Altruism vs Selfishness

[Mescalhead]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin


On a side note, Objectivism has some similarities with Epicurism.

How so? Not to debate philosophy, but I was always under the impression that subjectivism was the rule. And the epicurian believed that the outside world should be percieved as nothing more than an aesthetic phenomenon, or at best, an exercise in personal growth. I thought that reading into life so much as to figure some sort of objectivism is while futile, not necessary in the epicurian outlook, and therefore not even considered.

 

[floppa21]

Your two posts are interesting Aphex Twin.

Mescalhead, my opinion is that self interest is a damn good thing. I find it promotes accountability which is sorely lacking these days. I think my standards are set higher than this majority of people you speak of. I expect more from myself and others, than others exect from themselves and others. (Yes, I am often disappointed and disgusted) I don't think true selflessness exists. Not in you, not in me, not in Jesus Christ, not in Mother Teresa. To use another poster's example from the recent past, as children, we enjoy lording our new toy or popsicle over our friends. We have and they do not. Is this learned at an early age from our parents and then we are re-taught by our parents when they see we are devious selfish little brats? Or is it a part of human makeup and it is genetically instinctual?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

How so? Not to debate philosophy, but I was always under the impression that subjectivism was the rule. And the epicurian believed that the outside world should be percieved as nothing more than an aesthetic phenomenon, or at best, an exercise in personal growth. I thought that reading into life so much as to figure some sort of objectivism is while futile, not necessary in the epicurian outlook, and therefore not even considered.

It is the Epicurean accent on personal pleasure that nears it to Objectivism. Both preach in one form or the other the primate of the self over the others. With Epicurism, it's the primate of personal pleasure over resonsibility. But here the comparison stops. Perhaps a better tangent can be made with modern Satanism (sometimes even caled Selfism - the other word for Objectivism).

 

[FredLC]

Hey. An actually interesting thread. Looks like one of those come up every now and again.

Well, my take can be pretty much resumed to a sentence once I read on a daredevil’s comic book, proving that wisdom can be found even in the most unexpected places.

The hero, daredevil, was in a sort of psychological battle with the devil. Basically, he had a torch of pure fire in his hands, and the Devil was trying to force him to put down that fire and mix it with the arcane flames of hell – quite obviously, a parable as to contaminating his pure soul with the devil’s evil.

Well, daredevil succeeds, and meets his antagonist. In the sequence, he exposes the devil all his weakness, as a single man can defeat his deeds, and as he too was forever bound to the kingdom of the dammed. When the devil, in rage, asks how he managed not to loose the purity of his fire when he have felt anger, rage and violence all work on him, daredevil produced the answer I was referring to. He said:

“Humans are at the same time good and evil. We accept the paradox… and that’s why we are free”.

Well, this is basically the idea I have about the issue.

See, when we are talking about human nature, I ask myself: What exactly is the human nature. What is the distinctive characteristic that separates us from any other animal?

I won’t buy a “soul” as answer, as I am not a religious person, and my path is that of pragmatism and empiric thinking. Than I have to settle with intelligence.

But animals have different degrees of intelligence. And so does humans. Making intelligence the only factor, than, will lead to a long run of difficult issues. I mean, are smart animals more “human-like” than dumb animals, and hence deserving more rights? If a chimpanzee indeed has about as much brains as a one-year-old child, does this make the chimpanzee human, or the child inhuman? And are smart people more “humane” than dumb people?

It is clear to me that intelligence is not the only factor that matters.

Than we have, as suggested on this thread, the “human instincts”. Well, I have to say this, saying that “human instincts” is what makes us human is not something as easy, and as obvious, as people have been holding on here.

Because animals also have their instincts, and many of those aren’t very different from ours. I mean, there are animals, like bees and ants, which lives solely in function of their society, but there are also animals that will, like humans, egoistically defend their share of worldly resources. The difference then is only in how efficient we are, and that does not rely on the instincts themselves, but in our intelligence applied to them.

When we go down to purely our instincts, are we actually being human? I mean, maybe I’m crazy, but for me, that’s the antithesis of being human, that is, to be bound by instinctive pragmatism. Being human is knowing better than that.

Being human, than, in my book, would mean sentiency, particularly in the aspect of possessing awareness. The capacity to mix our instincts that tells us in our guts what we want, and the intelligence that is sufficient to optimize that desire in terms of results.

So, we, evolved from ruthless primates, do carry killer instincts inside of us. We want the best for us, and we are willing to destroy others to get it, and at least in terms of general behavior, there is no denying that this really is an accurate description of ourselves, which reflects in our economy and in our society as a whole.

