Discussions
Is there such a thing as pure altruism?
Posted by Scout • 2/24/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
As the title asks, do you think that pure altruism is possible? I have recently begun doing volunteer work here and there, and the question has been on my mind.
User Comments
-
yes, although in some way we get something out of giving so there is some kind of return.-
That's what inspired my question—the "something" you get out of giving is a reward. It seems impossible to perform an act of good without getting a reward of some sort out of it.
-
The reward can be just knowing that you did something nice, or a smile which is not enough for some people to dedicate hours of time and energy giving. So for me the answer is still yes there is such a thing as pure altruism.
-
-
Pure altruism has been observed in other species such as ants, specifically a worker ant may put itself in harm's way for the greater good of the nest. Similarly, humans often put themselves in a similar position to protect loved ones, take the example of good samaritans who get involved when another person is threatened or being attacked. That is pure altruism. Many also believe Mother Teresa was altruistic because she sacrificed so much for others. I guess you could find a hundred other examples to back up the theory.-
But why do they do it? Everyone has selfish motives, whether they admit to it or not.
-
-
I don't think so. These deeds where a person helps another, even if it means by sacrificing their own life, are done because they think it is the right and good thing to do. Since the deed is done to get this good feeling of rightness, it is inherently selfish and therefore not truly altruistic.
So, my answer is "no." I currently do not think that anyone can be truly altruistic. There is always a selfishness that drives people.-
I am wondering if that selfishness is a subconscious motivator--that while at the moment you are making the sacrifice or performing the good deed, you are not thinking of yourself, but the feeling of satisfaction and maybe even pride at the end acts like an endorphin of sorts and spurs you on.
-
I am trying to figure out what my selfish motive was for all the years of volunteering, beside just feeling good for being there. It doesn't really meet the known criteria for what being selfish is:"concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others"
-
Yes, well that would be a selfish motivater, doing it for the reward of feeling satisfied. So really, they were thinking about themselves to an extent.
I think people think of themselves more then they realize, they do it so often that it's like riding a bike, you don't even think about that you are thinking about yourself.
-
-
I think it speaks to motivation. Just because a reward comes does not mean that the reward is the motivating factor. If you're helping someone simply because that someone needs help, even if you end up feeling good afterwards, the motivation was "because that person needs help." Therefore, you're not doing it for the reward, you're doing it to help someone and I believe that's true altruism.
VG-
Yes, I agree, the motivation for me was never about what I might get out of it.
-
troilee said, "the motivation was because that person needs help."
But what makes you think that it is your duty to help that person? -
I don't know that it's duty inasmuch as I believe people should help each other. Life has become much more difficult and people have become much more unpleasant since everyone became so self-absorbed that they can't see past the ends of their own noses. I believe people *should* help each other. I believe it makes the world a better place.
VG -
I didn't or don't think of it in terms of duty, I just like helping people. Not very complicated really.
-
exactly, you think it is right to help people and you like to do so. Therein is the selfish motivation.
-
So, for you, you believe that anything you think is morally correct is purely selfish?
By that definition, altruism simply doesn't exist *for you* because there is no way any action ever taken can be anything but selfish.
That's a very pessimistic view of life, I think.
VG -
I'm realistic.
-
I don't think of it as a "duty" or as a "right" to help people, I just liking helping people
but it still doesn't fit the definition of what being selfish is. -
You are doing what you like. How is that not selfish?
-
Because it is not about me and what I need. If the occasion arises, I will help or volunteer my time.
-
It is about you. You helping people because YOU like to.
-
What a grim view of the world. -
That is not what I am thinking about at the time I help someone or volunteer my time. So again I don't see where it fits the definition of being selfish.
-
ThriftShopRomantic, What's so grim about it?
-
That any and all kindness is purely done for selfish reasons?
It seems a fairly lonely and distancing viewpoint, that's all. -
I see, I take it you must be looking for something more attractive and comforting? Perhaps even despite it's verity?
