I'd like to title this post 'The Goodness of Heart' :D I hope it clears up the problem that I think I see in this thread.
I haven't read the second half of the second page of the thread because I couldn't concentrate on reading anymore, so I apologise in advance for any redundancy.
Oh, also… this has become kind of a long winded rambling post -.-
If it returns any benefit, then it does not meet the definition of altruism
I think the problem of this thread is that people mostly agree about altruism as a cognitive-behavioral phenomenon, but can't find common ground on what exactly the word means.
I think there's basically three definitions flying around here.
- The No-Benefit definition that you mention up there ^, saying that to be altruistic, a deed can't have any benefit for the doer, whether intended/expected or not. (This might be more narrow than you meant it)
- The No-Expectation definition that you quoted from the Wiki, saying that the doer can't expect any benefit - especially in return for the favour they did (but the act having benefit doesn't kill the altruism). I think this is the one definition that most people's posts were talking about; it would explain why some of the replies sound so upset.
- The No-Motivation definition that's basically just a harsh version of the previous two because it already counts having wanted to do the deed as kill of altruism, since you then did the deed (in the expectation that you'd be) fulfilling your want.
This last one is actually kind of what Kant defined as Altruism, and when I first read it I was quite appalled. Kant says, for a deed to be altruistic, you have to do it without any feeling, without even looking at the person you are helping, without acknowledging that anything even happened. Wow, did there ever lack humanity?
The No-Motivation definition denies everything that makes humans non-creepy, lovable little buggers. We see someone in need or someone we love, and it is within us to feel a need or want to do something helpful, caring, kind, gentle, whatever to that person. We want to make them happy. We want to get into a giving state of mind and it leaves us feeling happy and fulfilled as well.
There is beauty in this entirely hedonistic, lust-driven,
also selfish act. And the only problem with it is that the word 'selfish' has so many negative, anti-social connotations that people tend to overlook how much other can benefit from someone selfishly living their Goodness of Heart.
Also maybe, that there is so much value placed on the idea of 'altruism' that people overlook that we never needed it to care for each other and do each other good.
Think of it as being like good sex. If you have it, the person you're having it with is having it also. You can't enjoy it without giving enjoyment; and the other person getting off like crazy makes it even better for you. Does that make good lovers into badly selfish people? Because they get off so much on making other people get off that they keep handing out orgasms just for their own pleasure?
Would it only be honorable sex if you just lay there, kind of bored and thinking of tomorrow's to-do-list while your partner is riding through sexy land on your disengaged body?
Altruism in its most narrow definition (No-Motivation) is pretty creepy and I am glad that it doesn't exist.
The *
No-Expectation* definition, I think is the one definition of altruism that I'd agree with concerning its existence. People do things for others without the expectation of the other doing something for them in return. Humans are able to do this. However - as brat17 pointed out a number of times already - this willingness is not unlimited. As No-Expectation altruists, we need to be surrounded by other altruists in order to be able to sustain our altruism.
Humans have needs of self-care and we need reward in order to keep up a behaviour. The rewards can be small and few and far between but they need to fill our socio-emotional gas tank. Some people have more mileage per reward than others but eventually every lone No-Expectation altruist will run out of fuel, feeling burned out and empty. And especially when one doesn't even seem to cause joy or relief in the objects of their altruism there'll be a sputtering halt.
(loving choices made with no prior thought to or benefits of any value to oneself).
There's a word that had missed the discussion, I think: Loving.
It's a very good example for the problem of the 'No-Motivation'/'No-Benefit' definitions. Love is a strong motivator; it can be painful to not act on it. That makes acts of love very selfish, while at the same time we generally see acts of love as being altruistic and good.
When I do something loving for my husband, I feel my heart rise, I feel joy, seeing him smile makes me smile; it feels as if whatever thing I did for him had been done for me, twice at least. I don't think of myself while preparing something for him, I only think of and anticipate the joy that I will feel because I gave my lover joy.
It is a positive, healthy thing to be able to derive joy from other people's joy. It also makes the giving of joy into a selfish act with mere pro-social side effects.
Okay, I have to insert an example here that's very close to my heart. You all have heard of 'The Phantom of the Opera', right? I mean the original novel by Gaston Leroux. In the end of the story, the Phantom lets the woman he loves go because he realises that she loves that other guy. It's told as a story of self-sacrifice and spontaneous altruism in a severely mentally ill sociopath. But did he really sacrifice something? Sure, he could have forced the woman to stay, but what then? He'd have had a miserable, resentful victim for a wife. Lovely. Letting her go was an act of resignation in view of the fact that he can't have her if she doesn't want to be had by him. Yes, it wasn't even an act of love. But because he did what she wanted while apparently ignoring all that he wanted it is called 'altruistic loving self-sacrifice'. And then he dies of a broken heart, too! He even dies from giving her her freedom. Nope. He dies from her not wanting to f*ck him and he not being into that whole rape thing. Yes, he loves her enough not to want her to be a mere sex slave. How romantic.
Now, in the novel version by Susan Kay the woman would have stayed with the Psycho but he still sends her away. Why? Because he wants her to have a good life with a guy who's not due to die of a heart attack within the next few months. Selfless? It seems so on first glance. On close inspection he's avoiding the bad conscience he'd have for ruining her chances of getting it on with that handsome aristocratic guy. Still kind of selfless, but not quite.
... it seems more likely that it was an instinctual act and not based on rational thought.
The decision is not thought out, but research suggests that in spontaneous acts the brain latches on to the most prominent ideas and motives available at that moment.
It's a thought that I had, too, when we talked about altruism in my philosophy class; that altruism is when you are helpful out of a reflex. It is impossible right now to test the hypothesis that spontaneous, non-deliberated helpful behaviour results from an instict to be helpful that overrides even the instinct of self-preservation. But it's a question that has to be answered in order to stand the discussion on a pair scientific feet.
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.
That's an aspect I hadn't even considered. Species survival. Hah, now I remember, there's even a book about it with the perfect title: 'The Selfish Gene'.
So when we go down on the level where all we are and all we do is just an expressions of our genes, regulated to best fit our environment, there's neither altruism nor selfishness. Because genes aren't capable of thoughts and emotions; they're just big conglomerations of chemicals interacting with other chemicals because that's all that chemicals ever do.
I think brat altruism exists, but there are times it's easy to lose faith in the human race. But it's there (I think).
Why would one need to believe in altruism in order to think good of the human race? Only when altruism is defined as 'doing stuff for others without expecting them to reciprocate'.
It's easy to see this definition of altruism at work. Just ask someone for the time. They'll never demand knowing your phone number just so they can call you some day and ask you for the time in return.
