What is altruism?

[Dante Hicks]

Has anyone got a decent definition of altruism? More specifically, altruistic acts.

What constitutes an altruistic act to you? I realise this is a hackneyed discussion, but I'm aware I don't have any neat distinction.

For those of you not necessarily familiar with the basic arguments :

Traditional Definition : An altruistic act is any act where there is no benefit to be gained from the performer of the act.

Objection : What do we mean by benefit? If we mean material (or objectively measured) benefit, then lots of things don't fit into this. If I pay money to see a movie then I am only gaining potential psychological benefit. If I give money to a homeless man then I am doing so because on some level I will feel better for doing so. Even if this isn't direct (e.g. I'm doing it to ease my guilt or something) then it still seems like self-interest at root. Is it possible to step outside of self-interest?

One of my lecturers voiced the opinion that it's not altruistic if there's a (implied) contract involved, but that seems kinda gay.

[Nodrog]

Saying 'no benefit' is a rather clumsy phrasing, since almost everything you do could be said to have some kind of benefit attached to it. I'd say that an action performed for the sake of others that incurs a 'net long term loss' would be a better definition; ie even though you might gain something minor, youre likely to be worse off in the long term.

To take one specific example of yours (giving to the poor), I would _seriously_ question the claim that most people get an overall psychological benefit out of doing so. For the majority, the emotion most associated with giving to others is not benevolance or love, but guilt and social programming. There might be a slight amount of positive feeling brought about due to the temporary alleviation of guilt, but I dont think that outweighs the many negative psychological effects that a lifetime of living for others would have.

[KaneED]

There is no altruism. This is kind of where my realist views come from from my course.

I'm sure JJ would agree with me while Kate would disagree.

You learn all sorts of things by making assumptions about people, its really good

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by KaneED

There is no altruism. This is kind of where my realist views come from from my course.

You generally have to define your concepts before you can say whether their extension exists or not. If youve managed to find a definition that a priori rules out the possibility of it ever applying to the world, perhaps we should use a more meaningful one?

[Dante Hicks]

'net long term loss' to what though? The Nodrog Life-O-Meter? The Final Score when you die? There's no objective way of measuring these things, surely? That's why any cost/benefit analysis seems to fall down.

I agree that most people who give to others aren't doing so for direct psychological benefit, they're doing it out of some Kantian notion of duty, or direct religious equivalent. But surely the "alleviation of guilt" is a "benefit" albeit a hollow/shallow one.

p.s. I'm not even defending altruistic behaviour, I'm asking whether we can have some kind of rational distinction made.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

'net long term loss' to what though? The Nodrog Life-O-Meter? The Final Score when you die? There's no objective way of measuring these things, surely? That's why any cost/benefit analysis seems to fall down.

A person's life and happiness would seem to be the most reasonable scale on which to assess gains/losses. As to whether there could be 'objectivity', I'd have to say yes. People arent made happy and sad by random things - there are generally objective psychological laws at work.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I agree that most people who give to others aren't doing so for direct psychological benefit, they're doing it out of some Kantian notion of duty, or direct religious equivalent. But surely the "alleviation of guilt" is a "benefit" albeit a hollow/shallow one.
.

Thats why I said its important to consider the net gain/loss, rather than just whether any benefit exists at all. Yeah, the alleviation of guilt is probably a benefit, but I think its outweighed by the losses that are also involved.

If youre going to define words like 'self interest' and 'altruism' in a way that every possible action is covered by the first and none by the second, all your statements using these terms are going to be vacuous.

p.s. I'm not even defending altruistic behaviour, I'm asking whether we can have some kind of rational distinction made.

Yeah I know, I didnt condemn it either.

[Dante Hicks]

About to go to sleep, but very briefly : My main problem with long-term analysis (although I see where you are coming from) is that you're disregarding motive and merely looking at success. If I give up my time and am rewarded for this somehow then my actions (in retrospect) are defined as rational self-interest but if I'm not rewarded then it becomes altruistic.

Or do you mean an act where individuals presume there will be no long term benefits?

The former is fine of course but doesn't seem to fit with traditional notions of altruism/self-interest. You're basically making altruism a synonym for irrational self-harm or something like that. I'm fine with any definition tbh, so long as it's relatively clear and defensible.

[KaneED]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You generally have to define your concepts before you can say whether their extension exists or not. If youve managed to find a definition that a priori rules out the possibility of it ever applying to the world, perhaps we should use a more meaningful one?

Oh **** off.

[Deciduous]

I would imagine it lies in the intent of the doer.