-
I believe the verity of it is still up for debate.
-
I'm glad you acknowledge that.
-
-
I would counter your feel-good argument that some people do things because it hurts too much to consider the alternative. For example a man who steps in front of his wife or child in a dangerous situation. I doubt very much there is any feel-good factor involved, instead I think the man might be filled with anguish and this is the only response he has. That's if he even has time to think before stepping up. His selfless act is one of love but his motivation comes from pain.
-
Yes, it is a selfish act to do something to avoid pain. the pain would come from allowing your wife and child to die. If your intentions are to avoid that pain, then that is your selfish motivation.
-
-
No, I disagree, it is not a selfish act, it is a selfless act. Avoiding a life of regret by placing yourself in the position where you are killed is certainly not in the least gratifying. Truly selfish people would step away and not get involved, whereas selfless people put another persons well being first.
-
It is gratifying. The one who kills themself to save their wife and child has determined that it is more gratifying to place themself in the position where they are killed, then to have done nothing and live in pain the rest of their life without thier wife and child. Therefore there is selfish motivation and it is not altruistic.
-
I doubt if the motivating factor (again) is getting out of his own grief. And again, just because something is a side effect of an action (saving his wife and child), that does not mean it's the motivating factor. In this case, to me, the motivating factor is allowing his child to grow up, allowing his wife to survive. It's about the other people, not about himself. Just because (assuming he survives) he doesn't have to live with the grief of that loss, it does not mean the avoidance of that grief is his reason for sacrificing himself.
I think you're confusing outcome with motivation. They're not always the same thing.
VG -
Allowing his wife and child to survive is his motivation? Ok, so why would he be inclined to do so? Becuase he sees value in this and acts on his placement of what he values. He values his wife and child, so to save them because HE values them more then his own life is an act of selfishness.
-
So if someone places value in something, it's because they're selfish?
If the act of sacrificing yourself for someone because you place value on their life is selfish (which makes no sense to me, but I'll suspend that for now), what is your definition of selfless, then? Or is there no such thing? Should it not even be a word because it doesn't actually exist?
Define your terms, because the things you're putting forth as selfish don't fit the standard definition.
VG -
You define your terms and I will tell you if mine are any different.
-
?? Seriously? You're the one who brought this whole thing up and you want to play "I'm not gonna show you mine til you show me yours first!"?
Wow. -
What? I didn't bring it up. Scout did, he posted the question, "Is there such a thing as pure altruism?" And you are the one asking for definitions. So go forth and define... Wow.
-
Ah, so sorry... I suppose I made the assumption that because you were answering every comment in the thread that you'd originated it. I didn't go back and look. My apologies, that was a big mistake on my part.
To the point, though, I'm not the one attaching the labels of "selfish" to things. I'm trying to understand what your definition is because it seems like every action a person takes is defined as selfish by you. So I'd like to know what the parameters of that definition is, if there are any at all (it doesn't seem that there are).
You're the one using the word. I'm only asking you to define it as you're using it.
VG -
Is that a problem, me stating my opinion on the topic? Trying to get a clearer understanding of others views?
Also, how can one have a conversation on altruism without speaking of "selfish" and "selfless" acts!? LOL. Also, I'm sure you are familiar with a dictionary, so if you need a definition please go there. Also, tell me how I am misusing the term "selfish." -
Troilee had adopted a conciliatory tone in her remarks, so I'm not sure why your asking about any problem she might have. -
Problem? What problem? Troilee claimed that I am not using the word "selfish" in it's commonly understood sense. I'm merely asking her to provide an example of where and how I misused it.
-
I do have access to several dictionaries and I appreciate the helpfulness you're displaying.
I think it's admirable to want to understand other people's opinions, if that's actually the case, but people can't understand each other if they define the words they're using differently.
