Does Altruism Exist

[ericaboo]

Sometimes I have run into a mentality with people where it's like - if one person gets something, then it takes something away from someone else - as if there is only so many "chips" or "points" and once they're used up there's nothing left. This is a nihilistic, sad point of view.

I disagree with this. I don't think altruism is a "zero sum game." You can do something that benefits yourself and someone else and nothing is necessarily lost in the process. In fact - when two people come together and they both benefit from it, a lot of times the overall gain is greater than what one or the other person could have done for the other. Also known as "synergy."

I don't know if there is such a thing as being able to give without getting something back - we are social creatures - we are a group... (as isolated as I may feel at this moment)

I suppose there is a difference between people's values - there's the rub... if you don't value the group, why would you give to it unless you would be receiving something of greater worth in return. At that point, your social interaction is the equivalent of being a merchant. There is no shared sense of accomplishment or feeling that there is a greater good or that if one person loses, we all lose...

 

[mamachick]

I know that mentality, its very competitive.
freakofnurture defined this so well for such a short post considering the real meaning of altruism.

I think of it kind of like Maslows Hierarchy of Needs-we all strive for self actualization but dont really achieve it. Its just part of humaness. To use the word altruism and benefit it the same sentence seems like an oxy-moron. By definition, there must be no kind of benefit to the giver-ever, with or without consciousness or intent or even hope, or even through beliefs or expectations. That means that if it feeds our self esteem, it is a benefit. If we do it for synergy, it would also benefit ourselves.

I find this so very interesting because religions promote this as a moral value, therefore, as a society we praise those who give, as individuals, we attempt to achieve this unachievable concept, and I think as a consequence, people in fear of feeling or being viewed as selfish protect against asking for what they need or want much of the time. Often people will feel shortchanged in relationships, that they do or give more, yet still say they are altruistic.

I think one of the simpliest forms of examining this is within the couples relationship. If a partner does absolutely nothing for you, does not work, clean, cook, care for kids, praise you, no sex, etc, how long will you stay? When people are together, they bring different things to the relationship, but the other person has something that they want-love, but what does that mean, as individuals describe love differently. Some husbands show love by financial success, others by remodeling the house, others by pampering wife with a back rub and dinner. Often it is when relationships split up that partners will verbally describe the inequity in giving. What we receive does not have to be tangable or concrete.

I grew up without much self esteem. I was in a marraige that was safe and stable. It allowed me the freedom to explore who I am. I gave a lot to my husband and children and while it may appear that I was not given anything back(and it did make me happy) going to play groups, pta , exercise classes, the gym, and being home room mom etc made me feel part of the world, gave me purpose, and ultimately helped my self esteem, it put me in contact with other people (who participated in a relationship with me of give and take) which led to going back to college, which led to a good job, etc. So weather the dance moms always bring their problems to you to listen to or the pta always comes to you to organize the school carnival, in accepting these roles, there is an unspoken feeling of accomplishment that comes with such tasks even if we do not consciousely set out to serve ourselves.

 

[goingonhope]

Does Altruism Exist

I am just wondering what others think about this and how it effects your beliefs in general.

Oops, I thought you were asking what people thought. I didn't understand that this was a continuation of that other debate and that perhaps what each thinks isn't good enough.

Oh' and how does altruism effect my beliefs in general.

Well, when I was, perhaps still sometimes who knows right now, both the receiver and the giver, well then I really wanted to live. Then take such gift and/or witness to, and memory of such examples away and do so for too long, then all I want to do is die.

Ya humans are beasts, but they can be far more then just this.

 

[jibber]

I think the most common argument for refuting altruism is that no matter what the action, a person may reap some benefits, be it through an increase in self esteem, a feeling of importance, or any of the other results that have already been mentioned. My problem with this argument is that while a person may benefit from helping others, it's very difficult to label the result as being he motive.