[1-X]

i'd say it's anything done unselfishly to benefit another, where personal gain isn't the primary motivation.

Obtaining a reward as a consequence doesn't make the original action any less altruistic; nor does there have to be any real loss.

eg. old lady walking ahead of you drops her purse. You pick it up and hand it back. That's an altruistic act because you're doing it with the old woman's interests at heart. There is no long-term net loss because it's only taken 5 seconds of your life, and if she said "thanks sonny, here's a fiver for being honest", that doesn't cancel out the altruism as potential reward wasn't the motivator.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

About to go to sleep, but very briefly : My main problem with long-term analysis (although I see where you are coming from) is that you're disregarding motive and merely looking at success. If I give up my time and am rewarded for this somehow then my actions (in retrospect) are defined as rational self-interest but if I'm not rewarded then it becomes altruistic.

Or do you mean an act where individuals presume there will be no long term benefits?

The former is fine of course but doesn't seem to fit with traditional notions of altruism/self-interest. You're basically making altruism a synonym for irrational self-harm or something like that. I'm fine with any definition tbh, so long as it's relatively clear and defensible.

The motive 90% of people have for 90% of their actions is because theyve been told that its the proper thing to do. Obviously everyone (bar a small minority) thinks what they are doing is going to be beneficial for them, so in this sense you could say that all actions are self-interested. I think im going to appeal to a distinction between rational self-interest (ie long term overall benefit) and momentary self-interest ("it seemed like the right thing to do!") to clarify what I mean.

edit: just to clarify, I'm not appealing to some kind of consequentialism. If a person carries out an action believing that its beneficial to his long term happiness then I'd say it was self-intersted, even if he is mistaken.

[Sandsnake]

If psychological benefit is a negating fact, then there is no altruism.

Otherwise, it would be any act done out of compassion for another rather than any expectation of benefit.

[JonnyBGood]

Altruism is the sacrifice of material* (or potential material) goods for a material benefit that directly applies to someone who is not the giver, and without a benefit that does directly apply to the giver.


I'd phrase it using symbols for humour purposes but it's late and that'd be gay and pretentious.



*I'm unsure if there's a psychological area to this but I'm fairly sure it's covered under the idea of potential material goods. I don't think something giving a psychological benefit to someone else would be called altruistic.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

If psychological benefit is a negating fact, then there is no altruism.

Otherwise, it would be any act done out of compassion for another rather than any expectation of benefit.

Would giving to charity be an act of altruism then? You arent doing it out of compassion for any individual in particular, and in most cases you have no idea what specific person has benefitted from your money, nor what tangible use to which your money has been put (Im not buying any of this "I have compassion for the entire human race!" nonsense either). I think youd have a hard time claiming that the reason that most people give to charity is 'compassion' rather than social expectations/guilt/habit/pleasureable feelings/whatever.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Altruism is the sacrifice of material* (or potential material) goods for a benefit that directly applies to someone who is not the giver, and without a benefit that does directly apply to the giver. Rite?

If you limit it to material goods, then working in a soup kitchen wouldnt be altruistic. Id say 'sacrificing anything you value for the sake of another' seems to work better, since that allows you to include things like time/relationships/whatever.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If you limit it to material goods, then working in a soup kitchen wouldnt be altruistic. Id say sacrificing any value for the sake of another seems to work better, since that allows you to include things like time/relationships/whatever.

I think I included that under the idea of potential material goods. Obviously if you weren't sacrificing your time working in a soup kitchen you would be able to produce material goods for your own benefit elsewhere. Essentially you're redirecting your ability to produce material goods to aid others, or giving them material goods which you already own.



Edit: My last word there made me think of a problem. Would the giving of goods belonging to others be an altruistic act? Obviously first you'd have to steal but would the isolated act of donation still be altruistic?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If you limit it to material goods, then working in a soup kitchen wouldnt be altruistic. Id say 'sacrificing anything you value for the sake of another' seems to work better, since that allows you to include things like time/relationships/whatever.

actually, that probably works better, as most recognized altruistic deeds involved the performer being negatively affected in some way, whether it be in money, time, property, or health.

*edit* as for the charity thing, giving to charity for reasons of reputation/social pressure would fall under "deriving personal benefit"

[Nodrog]

If I had planned to spend an evening having dinner with my girlfriend but suddenly decided that I felt guilty about poor people existing so elected to cancel and spend my night in a soup kitchen instead, I'd class that as being altruistic even though theres no material goods involved.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I had planned to spend an evening having dinner with my girlfriend but suddenly decided that I felt guilty about poor people existing so elected to cancel and spend my night in a soup kitchen instead, I'd class that as being altruistic even though theres no material goods involved.

