Altruism: True or False?

Question

Why do we do things for other people? Is our motive ever completely free from personal motives? Can a person do something for someone else without having a sense of "a job well done" or "i did the right thing" or "i did what was best" or any other type of self gratification? Even people who seem to "make a sacrifice" may seem to be doing it for the possibility of receiving a reward of some kind or for the gratification that "i did it so they could have what they wanted. Would anyone like to share any thoughts on this?

Answer 1

Ahh, my favorite subject.

True Altruism is EXTREMELY rare.

As you stated, most seemingly altruistic acts are actually selfish, since the person gets some kind of pleasure or satisfaction out of the act.

However, there is evidence that altruism is biological.

There is a species of bacteria in which one member sacrifices itself so that the others can reproduce.

In humans the best example of altruism is a person who dies for others. Without the concept of altruism, how can one explain the action of a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his fellow men?

Answer 2

The word Altruism has mutated over the years. It literally means "other-ism" and stresses that sacrifice towards your brother is just. However, in modern terms, it has come to mean doing something nice for something without a concern for an immediate award.

There are several theories on why Altruism exists. In biology, the term they use is "Reciprocal altruism", basically that means that a person acts altuist towards another with the expectations that the other will return the altruism to them.

Nietzsche was much more cynical in regards to altruism; in Human, all too Human, Aphorism 86 (IIRC) goes as follows:
"Luke 18:14 improved - he who humbleth himself wishes to be [originally reads "shall be"] exalted." In his mind, anyone who commits sacrifice is seeking glory, merely glorification to people who exalt sacrifice, and even if that is not the case, the person who does it to be humble is still doing it because he wants to be a humble person. So in Nietzsche's eyes, altruism is self-lie.

the problem with true altruism is that it has been the clarion cry of tyrants for centuries. Hitler himself praised the virtue of a man who sacrificed himself for the good of the state. The Roman gladiators often saluted the emperor "hail, Caesar, we who are about to die salute you!". It seems that one can no longer call something a good deed when they are forced to do it, and this pertains to altruism as well.

And in a sense, true altruism would be a strange concept to most people. Jumping into a cannibal's pot to give him his dinner would be altruism in its purest form, though few would condone this behavior.

This the lack of altruism in favor of "enlightened self-interest" a bad thing? Well consider how society works. As Adam Smith once noted: "It is not by the benevolence of the butcher, the baker, and the brewer that we recieve our supper, but through their the regards for their own self-worth."

Would you ever get a job where the boss sits down and says this to you:
"You are not valuable to this company, we don't care about your life. You need to sacrifice yourself for the company, at all times, no matter what. Your personal selfish needs are secondary to the selfless needs of all the workers of this company."

Doesn't sound very enticing doesn't it? Or how about getting married to a girl who says this:
"I have no personal affection for you, you do not give me any sort of physical or spiritual gratification, the only reason I am doing this is to make more babies for the good of humanity."
Fri-gid!

There is nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest, wether you are going to start a job that you love, or you have fallen in love with a girl. And in that vein, there is certainly nothing wrong with the modern incarnation of altruism, or doing something nice without a concern for immediate benefit; because sometimes the psychological gratification that comes from helping others is enough reward. Who cares, if everyone is happy in the end?

Answer 3

If we did not feel a sense of "I did the right thing" whenever we acted in an appropriate or helpful manner then it seems unlikely that we would repeat said action. We function on a (subconscious?) system of rewards and punishments. However, just because a person gets a feeling of fulfillment from say, holding a door for an elderly person or picking up and returning a dropped $50.00 bill, does not necessarily make that person's actions inherently selfish. They feel gratification because they acted in a manner which benefited another person, which in turn benefited them mentally and emotionally. People are not as mechanically altruistic as automatic dishwashers. Ideally, we function in a way that promotes our own well being (i.e. "do unto others.")

Answer 4

Glad someone brought up Adam Smith, while the next person brought up the idea of 'grenade scenario'. I fought strenuously with my econ prof on the idea of altruism. His answer to the grenade question was that it was simply a reflex borne of training. Therefore, no altruism was involved. It was just a 'reflex'. The biological imperative that is suggested, I have also heard of. A biological evolutionist was talking about that genetic disposition in relation to evolution/creation debate and stated that religion is likely an evolutionary necessity as much is dancing... the group cohesiveness is required for our species to survive. Likewise is the altruist act; we depend more on the group than the individual and this is hardwired into us.

I guess it comes down to the definition of altruism. I think it is when one decides to perform an act that is against one's best interest in the best interest of others. Knowingly allowing yourself to die for others, whether trained, inbred or just out of deep affection is always an altruistic act in my eyes.

Peace

Answer 5

We are always going to have motives-- whether we like it or not. (Good motives and bad motives)

The human mind is an enigma.

If we think hard enough with affirmations we can change how our minds think-- really a hard task once you stick with one kind of thinking.

So if I wanted to change my motive to help people without anything in return-- I can try my best to think on that road.

Answer 6

without inspiration from God, then yes, i don't think anyone would ever do favors or anything for anyone if it didn't benefit them personally. for some people the only reason they're *good* to other people is because they want to give themselves an immage, a good immage. i wish people wouldn't do that because it's just retarded and fake.

Answer 7

Brownie points. I have no reason to help you. You have no reason to help me. If you want to help me then you are feeling discontentment or dissatisfied about something. If helping someone eradicates that feeling, you are gaining something emotionally from the exchange.

Answer 8

I don't feel particularly gratified trying to help people. I just do it because I want to help. I didn't learn this from any of my relatives or friends. I don't do it for any feeling.

Answer 9

There is no such thing as a totally altruistic act.

Answer 10

Who the hell drank my soda?!!!