I certainly didn't even intimate that you can have a debate about altruism without using the words "selfish" and "selfless." My issue was when you seemed to use what I would expect to be an acceptable definition of selfless as a definition of selfish.
"to save them because HE values them more then his own life is an act of selfishness."
To me, the act of placing more value on another's life (regardless of whether you save them) is selfless, not selfish. And this led me to believe that we're using entirely different definitions of these words.
If you're not interested in clarifying your position, that's fine.
VG -
"If you're not interested in clarifying your position, that's fine."
-
troilee, I'd be delighted to clarify! Thanks for providing an actual example. It's a great help knowing what it is that needs to be clarified - "to save them because HE values them more then his own life is an act of selfishness."
Now in full context - "Becuase he sees value in this and acts on his placement of what he values. He values his wife and child, so to save them because HE values them more then his own life is an act of selfishness."
His act is based on what HE values, not on somebody elses values. It is his selfish desire to act in accordance to his own values that is the driving force.
If you cannot figure out what my position is by now by looking through this thread, I don't know what will clarify it for you. -
See, and there it is. I don't think that simply acting by one's values is "selfish." It's a semantics issue. So, I decided to take your advice and consult a dictionary or three. The word "selfish":
American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were . . . trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" (Maria Weston Chapman).
2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.
Merriam-Webster:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function ; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication
(I'm pretty sure 3 doesn't apply here at all!
)
Dictionary.com:
1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
I think the commonality among these definitions is the word "only."
In this thread, many people have pointed out that the prime motivator for altruism is the welfare of someone else. Simply by acting in accordance with one's values does not make one selfish if one is not "only" pre-occupied with oneself.
Now, I agree with you that most acts of altruism do have other benefits for the giver. You're absolutely right. However, the receipt of these side benefits do no make the giver selfish, as per the definitions obtained via your suggestion.
I stand by my original comment that true altruism is in the motivation of the giver.
VG -
Here is what I am seeing as a problem with this "only" relationship in the definition - Let's say we always have some selfish motivation to act, well according to these definitions, as long as one cares about the welfare of others at the same time, then it is not selfish, so does that make the act the opposite of selfish, does it makes it ultimately "selfless" or "altruistic?" I don't think so. It seems like a coverup to me.
-
Something that doesn't fit the definition of one word doesn't automatically make it the opposite. I'm not a rich person, but just because I'm not rich, that doesn't mean I'm poor either. By the same token, a person who is not ugly is not necessarily gorgeous, either.
I don't think your logic is sound in this case, if you do think that just because something isn't a selfish act that it's an altruistic act. -
That's precisely my point! Thank you for clarifying and verifying my logic! Just because these so called acts and examples of self sacrifice may not necessarily be completely selfish, that does not make them necessarily completely selfless or altruistic either. Thanks!
-
-
You are misusing the word gratifying, I doubt that anyone would feel pleasure from being killed in place of their loved ones.
www.thefreedictionary.com/gratifying-
The act of avoiding ones own pain is just as selfish.
Also, people who commit suicide, do they think about their families, their wife and children, how they will feel. It is a selfish act. They want to avoid pain of some sort, and find the thought of death more gratifying then living.
-
-
I like the example of a man who risks his life to save his family—it goes to show that at that single moment of extreme need, he reacts nearly out of instinct. He may not be thinking about how empty his life would be without his wife and child but how they must be preserved. The thoughts of loneliness and loss might come after the threat has passed, but they are there all along in the recesses of his brain. As complicated as we are, it's quite possible that selfishness and selflessness go hand in hand.
-
How can one act without ones self?
-
Well said, although in interviews by psychologists and counsellors of heroes who put themselves in the line of fire suggest that even after the fact none can recall any thoughts that led to their actions, they simply acted. What is most interesting though is the person who selflessly acts to protect a stranger. There is no bond, and their life wouldn't be any different if they chose not to act yet they do. It suggests that some people have an instinctive trait of selflessness that transcends any selfishness.