I still think you'd be sacrificing the potential to create material goods. There's probably some degree of confusion here over actualisation (good god but there's a word I never wanted to use) versus potential. On reflection it'd probably be better to phrase it your way though. Far less confusing in my opinion.





PS Like you ever had a girlfriend.

[Deepflow]

jenny doesnt count btw...

anyway, i like to think im altruistic, but its all probably just to make me feel less internally guilty for being a sadist.

im ****ed up me!

[Entium]

Don't you know what 'egoism' is?

Altruism is the opposite. Durkheim's 'altrusitic suicide' is an example.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Entium

Don't you know what 'egoism' is?

the opposite of altruism?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Altruism is the sacrifice of material* (or potential material) goods for a material benefit that directly applies to someone who is not the giver, and without a benefit that does directly apply to the giver.

As others have said, I think you need to include the concept of psychological benefit for any of this to make sense.

If I go to a cinema then I am losing material goods (money) and benefiting others (the cinema owner, the staff, etc) - yet it'd be ludicrous to consider this "altruistic" (in the majority of contexts).

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Obviously everyone (bar a small minority) thinks what they are doing is going to be beneficial for them[...]If a person carries out an action believing that its beneficial to his long term happiness then I'd say it was self-intersted, even if he is mistaken.

Isn't there some tension in this though?

I kind of like the momentary vs long-term distinction, but surely that could apply to lots of things.

[MrL_JaKiri]

All these arguments basically come down to which level of repurcussion you're going to accept as directly resultant. Nothing can possibly be an altruistic act (except maybe helping someone you've never met, and are definitely never going to meet again or have no extenuous contact with) over the long term, because every act has unpredictable possible gains; however, if you're defining altruism as an act with no defined gains, then surely (say) buying a lottery ticket would be an altruistic act (which it is, sort of, in a 'haha stupid people' kind of way) because there is no definite positive to the purchaser. So then, do we make it unpredictable over a long time period? For every specific possible definition of 'altruism' under the constraints defined above, there exists a counterexample, simply because people tend to plan for contingencies; of course, if this was not the case, either by fact or by decided fact, then we can refer to all actions with no positive short term repurcussions (yet either possible or probable long term ones) as altruistic; but (as balance) what of, say, the priest who works in a soup kitchen for the poor simply because it may further his chances, some way along the line, of becoming archbishop of canterbury, or pope? Obviously, this is a simplification, because the internal machinations of the church are not for mortal man to understand, yet contributing factors remain contributing factors.

[pablissimo]

Is an act still altruistic if there is some objective benefit to the doer, even if they aren't aware of it or that they are doing it for that reason? Beyond carrying a donor card I can't think of many acts that can be conclusively argued to be altruistic, I'm tending towards the KaneEd side of things here. Even self-sacrifice has an element of benefit associated with it (for instance running back into a burning building to save your child; it's in your best interests to do so because that child will one day spread your genetic material. Dodgy argument but...) unless the person involved is a total stranger, and even then there might still be a perceived personal benefit (not having to live with the guilt that you might have been able to save that person but didn't) even if it is outweighed by, you know, you being dead and all.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Traditional Definition : An altruistic act is any act where there is no benefit to be gained from the performer of the act.

suicide?

[Dante Hicks]

The alleviation of misery or pain seems to be quite a benefit though.

If I was in constant agony, couldn't walk and was dying of cancer (say), I'd view suicide as containing quite a few benefits.

edit : I should have said in my original definition that "conferring no benefit to the performer, but gives others some benefit". I don't know you well enough to say whether your death would bring other people benefit, although presumably they'll get your new found wealth...

[queball]

Altruism is more about character rather than actions. If you start with an altrustic action being one with no economic reward, you can't accept the usual definition of value as revealed choice, where whatever people choose to do is a reward. Alruism lies in adjusting your priorities to increase efficiency by foregoing payment you would have otherwise valued. Its like politeness - you could demand you get paid somehow for every door you hold open, but its far simpler just to have smiles. That someone has a polite disposition does not mean they're not "really" polite.

Or in other words, psychological benefit is a bit circular. It's not like we're referring to a little man sitting inside our brain trying to trigger serotonin. Well, you could go down that road, but you'd probably get infinite regress and problems about free will and stuff.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Or in other words, psychological benefit is a bit circular. It's not like we're referring to a little man sitting inside our brain trying to trigger serotonin. Well, you could go down that road, but you'd probably get infinite regress and problems about free will and stuff.

