Such thing as true altruism?

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

Well now I'm feeling ignored.

Either that or my arguments are being dismissed as insubstantial, in which case I would appreciate a clean refutation so that I may correct my foolish behavior.
John, I meant in the context of what AThingForCashmere was saying before, not directed toward anyone else. I want it to be known though at this time, I have a distinct self-interest in getting my post count to 100 so I can view the money and power forum.

 

[JonHecht]

OK... but you still have not answered my objections.

 

[brandall10]

Which ones in particular? I do have to go to the gym though, but I'll check back in in about an hour.

 

[JonHecht]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

Can you justify this in some way that is (theoretically) falsifiable? Or are we taking it as an axiom? If the latter, then we have nothing to talk about and we can simply agree that our foundational assumptions are different, therefore we will come to different conclusions. Edit: Though I must wonder about those who jump in front of an oncoming vehicle to save a stranger.

Originally Posted by JonHecht

Hah, perhaps I'm the selfish one, but I'd rather feel bad about myself for a week or a month and be alive than be dead permanently.

Originally Posted by JonHecht

See, I thought my accusation of you guys begging the question was an argument... In any case, giving a reductio ad absurdum then claiming that the result is counter-intuitive is standard practice in modern ethics. My reductio can be exemplified by cases like Ghandi, Jesus (as a historical figure, if nothing else), MLK, etc. Now perhaps these were flawed individuals who did not always--or even often--act altruistically, but you are claiming that at no point in their lives (nor anyone else's!) did they ever act altruistically. Edit to add to: "In any case, giving a reductio ad absurdum then claiming that the result is counter-intuitive is standard practice in modern ethics." That it is not only standard practice in ethics, but nearly all other fields of philosophy, too. Edit2: For a famous example of the use of intuition in philosophy of mind, cf. Quining Qualia by Dennett in which he rants on and on about "intuition pumps".

Originally Posted by brandall10

Which ones in particular? I do have to go to the gym though, but I'll check back in in about an hour.
Those. Edit: In some, I am responding to particular portions (notably the first quote) and it would be beneficial to click the little blue button to see the context.

 

[AThingForCashmere]

Originally Posted by brandall10

Even when we talk about the heros of the world, are they not in some sense acting to their identity? And for those who lead far from heroic lives but have the off chance heroic transgression, are they not acting in the human spirit, which they do have some self-interest in?
I agree that many or most altruistic acts are motivated by selfishness. But the original claim made is that true selflessness doesn't exist at all, and even a silly example like ants disproves that claim.

As for my first point about parenting, my experience has been that people who make these outrageously ignorant claims about inherent human selfishness have never raised a child, and I don't believe it's coincidental. Try taking a long look into the eyes of a six month-old baby, and you'll be looking at the very personification of absolute selflessness.

 

[ysc]

Originally Posted by AThingForCashmere

As for my first point about parenting, my experience has been that people who make these outrageously ignorant claims about inherent human selfishness have never raised a child, and I don't believe it's coincidental. Try taking a long look into the eyes of a six month-old baby, and you'll be looking at the very personification of absolute selflessness.
I'm not really sure what your point here is, and I'm not knocking having a child which I am sure is a literally life changing experience, but it doesn't have anything to do with altruism. A quick rubbish definition of altruism is an act which has real cost to the individual carrying it out and only benefits another. Also, strictly, the act can't benefit someone you are related to, because that benefits you.

 

[ysc]

@JonHecht: I think the problem is that for every action someone performs that is altruistic it is possible to find a factor that explains the benefit the person performing the action got and why it wasn't truly selfless. Depending on how you define altruism, and between saying that charity, even anonymous charity, is an ego booster, and that altruistic acts might be caused by social conditioning or even genetics (check out reciprocal altruism and tit-for-tat and survival of the nicest type stuff) rather than genuine selflessness almost any altruistic act can be explained away. That does not have to mean that the act itself really was caused by anything except genuine altruism, and that people do not carry out truly altruistic acts you just can't prove it.