However, if we indeed evolved from ruthless primates, this means that we are not like them anymore. The very trait that makes us humans allows us to choose differently, and, as I said, to know better. That is the role of philosophy. To bring us the background we need to choose wisely, I’d say humanly, instead of following behavioral presets, like if we were no better than beasts, no more than highly able killing machines.

We are all intelligent by default, and that intelligence is giving us the option to develop wisdom.

Now, as we had to compete with others for millions of year in the everlasting game of survival, that instinct is too deeply rooted in us to be easily cast aside. However, we grow more and more aware that united we prevail, separated we fall, and we are also more and more able to treat the entire planet, the entire human race, as a single tribe.

I, as an optimistic humanist, believe that, as time develops, and as new instincts are grown to deal with this new reality we exist in – one where we are not mindless slaves of our instincts, but the masters of it – we will outgrow the caveman that lives inside us. And that one day, we will truly understand the meaning of coexisting. I have hope that altruism may one day be our natural take, instead of an idealistic struggle that we pursuit in our studies of ethics.

I know that it’s not like that now – I never dispute that, be in the communism X capitalism threads, be in the purely philosophical ones – but than again, I do not accept when people simply state that we are not a generous species. I say that we live in infancy, and we have been egocentric through history, like all children in their childhood, and that we are finally starting to wake up to that.

See, our killer instincts served us well for millions of years. But instincts are dumb, narrow and limited. As we became more complex and able of sophisticated concepts, we are closing in the time to let go the vices of our forefathers and built something new, something better. A society where we will choose not to follow our mundane and outdated urges, and acknowledge the power of unity and communion for something better, greater than our own. For all of us will live better as individuals if humanity as a whole finds a way to work and produce in unisonous.

We aren’t ready for that, none of us. But humanity is young. We have a lot of time ahead of us, and a work in progress that, against common believe, is progressing. A world that has countries joining together and forgetting their differences, a world who has a declaration of human rights, and a mindset that makes, at least to certain degree, to reject the gratuitous harm of others. Those things we take for granted would sound like dreams to the people who lived not so many time ago.

So, Altruism versus Selfishness, Newfangle?

Well, both have their places, as we do not live in the utopia I desire, or in the jungle of our ancestors. I am both selfish and altruistic. I accept the paradox, and that’s why I am free.

Because I choose wisdom.

Regards .

 

[Mescalhead]

Originally posted by floppa21
Your two posts are interesting Aphex Twin.

Mescalhead, my opinion is that self interest is a damn good thing. I find it promotes accountability which is sorely lacking these days. I think my standards are set higher than this majority of people you speak of. I expect more from myself and others, than others exect from themselves and others. (Yes, I am often disappointed and disgusted) I don't think true selflessness exists. Not in you, not in me, not in Jesus Christ, not in Mother Teresa. To use another poster's example from the recent past, as children, we enjoy lording our new toy or popsicle over our friends. We have and they do not. Is this learned at an early age from our parents and then we are re-taught by our parents when they see we are devious selfish little brats? Or is it a part of human makeup and it is genetically instinctual?

But even by posting your opinions on a forum such as this, it shows that you in some way value at least the exchange of ideas, which in and of itself shows a propensity for dependance or to communicate. How easily you can cut this off or what the source of the relationship is with others is immaterial. Like I said, semantics and morals cease to have relevancy when one adopts true selfism. These labels only offer a means to communicate and lead to a swelled head. The human mind doesn't have just one intent for every action. But a metaphysical altruism like you state, could not exist because humans are mortal, feel pain, and are fearful. Under these conditions, absolute altruism is non-existant. But there have been times that I have done things for others that I could not readily explain away to an absolute selfism either. But at the actions' many sources are the physical makeup of a brain that is aware of its own impending death. And one that has evolved out of species that instinctually favor social groups for survival. Because of this I don't consider a fairytale altruism.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Excellently put, Fred. Humans are a ballance of freedom and responsibility, of self interest and selflessness, of instinct and intelect. More and more things prove to be mere approximations of what seem to be opposite principles. It's the fact that theese are approximations, that we are free. The key for hapyness seems to be the "golden middle path" (aureea mediocritas), so praised by the ancients.

 

[cgannon64]

Put others before you. This doesn't mean to an extreme - don't sacrifice a job for someone else, don't miss your rent to give to the poor - but putting others before yourself is a very noble thing to do.

