Altruism, does it exist?

Altruism, does it exist?

I was looking at some random forum and I came across a thread someone had started, stating that altruism does not exist. This is what he/she said…

“It's self preservation because you identify part of your self with your family member. You're effectively preserving who you are. This is why you dehumanize the opponent in war. It makes it much easier for people to destroy them. They can no longer identify themselves with the target of the malice. It's all selfish behavior…self preservation.

Altruism means you identify yourself with other things (like a culture or an ideal or a family). It's certainly a selfish act you just have an idea of yourself that isn't limited to what's under your own skin.”

He/she constructs an interesting point.

Your views…

Yes, or I wouldn't have posted this response. 😉

Originally posted by Mindship
Yes, or I wouldn't have posted this response. 😉

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you did because you thought you were funny. And that people would think you were cool if you said exactly what you did. You failed....doubly so.

altruism exists because it is doubly beneficial to the genes of the individual and of its peers.

😉

Originally posted by inimalist
altruism exists because it is doubly beneficial to the genes of the individual and of its peers.

😉

But it doesn't actually exist. You can always find a selfish reason for why the person behaved a way. Altruism is just our lack of knowledge in a certain situation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But it doesn't actually exist. You can always find a selfish reason for why the person behaved a way. Altruism is just our lack of knowledge in a certain situation.

well, ya, but thats just a reductionist cop-out

altruism is a pretty well defined concept in science. In some very primitive multicellular creatures it has been shown to rely on a single gene.

EDIT: The very reason altruistic behaviour exhists is because it is beneficial to the genes of the organism performing the deed.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, ya, but thats just a reductionist cop-out

altruism is a pretty well defined concept in science. In some very primitive multicellular creatures it has been shown to rely on a single gene.

EDIT: The very reason altruistic behaviour exhists is because it is beneficial to the genes of the organism performing the deed.

How do you define this altruistic behaviour.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you define this altruistic behaviour.

"behaviour done for the benefit for another at the cost of personal reproductive potential."

It gets very difficult in human societies, simply because, in my opinion, we are governed more by the replication of memes than genes (ideas rather than physiology), although our hard wiring predisposes us to certain things.

So yes, in humans, and as a human, it is very easy to attribute selfish motives to anyones behaviour. Ayn Rand is great for this, I am personally enthralled with "The Virtue of Selfishness".

However, I would go further with this. Ayn Rand likes to use the example of a man jumping into water to save his wife. I agree that this is not completely "altruistic" and that the man benefits greatly from having his wife live. However, the motivation to want the wife to live, the motivation to do these socially responsible things that do benefit us in a socially complex society comes from more basic genetic disposition toward altruism, simply because the social benefits that come from it were more conducive to human reproduction.

There is also the fact that our brains are motivation attributing machines. Just because we can conceive of someone benefiting from something, or just because they do benefit from something, it is a logical fallacy to believe that was the cause of it.

Originally posted by inimalist
"behaviour done for the benefit for another at the cost of personal reproductive potential."

It gets very difficult in human societies, simply because, in my opinion, we are governed more by the replication of memes than genes (ideas rather than physiology), although our hard wiring predisposes us to certain things.

So yes, in humans, and as a human, it is very easy to attribute selfish motives to anyones behaviour. Ayn Rand is great for this, I am personally enthralled with "The Virtue of Selfishness".

However, I would go further with this. Ayn Rand likes to use the example of a man jumping into water to save his wife. I agree that this is not completely "altruistic" and that the man benefits greatly from having his wife live. However, the motivation to want the wife to live, the motivation to do these socially responsible things that do benefit us in a socially complex society comes from more basic genetic disposition toward altruism, simply because the social benefits that come from it were more conducive to human reproduction.

There is also the fact that our brains are motivation attributing machines. Just because we can conceive of someone benefiting from something, or just because they do benefit from something, it is a logical fallacy to believe that was the cause of it.

I agree that with that definition it does indeed exists, I doubt that the thread is about this kind of altruism. It is more about the opposite of selfishness....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that with that definition it does indeed exists, I doubt that the thread is about this kind of altruism. It is more about the opposite of selfishness....

Yes, I was talking more about altruism as selfless concern for the welfare of others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you did because you thought you were funny. And that people would think you were cool if you said exactly what you did. You failed....doubly so.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that with that definition it does indeed exists, I doubt that the thread is about this kind of altruism. It is more about the opposite of selfishness....

Originally posted by Hydrono
Yes, I was talking more about altruism as selfless concern for the welfare of others.

ok, I'll go with a Rand example again.

I'd say yes, but it will exist more in things like a son who stops pursuing his education in one field to go to a field that is more appropriate to the family. Or someone who gets into an arranged marriage and just decides to suck it up for their family.

The only reason being that, yes, you can try to define it as their selfish motivation to fulfill family obligations (and I wouldn't argue that that isn't the case sometimes) but to do so would be to accept a definition of "selfish motivation" that incorporates "doing something against one's own wishes".

Its not that we can't see how someone may benefit from the action, but I don't think the fact that someone benefits from something indicates that the cause of their benefit was selfishly motivated.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I'll go with a Rand example again.

I'd say yes, but it will exist more in things like a son who stops pursuing his education in one field to go to a field that is more appropriate to the family. Or someone who gets into an arranged marriage and just decides to suck it up for their family.

The only reason being that, yes, you can try to define it as their selfish motivation to fulfill family obligations (and I wouldn't argue that that isn't the case sometimes) but to do so would be to accept a definition of "selfish motivation" that incorporates "doing something against one's own wishes".

Its not that we can't see how someone may benefit from the action, but I don't think the fact that someone benefits from something indicates that the cause of their benefit was selfishly motivated.

Well, as long as you realize that this also is more just guessing...

I am convinced from my own actions that there really is no altruism, I could think of no way how I would do something that I don't think benefits me in the most...I don't know about other people, of course, but I can see that all their actions at least cause benefit (or what they might think of as benefit to them)...I can't really say whether that is the cause or just a byproduct, so I have to go with what I know, which is that it is the cause in my behaviour.