I agree - it’s not even useful claptrap - it’s just a way of redefining a concept so as to make it useless in the real world.
These answers are along the lines of how I was going to respond before I read the thread—and they say it better than I probably would have, which would have been something like: Whether or not altruism exists depends on how you define “altruism”—but any definition under which altruism does not exist is not a useful definition.
I have no problem with the definition of altruism encompassing actions from which the person performing them can expect no material gain to themselves, and which costs them in terms of time and/or effort and/or resources. Feeling good about spending 40 hours a month volunteering at a hospital, animal shelter or museum does not change the fact that you gave up time and effort you could have used enriching yourself in material ways. Feeling good just encourages you to do more of it.
There are selfish and unselfish reasons to do things. If I drop the 15 cents in change in my pocket into the cup of a homeless person and get more than 15 cents worth of satisfaction out of it, out could argue that it was done selfishly. Similarly, if I put myself in harms way for someone I love because I would be greatly grieved if they were harmed, one could make the same sort of argument. But I think it’s sort of a silly way to look at things.
It’s good to do good things, but what matters is motivation. It’s easy to do good thigns when they make us feel good. But would we do the same thing is it felt bad or was otherwise a difficult thing to do? For instance, it’s easy to write a $100 check to charity when I don’t really feel it in my budget or it just means I don’t go out a night or two this month. But what if giving up that $100 meant I’d have to stretch my budget thin by cutting out luxuries like TV, AC, or whatever else is an important luxury to you, and it brought you to a near bare minimum of survival? Or by the same token, it’s relatively easy to put oneself in harms way for a loved one or possibly even to a complete stranger. But what if the person you were saving was someone that you couldn’t stand, treated you like crap, and would probably mock you after saving their life?
My point is, what makes something “truly” altruistic isn’t whether it makes us feel good or not, it’s motivation, in that we’d do it regardless of how it felt simply because we believed it was the right thing to do, and the reward or cost is just part of the personal risk. There’s nothing wrong about feeling good when you do something good either. It might feel a bit guilty if you feel good for doing good, but if that’s wrong, then it means you should avoid doing good when it feels good, which seem contradictory to me.
Sure, we all still have our own motivations, even if we believe those motivations are selfless, but I do think if we have a solid grasp on what we believe is moral and do it without regard for personal consequence, you really can’t get much more altruistic than that.
Once again many of you are missing the point. It is not to define altruism. It’s about the suggestion that there are no truly selfless acts. Arguing about the definition of altruism or any other word I use is pointless. It’s meant to be a semi-philosophical debate, not an English lesson.
Let me rephrase:
Is there any act of sacrifice that cannot be explained by the subject acting in self-interest, even if that self interest is to avoid feelings of guilt that would be felt should he or she not take that action?
Every action voluntarily taken is taken because, on balance, the agent taking the action wanted to, in the sense that they preferred it to all other actions they could have chosen instead. In that sense, every act whatsoever is an act taken in self-interest, of one kind or another. In that sense, there are no truly selfless acts. This is tautology, but it may well be tautology missing the point.
Is there any act of profit that cannot be explained by the subject acting for the overall good of society, even if that good is to promote his own welfare, as he is a part of society?
In neither of the examples I cited, was I acting in my own self interest, nor to avoid feelings of guilt.
So, do tell, do they qualify or not?
Or is it not really about the ‘actual’ motivations of people’s ‘actual’ actions, but about your ‘projected perception’ of what ‘must’ be motivating them?
Disagree. What you’ve summarised here (and what this thread is implicitly predicated on), is this idea of our brains being fundamentally utilitarian.
All possible actions are given some kind of score and all the while we are seeking to maximize our score.
But our psychology is more complex than that. And there often isn’t enough time or information to score different courses of action, so much of what we do is strongly influenced by instinct / dispositions, society, habit etc.
Another mistake (IMO) people make in discussing this issue is the idea that if a benefit of doing an action can be found, then the action is selfish.
So if you save someone’s life, but feel good about it after, then it’s ultimately selfish.
But the thing is, it’s easy to think of benefits and drawbacks for just about any action. What’s important is what actually motivated someone to do an action.
And it’s actually unusual for a human to think “I’m doing this action to feel good later, I’m not sure if it’s sensible now”. It’s just not how we generally think.
I believe that one gets some form of pay off in the performance of good deeds. And if one only sees their own martyrdom in efforts for the sake of others, then they are probably getting a pay off in the currency of knowing how great and strong and giving they are. The best way I have found to deal with this, in my own life, is to always do good deeds in secret, and never, ever speak of it. If others notice I am doing a good deed, I will usually let them know what I am getting out of it for myself.
This is, of course, a little bit of B.S. If someone asks me, I will tell them about my good deeds,
pay off–pride, or maybe some ego glorification. Otherwise I would probably be like a robot.
Take that far enough and we have a situation where the unselfish should all die so that the selfish can live.