-
What motivated the war hero to put himself in the line of fire to save others? HE valued this action over other possible actions. There is always some selfish motivation when acting on ones own will.
-
So the only time you can act in an unselfish way is if someone forces you?
This conversation gets more and more surreal the more I read.
VG
-
-
morgantj have you nominated yourself head altruistic monitor?-
crpitt, You've offered nothing on the topic. This comment, this accusation, is your first post. You do not even deserve a response.
However, being the gentleman I am I will elaborate with - What kind of constructive conversation would it be if we all just agreed with each other? So, you're welcome. -
So that is a yes or no?
What motivated you to respond to each post? was it the need to put everyone in their place because they have interpreted their actions in a different way than you have? -
Who made you the Judge and Jury? You have offered no view of your own. You come in here questioning my intent, my view because it differs from others so far here, yet at least I have offered my view, where you have not.
-
You seem to have that role already?
Do you really want my view or are you just ready to poke at it? -
If you are reluctant to post your view because you are afraid I can poke holes in it, then that might indicate you may need to reevaluate your view.
-
-
I disagree. I maintain, and you have not convinced me otherwise, that acts of altruism are often selfless and not selfish. A selfish act is the act of a coward, or someone who values their own comfort over others. A selfless act is the complete opposite, putting oneself in a position of discomfort or danger. The luxury of living in a modern society where you are able to consciously dissect your thoughts may easily fool a person into thinking you feel good about being altruistic but the same would not necessarily apply in less developed countries or within the animal kingdom yet altruistic acts still occur there. I believe instinct, raw animal instinct, plays a more important role than you are prepared to credit. A truly selfless altruistic act is more about what is instinctively right or wrong or what is expected of one. There is no motivating factor. To claim that personal motivation is always a factor ignores the fact that altruism exists in species such as ants and bees which are commonly thought to have no individual sentience.
-
Then we agree to disagree.
-
-
My opinions about altruism are formed from years of working with paramedics, police officers, firefighters. I've been at the frontline in dealing with domestic violence, rape, and other unsavoury acts of cruelty, I've seen heroes in action and I've debriefed them, in some cases many times, after the event. I accept that some altruism is conscious, for example Bono working to eliminate poverty or someone giving a younger sibling their last Rolo (chocolate) but I don't accept that altruism is universally based on selfish actions. And I firmly maintain that selflessness is often more instinctive than sub-conscious. As you say, we agree to disagree.
-
What do you think about ones basic instinct of survival?
-
-
crpitt, I'm not sure why the tone turned ugly here. It was going so well with a reasonable discussion and debate, as it should be. I appreciate morgantj's interjections.
-
morgantj, I have the same question—most of us have an innate drive toward self preservation, but that seems to be overtaken by the need to protect when someone sacrifices for another, especially in the case of a stranger as carl has mentioned. Can't wait to hear what you have to say, carl.
-
Yes, I can easily see where one might sacrifice one’s own life for ones offspring as it would be preserving his new and improved genes. As for a stranger, I think it has to do with social and environmental conditioning, where we start to hold values and then act on those values.
You can see here, many people seem to value selflessness over selfishness, and take great pride when they believe their acts are selfless. They see it as more virtuous then selfish acts. They may go so far as to do more deeds that they think are selfless, but if this motivation is for obtaining the virtue of selflessness, then again their motivation is selfish.
-
-
What about a mother who gets up in the middle of the night to feed her baby and change his diaper? It's not because she wants to, but out of total love for her child.-
Does she not love to love her child? Does it not comfort her to to comfort her child? If she doesn't get up, the baby will continue to cry, and she will get no sleep at all.
FYI, I have four children ages, 6 months,4,6,and 7. -
And I had a daughter who had colic for the first year she was born. Trust me...I didn't want to do any of it (for any reason).