Many people have argued that a seemingly selfless act may come from a desire to strengthen ones beliefs or build up their self esteem. While that may be the end result after the act is done, I find it hard to believe that we can so easily guess what a persons motives may be. Especially in cases where a person gives their life to save others, I can't imagine that the person even had time to formulate any sort of justification or motivation to act, and to me it seems more likely that it was an instinctual act and not based on rational thought.

In order to decide whether or not an action was truly altruistic, we have to understand the motives, and not the results, which I believe is much more difficult than people make it out to be.

 

[Deleted member 12723]

Thank you Jibber for clarifying that one on a person's motives. I tend to shy away from speculation and assuming when I'm thinking about it. No one can know another's motives for what they do and I agree that a person who would die saving others is just acting on a impulse and not thinking about it.

To know one's own motives for anything is awareness and I am for that; I hope this makes sense.

To focus on the results is like keeping score and then that is a whole other ballgame. The hidden agenda, which if we are not aware of can create some crazymaking and high drama situations. Oh I hope I am making sense. Thanks again. I needed to hear this.

 

[mamachick]

goingonhope-I sure do not think that humans are beast and didnt mean to touch a nerve with you. The topic actually get off an another thread and it was appropriately moved.

I guess my point was this-I use to be more idealistic and believe in altruism. When I was first married, I tended to take a lot of responsibility for the relationship-maybe too much. I tend t be a nurturer and want others to feel good so I would do those little things like put a note in my husband lunch just to say "I love you". After years of no reciprocation, little by little I did less. One day in a mild arguement, he mentioned how he missed this. I asked if he knew what my favorite ice cream is, or what I would order at a cafe. He did not. Had he ever thought of surprising me with something. It never occurred to him. He really just thought that I was happy giving all the time-and I love giving, making others feel good, praising them when warranted, etc. But it is human to feel empty when you never get those small gestures back.

We have an aunt that always sent my daughter a little cash at christmas. I raised my girls to always send out thank you cares. When they were about 15 and 16, I provided the cards but left it up to them. One year they did not send the aunt a thank you and she complained to my mother in law and said she would no longer be sending them gifts. I was in agreement with her. They had been taught the manners, it was now up to them. Its as if there are these unspoken rules in many situations. There are expectation, at least in my situations and what I have observed in others.

These are both examples of where giving for the sake of the internal reward of feeling good about it was not quite enough. It just feels more honest to me when we can admit that when doing a seemingly unselfish act produces hurt feelings in something not being returned (like taking grandma to errands and all she does is yell at ya) we are inclined as humans to not want to do those things anymore.

I guess I am thinking that if you are really altruistic without needing anything back, it would not change your desire to live or die. I have personally found that when we can identify our expectations and even share, we are inclined to be less disappointed in the end. So our belief is that people are human, and driven by the pleasure principal, and when we no longer get pleasure from an action, we tend to stop the action. It is not selfish to want to be acknowledged for our good deeds. We need those good feelings to have a healthy view of ourselves and good self esteem, so its more a sense of what takes us from survivor to being a thriver.

I have also noticed that many of us who have not been treated well in life expect nothing back on any conscious level and it may be the hardest to confront that maybe it is just the way human beings are. Again, I am not saying that we do not do things just because we care about people, yet caring about people is a good quality, and we know that within ourselves, and at the end of the day, we can acknowledge we did a good thing-and that makes us feel good-so we have benefitted.

 

[jibber]

Brat, I think you make some very good points about acknowledging the human reaction of being hurt when our good deeds go unnoticed. However, altruism is simply defined as an unselfish concern for the well being of others, so it depends on how far you stretch your definition of unselfish.

The way I see it, asserting that altruism does not exist is by extension saying that there are no unselfish acts, which is something that I simply do not believe. A person may give time, effort, hep or support to another with no other wish other than attempting to help. What happens afterwards really doesn't matter in regards to this discussion. If the act does help, and the you feel good from witnessing your friend's suffering lessen, then that does not change your original motive in the slightest.

Conversely, if it does not help and it pains you, or if it does help and you get no recognition, the fact that it did not gratify your feelings still makes no difference as it may not have had anything to do with your original motives.