Its also simple. Is it hard to give up your seat on the bus, give change to the homeless, sacrifice free time to help someone out, or give free advice to a friend? Altruism is easy. Serve others before yourself and hope you get the same.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Excellently put, Fred. Humans are a ballance of freedom and responsibility, of self interest and selflessness, of instinct and intelect. More and more things prove to be mere approximations of what seem to be opposite principles. It's the fact that theese are approximations, that we are free. The key for hapyness seems to be the "golden middle path" (aureea mediocritas), so praised by the ancients.

1) I noticed your objectivism comments earlier. Your opinions are your own, but please keep to the subject of the thread. You can attack ideologies elsewhere. Objectivists are not the only ones that agree that self interest is a good thing (like good ol' Floppa).

2) As for the subject at hand, I notice that your posts are nothing but comprimises. I suppose that means that I accept absolutes, where as you do not. They actually remind me very much of modern day quantum physics. I.E. full of uncertainty and probability.

I believe that in any comprimise between right and wrong, wrong is the only thing that can win. You can't comprimise with a robber by giving him some of your stuff. As soon as he receives any amount of unearned value, the wrong has one.

That being said, I believe there can be no comprimise between altruism and selfishness, because altruism IS wrong (because humans can never be altruistic). The only way any amount of altruism can be reached is through force, as people will never go to it naturally.

I will have to use the murderer analogy that so many people hate. Does a murderer have to kill every person to be classified as such, or only one? No comprimises.

Originally posted by cgannon64
Put others before you. This doesn't mean to an extreme - don't sacrifice a job for someone else, don't miss your rent to give to the poor - but putting others before yourself is a very noble thing to do.

Its also simple. Is it hard to give up your seat on the bus, give change to the homeless, sacrifice free time to help someone out, or give free advice to a friend? Altruism is easy. Serve others before yourself and hope you get the same.

Who determines this CG? Who says that this is the way it should be? God? The bible?

My point is, why can't we accept the given of this world and realize that a human is a selfish being? There is mountains of evidence to support this, where there is none to support the opposite.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If someone doesnt want to pay taxes and yet they want to enjoy all the benefits derived from taxation, does that make them selfish?

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
If someone doesnt want to pay taxes and yet they want to enjoy all the benefits derived from taxation, does that make them selfish?

Stupid would be a more adequate description.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by newfangle

Stupid would be a more adequate description.

Ok just checking Altruism is just as strong an instinct as selfishness. Most people would extend their hand to a person hanging from the edge of cliff even it meant they might be pulled over the side themselves. But the day after saving this person, if the rescued person showed up at the heros door and asked him for $20 the hero could just as easily tell him to get lost and get a job. Both reactions would be instinctive and automatic.

 

[Maj]

Originally posted by newfangle
I believe that in any comprimise between right and wrong, wrong is the only thing that can win. You can't comprimise with a robber by giving him some of your stuff. As soon as he receives any amount of unearned value, the wrong has won.

And your safety is spared until the proper authorities can be contacted to give right the possibility to prevail. Short-term loss with a long-term victory at hand.

That being said, I believe there can be no comprimise between altruism and selfishness, because altruism IS wrong (because humans can never be altruistic). The only way any amount of altruism can be reached is through force, as people will never go to it naturally.

What about parenting? There is a great list of mothers and fathers who have risked or sacrificed their lives for the welfare of their children.

My point is, why can't we accept the given of this world and realize that a human is a selfish being? There is mountains of evidence to support this, where there is none to support the opposite.

Are you arguing from the perspective of the cynic (or realist, I admit) when you say humans are selfish, in that even when they commit acts of generousity and caring they are ultimately satisfying a selfish desire (e.g. risking their lives for that of another for a sense of relief and "do-gooding")?

 

[Perfection]

Everything I do is completly in self-interest

 

[Norlamand]

Originally posted by Perfection
Everything I do is completly in self-interest

that is why you are perfect....

 

[cgannon64]

Who determines this CG? Who says that this is the way it should be? God? The bible?

I think if you could somehow poll every human alive, a good majority of us would vote that altruism is a good thing, and selfishness (beyond a basic extent of keeping onself alive, healthy, and educated) at the expense of others is a bad thing.

My point is, why can't we accept the given of this world and realize that a human is a selfish being? There is mountains of evidence to support this, where there is none to support the opposite.

The average person is selfish. The average person also probably does things that most people would consider "bad", and does things to help themselves at the extent of others.

Just because its popular doesn't mean its good. Anyway, picture a world where people helped themselves at the expense of others. The world would be nastier and colder than it is today.