Yeah that was my feeling too (my I've discussed my views on free-will anyway).

I sort of like Nodrog's "long-term happiness" model, where we're sort of defining things in terms of being in-tune with biological imperatives (I suppose) or not. However, that ignores the possibility that there's some sort of dialectic (omg, suxor) at work where social settings are influencing what makes people happy anyway.

But then we can actually ignore altruism / self-interest and just look at the "healthiness" of particular modes of behaviour for particular people. I genuinely do get a good feeling out of doing mild good deeds (holding doors open and such) so I guess it's healthier for me than it is than for someone whose a slave to Judeo-Christian morality or whatever.

[pyirt]

Originally Posted by KaneED

There is no altruism. This is kind of where my realist views come from from my course.

There is no altruism. Even if you don`t get any pay back from someone, you `ll always get pay back from yourself.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

suicide?

You could gain an end to suffering from suicide.

[queball]

There is no change, since at any moment, things are not moving.
This whole sociology thing seems silly. Is it really more scientific to get a nice-sounding definition (like Durkheim), even basing things on Kantian ideals rather than look at what people seem to prefer at any time and what the reactions to problems are? You're not supposed to make value judgements about what's real and what isn't. Would you seriously say Christians are less in touch with biological imperitaves than yourself, in a sociology essay? Christians seem to enjoy their faith plenty. Just not in an MTV way. End spontaneous rant.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Summation of my earlier post for the tl;dr crew:

Whether an act is altruistic or not depends entirely on motivation, and not result, and this is impossible to know and thus, whilst 'Altruism' exists, it's pointless debating either whether any individual or any group of acts count as altruistic or not.

[queball]

It's not pointless debate if it could lead to interesting correlations. And it seems perfectly reasonable to talk of motivation as long as you either stick with being materialistic or being moralistic. Biologists might theorise about group selection, say.

As for planning for contigencies - maybe that doesn't negate altruism. We're making up definitions here.

Someone who gambles at a game where he loses on average can still be better off on his utility curve. You have to assume that one pound = one unit of utility/goodness to say that buying a lottery ticket is definitely a net loss. That comes back to subjective value, but it's not just academic - buying a lottery ticket is not much different from buying insurance, say, before you consider things like risk aversity. But perhaps a scientist can impose some formalisation of "reasonable" and "healthy" ideas about risks and see how the natural order of things are perverted by evil ideas like altruism.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Well, you can easily define a definite section of A', but all that does is reduce the possible A, rather than define it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Would you seriously say Christians are less in touch with biological imperitaves than yourself, in a sociology essay? Christians seem to enjoy their faith plenty. Just not in an MTV way. End spontaneous rant.

Depends what kind of Christians. Generalisations are kind of stupid, especially over a billion odd people of different nationalities, classes, race, etc, etc.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As others have said, I think you need to include the concept of psychological benefit for any of this to make sense.

If I go to a cinema then I am losing material goods (money) and benefiting others (the cinema owner, the staff, etc) - yet it'd be ludicrous to consider this "altruistic" (in the majority of contexts).

That was the point of my definition. The benefit in that case directly applies to you. You pay for something and you get to see a film. It's a subtle distinction between primary and secondary results but I think it's a valid one.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Depends what kind of Christians. Generalisations are kind of stupid, especially over a billion odd people of different nationalities, classes, race, etc, etc.

But why would you ever talk about imperatives? I thought the wertfrei thing was important to your kind.

How is this sort of thing generally done, anyway? Can we take into account popular morality and so on?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That was the point of my definition. The benefit in that case directly applies to you. You pay for something and you get to see a film. It's a subtle distinction between primary and secondary results but I think it's a valid one.

What benefit? How is it different from enjoying the smile of a homeless man you've given money too, etc. Your original comment related to material benefits. Seeing a movie confers no material benefits (and neither do half a dozen other transactions you could name) and yet are non-transactional.

Ultimately the difference would seem to be the primary motivation (not results) as others have noted.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What benefit? How is it different from enjoying the smile of a homeless man you've given money too, etc. Your original comment related to material benefits. Seeing a movie confers no material benefits (and neither do half a dozen other transactions you could name) and yet are non-transactional.

Ultimately the difference would seem to be the primary motivation (not results) as others have noted.

I was going to say it was the purpose which counted but realised I'd be saying the same thing. What a gay subjective definition we have now.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

But why would you ever talk about imperatives?

