 100,000 years, MUCH longer than we have lived in civilized patterns. We lived in small bands. Those in the band were “us,” those outside the band were “them.” The band was mostly genetically related. But fairly frequently, someone from another band, or someone temporarily bandless, would be adopted into the band. And such people were often not genetically related to the rest of the band. (This served the genetic purpose of widening the gene pool, of course.)
Being altruistic toward the members of the band, whether or not they are genetically one’s relatives, helps the band survive, and that helps the individual survive and procreate. A band that takes that attitude does better than one that does not, and so is more likely to survive. And thus we are all descended from people that were part of bands that did that. And so we still tend to do that. Natural selection at work.
Now that’s the root of altruism, but as Mastriani suggested, what most people mean by the word is something broader than “us vs. them.” It’s taken to mean charity towards strangers, even towards enemies, towards all mankind without boundaries. That’s not really natural to us, but because we’re a highly intelligent and flexible species, we’re capable of morphing our instinctive altruism to some degree, and applying it where it wouldn’t naturally apply. It’s possible for people to experience some degree of fellow-feeling and “us” identification with a nation, or a religion, or even the earth as a whole, although that’s not what natural altruism involves. Possible – but not very common.
Qualify this please Mucius, I’m not sure I understand?
DNA in hominids isn’t that broad spectrum.
I don’t think evolution is so much an “us vs them” thing, as it is “me vs them”. Or, better yet, “my genes vs theirs”.
It’s not hard to demonstrate by thought experiment that this is incorrect wherever a species lives and survives socially.
Group A: The members support each other and are altruistic toward each other, behaving as if the survival of each member is important to the whole.
Group B: The members behave selfishly, according to the overt pattern “me vs. them,” with the hidden motivation “my genes vs. theirs.”
Group A cooperates for the common good and thrives.
Group B fails to do so and dies out.
Survivors all descend from Group A, reinforcing the traits of altruism.
There is a big chance that close relatives carry the same genes. The offspring receives half of his from one parent and the other half from the other parent. If you have a gene, there is a 50% chance that any of your offspring carries that gene. Also, there is a 50% chance that you and one of your siblings share a same gene, inherited from your parents.
If I remember correctly, there is a ratio that expresses the kinship between two individuals. In the case of parent-child, as in the case of siblings, that ratio is 1/2. The farther your relatives are on your family tree, the smaller the ratio. This means the smaller the chance is that you share the same gene with that relative.
This is to explain parents’ altruism towards their children or other close relatives. In terms of gene economics, it’s advantageous to care for them…
Obw …
Hume as a believer in altruism? No way.