 

[JonHecht]

"I think the problem is that for every action someone performs that is altruistic it is possible to find a factor that explains the benefit the person performing the action got and why it wasn't truly selfless."
However we must distinguish between intentionality and final outcome. With regards to altruism, what is important is that the act itself is intended to be selfless. Whether there happens to be a way in which it benefits the individual is irrelevant, as that is not the reason she did it.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by AThingForCashmere

I agree that many or most altruistic acts are motivated by selfishness. But the original claim made is that true selflessness doesn't exist at all, and even a silly example like ants disproves that claim. As for my first point about parenting, my experience has been that people who make these outrageously ignorant claims about inherent human selfishness have never raised a child, and I don't believe it's coincidental. Try taking a long look into the eyes of a six month-old baby, and you'll be looking at the very personification of absolute selflessness.
Hmmm. Is the baby selfless or is the creation of another human selfless, or the love you feel for the child? I am not sure of your point. I have been a caretaker most of my life (less now than formerly), and frequently wrestle with my feelings about raising a child. I am a very deliberate person and though there are so many factors to consider, one that really gets to me is that I am not sure if I want to be a caretaker for another anymore, especially at the depth that at child requires. Opposed to my own argument is the reality that a child 'gives back' in a way that a elderly person with serious dementia cannot. I've never had my expressions of love through caring returned in the way a child can. So I am saying it seems that caring for a child is not, perhaps, entirely selfless. The love one must feel is infinite, of course, but kids give back. You get something back. Does that mean that the love and care given kids is not selfless? No, but I think it would be hard to prove to most anyone because there is a return. That does not mean it is not the case, however. ~ H

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

"I think the problem is that for every action someone performs that is altruistic it is possible to find a factor that explains the benefit the person performing the action got and why it wasn't truly selfless."
However we must distinguish between intentionality and final outcome. With regards to altruism, what is important is that the act itself is intended to be selfless. Whether there happens to be a way in which it benefits the individual is irrelevant, as that is not the reason she did it.

the altruism still provides an ego boost and that can be final outcome in itself, now you cannot say that all these great people that did sefless acts did not to it to feel good about themselves, nor can this be proven, so the existance of a truly altruistic act cannot be confirmed.

 

[JonHecht]

I can also not confirm my physical existence, but I'll believe that anyway.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

I can also not confirm my physical existence, but I'll believe that anyway.

good for you, but even if you accept there are altruism, the ego boost is alos a possible explanation for the actions. whta would you say to a person that says gandhi id it all for the ego boost?

 

[JonHecht]

I would say the same thing that I would say to the person who denies his own existence. The most that I can do in either case is provide cases that would hopefully stir one's intuition. We don't have sufficient epistemic access to anything that we can provide confirmation; hell, there's a reason that our good friend Hume abandoned philosophy to play backgammon. Such massive general skepticism is maybe the best we can hope for, but it really isn't very helpful. The degree of confirmation you are demanding is the same as you ought to demand for physicality, if you are to be consistent. And if that is the case, then we have nothing to talk about, but I wish you good luck with that.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

I would say the same thing that I would say to the person who denies his own existence. The most that I can do in either case is provide cases that would hopefully stir one's intuition. We don't have sufficient epistemic access to anything that we can provide confirmation; hell, there's a reason that our good friend Hume abandoned philosophy to play backgammon. Such massive general skepticism is maybe the best we can hope for, but it really isn't very helpful. The degree of confirmation you are demanding is the same as you ought to demand for physicality, if you are to be consistent. And if that is the case, then we have nothing to talk about, but I wish you good luck with that.
here you go to far, to put being skeptic about human nature and physical existance are nto on the same level. yes one need to assume that ones's sensory perceptions are tuthfull but even than with t hat working assumption mankindhs proven it self to be envious greddy etc. so an alternative exlaination to true altruism is acceptabel without bringin absurdism out of the box.

 

[emptym]

Yes. Many acts that appear selfless are selfish, sure. And many acts have mixed motives. But many are selfless, even self-sacrificial.

I think this is one of those things that must be experienced to be known. And I think those who deny them are influenced by a long strand in our culture that has attempted to deny selfless love or selfless acts. Ultimately, this is caused either by disenchantment with others' acts or an attempt to rationalize one's own acts, at least imo.