I think it's reasonable to say that certain behaviours / environments are more likely to be in tune with certain characteristics of humanity. These are largely empirical questions, but I'd guess that a society where no-one was allowed to speak would face more depression / problems of some kind than more free societies. This is basically the fundamental defence of freedoms in general.

A lot of things are more debatable, some people would say faith is more natural than rationalism, or more in-tune with long-term happiness. I can't say, and you'd need staggering amount of empirical data to verify.

I thought the wertfrei thing was important to your kind.

What kind am I? I'm not that much of a subjectivist fan-boy as I've outlined earlier, if that's what you're on about.

How is this sort of thing generally done, anyway? Can we take into account popular morality and so on?

Well, it's an interesting question how much individuals can internalise morality. If a society was significantly racist (for instance) it's possible that a lot of individuals would internalise racist ideas on beauty, etc. The idea of being with someone of a different / wrong race might actually make them unhappy.

[queball]

I just mean your sociologist hat, I assume that's the subject your lecturer was teaching.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

I just mean your sociologist hat, I assume that's the subject your lecturer was teaching.

No, this was infinitely more boring. The topic was Social Policy, we were discussing a paper by Julian LeGrande where he comments on whether civil servants were altruists or self-interested ("knights" or "knaves" as he terms it).

[pablissimo]

Why does an altruistic act have to be an absolute? Can't you have an act with altruistic tendencies? Like giving blood for instance, or picking up something someone in front of you just dropped, or holding a door open for someone.

[Nodrog]

I've actually changed my mind and now I'd say it makes more sense to regard altruism as an abstract belief system (ie one that holds the principle that its morally good for a person to live for others and to make the happyness of others a significant part of his motivation system), and an altruistic act would be one carried out a person who believes in this principle. I'd say the key defining element of an altruistic act that I wasnt quite able to put my finger on before is that the person carrying it out _must_ believe that performing an act that doesnt benefit himself somehow makes him a 'morally better person'. If I buy a present for a child simply because I derive pleasure from the happiness they show in their reaction, this is not altruistic. If I go out of my way to perform a beneficial action for someone I love purely because I value them and want them to be happy, this is not altruistic. If I give to charity because I believe that giving to charity is a 'moral duty' and that I would be a bad person did I not do so, this is altruistic. If I pursue a career as a social worker because because I feel I have a duty to help others, this is altruistic.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by idimmu

i dont believe it is possible to act altruistically

Blood donation, and writing a will could be perceived to be altruistic acts but both could be argued against (you're not gaining yourself from writing a will, only the beneficiaries are but since you're assuring their long-term financial stability you would derive a sense of satisfaction... blood donation's harder) it'd be impossible to say absolutely that they were.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I pursue a career as a social worker because because I feel I have a duty to help others, this is altruistic.

As I said before, doesn't this depend on to what extent an individual "internalises" the moral system of the society they occupy. Surely it's possible to internalise duty to the point where it becomes your "true" desire?

The way I see it there is four types of motivation for any particular action : coercion, material incentive, internal motivation or social censure/pressure. Primitive or violent societies promote particular types of behaviour through coercion (e.g. join the army or be shot through the lungs).

Ultimately we should want all individuals to be acting out of internal motivation mainly I guess (i.e. no need for coercion) but it's quite possible to be coerced/bribed/pressured into a type of behaviour for so long it becomes "natural".

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Blood donation

There's lots of way this could be self-interest, or at least representating a particular kind of interest. In London there are lots of posters encouraging black people to become organ donors basically to help out the brothers.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As I said before, doesn't this depend on to what extent an individual "internalises" the moral system of the society they occupy. Surely it's possible to internalise duty to the point where it becomes your "true" desire? [/b]

I dont that matters for the definition of altruism. Whether its internalised or not, an action performed out of a perceived duty to sacrifice things you value for others would be altruistic.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The way I see it there is four types of motivation for any particular action : coercion, material incentive, internal motivation or social censure/pressure. Primitive or violent societies promote particular types of behaviour through coercion (e.g. join the army or be shot through the lungs).

I'd prefer a 2 category split here, ie willed actions versus determined ones. Altruistic actions would come under socially determined. I honestly dont understand why it matters whether your socially accepted principles are 'consciously' or 'subconsciously 'held.

[pablissimo]

I was unaware of this. However for your average person, carrying a donor card has no personal benefits. Of course, you can still argue that there is a psychological benefit of knowing your organs may help someone after you die, but since we can't quantify or even verify this it makes the entire notion of altruism itself defunct in a way.