 

[FredLC]

Newfangle:

I entirely disagree with the fatalism on which you perceive that question. I know that humans in general are selfish, but I'll never buy that "that's what you are and forever will be thing". I see room for change, and why not, improvement.

I simply do not accept that fatalism and determinism.

We are more than our primitive instincts, and we will eventually be able to completely overcome them, I hope.

And compromising between right and wrong does not mean a victory of the evil. That will depend on what kind of compromise there is, as there are many degrees tending to both extremes. Well, whatever it is, still, if you look for a world of absolute victories, I wixh you good lucky. However, history have been showing quite clear that gradual changes and parcial victories, accumulated over time, are the real path to sucess.

Anyway, equating altruism and evil does not really sound too convincing. You seen to mistake the mecanics of capitalism with the essence of human nature. And even if the latter is in many levels the source of the first, still, they are quite different things.

Self interest is not or only blessing (or curse, depending how we look at it). there is always one more way to skin a cat, even if its a way we didn't come up with so far.

The behaviorist determinism that you argue simply does not make sense to me.

Regards .

 

[Speedo]

Humans will always be selfish. Look at history- give a man everything, and he'll want more.

 

[Gothmog]

FredLC wrote:

So, we, evolved from ruthless primates, do carry killer instincts inside of us. We want the best for us, and we are willing to destroy others to get it

First may I say, a nice piece of writing FredLC. I agree with your sentiment that we should continually be striving to improve ourselves, and the human condition. However, I do take issue with your statement that our natural instinct is only the killer instinct.

The primates that we evolved from lived and died in tribes and not as loners. We evolved behaviors that facilitated group living. We see altruistic behaviors in many of our primate relatives that still exist. The ruthlessness is mostly reserved for the world around and the group is paramount. There is infighting but only to establish a hierarchy that again improves the groups chances of survival. Even Neanderthals seem to have practiced ceremonial burial, showing their intimacy with other members of their group. Today we see this behavior reflected in the nationalistic fervor that has recently swept the US. People are willing to die for their country, where did that behavior come from? We see it in nepotism and even prejudice. Humans often relate to each other in terms of groups and I believe that level of interaction is part of what makes us human, good and bad. The trick is to acknowledge that we are all one tribe.

Newfangle wrote:

because humans can never be altruistic ..(snip).. as people will never go to it naturally

Again, I disagree. Humans are naturally altruistic and selfish and the two behaviors are not always in conflict. We need groups to survive and it has always been so. One can certainly argue that people who act altruistically are doing it for selfish reasons, as others alluded to here. Motive is nearly impossible to judge, I prefer to judge people by their actions. When a man gives his life to protect his country, you may call it stupid, but I call it instinct.

 

[Maj]

When a man gives his life to protect his country, you may call it stupid, but I call it instinct.

This statement is rather contrary to the literature I've read of soldiers in battlefield situations who commit acts of heroism and altruism. There is rarely the soldier who will risk life and limb for his country when the bullets start whizzing by his head, but there are a great deal of those who fight for the soldier next to them. They develop a strong bond with their fellow compatriots and act in the best interests of the group in dire times. I think there are even a couple of movies which deal with this aspect of war-time fraternity.

Men will risk their lives for those of their 'brothers'; for the common welfare. This is one slice of conflict Hollywood does some justice to.

I'm not really disagreeing with you Gothmog. There are certainly men who enlist in the ranks out of a deep sense of loyalty to their perception of national interests, but when they're out in the mud amidst a hail of bullets and bombs their patriotic fervour goes down the crapper as it is quickly usurped by a strong sense of comradery to ease them through the toughest of times.

Altruism exists. From the most cynical perspective I suppose it does not in any absolute form. Altruism exists relative to a person's selfish desire for the wellbeing of others? Does that make any sense?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Maj

Altruism exists relative to a person's selfish desire for the wellbeing of others? Does that make any sense?

Its all about DNA. Any behavior that increases the chances of our DNA being passed on is favored. First comes our own DNA. We'll willingly go to our certain death if it means saving one of our children. Second comes the DNA of close relatives, and third comes the DNA of members of our own species. If your son, your nephew and a strangers child are drowning in a river, you'll save your child first, then your nephew, then the stranger in that order.
But people will say, "DUH! Of course you'll save your own kid first, you love your kid!" And Id respond, "DUH! Of course you love your kid! If people didnt love their kids more than they love their own lives, the DNA would not be preserved, protected and passed on." Love is one of the tools that DNA uses to ensure that its interests are looked after.