 

[Tinyflame]

Yes brat, I believe it does. :inlove:

 

[Meadowsweet]

I'm a mother and I feel strongly about being a 'good' mother.

I take care of my childrens physical needs and surroundings. I don't get anything from doing that, it gets done because it needs doing, and theres plenty I don't feel great about doing.

I put my own emotional needs second to theirs. I smile and sing happy songs and say the right things for them, when I feel like going back to bed and crying. But I put off my crying until I'm alone. It doesn't feel good, but its the role of being a 'good' mother.

I love my children, and I enjoy being with them. But this role of a 'good' mother, means that the eventual outcome of all my good mothering will be that they leave me and become independent. I'll know that I've done a good jub when they do, but personally, emotionally, although I might miss them or worry about them terribly, I wouldn't try to get them back to fullfill my emotional needs, because I would put their needs first (I hope).

Theres alot of definitions about what altrism is in this thread, so I'm not entirely sure.

But what I'm talking about is a feeling of maternal instinct. And I think there are other acts that are instinctual to certain people - like people who see someone in danger and in that instant might put their own life at risk to save them. In that moment, I believe some primeval instinct over-rides thoughts, emotions and the sense of the self as a seperate being.

Those instincual feelings and reactions I guess are animalistic in putting the survival of the species above the needs of the self as an individual. So I guess altrism exists as another word for those instinctual reactions.

 

[mamachick]

meadowsweet I can so relate. My children are all grown now but we never really stop caring for them or worrying about them. They still come back (and bring own children) and we continue the same, singing happy songs in the car while we would prefer to go to be. I know that good mother role well, and feeling depleted at times when they are young and like little birds waiting to be fed. They will leave and become independent, but you will always be close to their hearts and there is a loyalty and obligation (non-intentional) that I think occurs like few other relationship. My own mother was not a good one so I strived to be the best. Yet she needed care and I still gave it. There came a time she could not live on her own. I do not have a big enough heart to have her her but of course put her in a close nursing home and visited and cared for her needs just the same.

 

[mamachick]

sorry I posted accidently

Those instincual feelings and reactions I guess are animalistic in putting the survival of the species above the needs of the self as an individual. So I guess altrism exists as another word for those instinctual reactions.

I think they are primitive and animalistic reactions, and yet animals do not have a conscience and are definitely incapable of altruism. They react for the survival of the species.

 

[mamachick]

WIKI defines alturism- is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional value in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Opposite of selfishness. Altruism can be distinguished from duty or loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focus on a specific individual (ex; God) or a collective (ex; government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (time, energy, possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefit, either direct or indirect, (for instance, from recognition of the giving). Most if not all religions promote altruism as a very important moral value.

This is a really compact definition of altruism. There are many books written on this that go to great lengths to describe in depth and can argue both sides.

In some posts I think others might think that by my belief that you are not altruistic-you are not good and dont do for others without expectations. That is the furthest from what I am saying. After reading too many books, I could not argue a 10 page paper that it existed, I concluded that it did not. I still think humans do things for others without any conscious motivation or expectation of benefit. However, by the time we are old enough to discuss, we have already been influenced by the world that doing good deeds with no benefit is a good thing, that we do get praise, that it helps our esteem, our confidence, provides value to ourselves, etc.

I know this is very controversial and sure is not intended to make anyone feel bad. The topic actually came up on another thread where someone did not see the good in people or in their action within a group. I stated that people can basically still act individualy within a group setting, etc. and somehow it went to altruism-and the discussion was displaced.

It came to remind me of how when I spent time looking for evidence that it existed, I considered everything I saw and did for weeks. When I concluded that altruism at the purest or raw level did not exist, I was first disappointed and then relieved. Everything that happens between people is like an unspoken contract. It does not mean people are not good-they are very good. It just make it feel a bit more honest to me to admit that anything I do, I get something back. Like the statement-we reap what we sew. I found it to be more empowering and provided vision from a different perspective.