You bring up great points, you really do. But I just cannot agree with you. -
That's ok, you don't have to agree with me. Just think about it.
-
-
Do any possibly mixed motives matter if the deed is good and the help real?
-
One would think, but apparently not...
-
Apparently people seem to value selfless acts over selfish ones.
-
I would be extremely cautious about judging what is selfless and what is selfish for a person. I might be able to look at someone from the outside and say something about objective benefits, but getting at them from the inside is another matter.
Also, calling a motivation impure because the person is merely trying to avoid personal pain borders on arrogance so extreme that my head feels like it's going to explode. -
Is selfish motivation any less pure then selfless motivation?
-
Seems to me that people are coming at this from different points of view. You, Morgantj, seem to be interested in philosophy and logical consistency. Others seem to be interested in the morality of helping people. Me, I just accept people for what they are, paradoxical.
Now this is a poor summary, I know. My point is that running around and contradicting everything everyone says will not get you much further unless you take the time to explain where you're coming from in all this.
I would also be interested to hear about the particular example Scout had in mind when she first started this thread. -
Again, if everyone here were in agreement on the subject, then it wouldn't make much for a productive healthy constructive conversation would it? Any opposing views is not an attack on the person, it is healthy criticism and analysis of the view in an attempt to understand and come closer to the truth.
-
Disagreeing is one thing. I have the feeling some of us here are talking past one another.
-
yes, I'm seeing that.
-
-
In my first post I mentioned Mother Teresa who many consider to have been selflessly altruistic. I believe it is possible to be Altruistic for no reward.
-
Yes you did (and i agree with you), and Morgantj's answer was telling. He wrote, "Everyone has selfish motives, whether they admit to it or not." To get beyond these two poles, one would have to get into a discussion of the meaning of selfless, selfish, etc. But I've got to get some work done now.
-
She might get to go to heaven! BONUS!
-
-
I'm sure at some point we have all seen somebody who could use a little help and jumped right in there without second thought or expectation. -
Oh, one other thing, I may disagree with morgantj but its been fun debating this with him
-
Likewise
-
Ditto I think it is good to have ideas challenged and it sure get's one to explore beyond just stating something.
-
I even challenge my own idea's all the time. It's healthy and required to grow.
-
-
My particular example: I have recently found myself working from home and with extra time on my hands. I have plenty of money to live on, and don't need to worry about the future for my kids who are practically grown. So, I have been looking for ways to volunteer my time to causes that interest me—my local food bank is the first on the list at this point. I am not striving to be selfless, really. I just want to see that I don't spend my life chasing money. I found that after two days working at the food bank, I felt great, like I had done my part for my community even though I had done hardly anything at all. Regardless of your motivation to do good for others, there is indeed a reward, if only the satisfaction of doing the good. So, I wanted to know what the rest of you thought about whether people are capable of being completely altruistic.
-
Have we answered your question? Would you care to comment on the discussion as its turned out?
-
I think you all have helped as I sort it out. I think human beings are basically selfish with the ability to act out in unselfish ways, reward or no. As it has been pointed out here, as long as the good is being done, the motivation doesn't matter ultimately.
-
Great question and topic Scout!
-
Scout said: "I think human beings are basically selfish with the ability to act out in unselfish ways, reward or no"
I agree, Scout. Humans are imperfect and motivations can be highly complex. There is a beautiful mystery about "serving" others; we are blessed in giving, in one form or the other.
-
-
I second that!
-
Thanks for the topic, Scout!
-
Now that we are all warmed up...
If you beleive in altruism, when a man murders another, yet claims he did so selflessly. How can you be justified to punish him? After all, according to him he was without himself at the time. How would you be able to prove a selfish motive? Or would you just let him go, and say he and the victim were both victims of altruism.-
Are you talking about killing someone in self defense? I don't know how murder can be classified as a selfless act in any regard. *scratches her head*
-
The murderer really thought that murdering the other person was for that persons own well-being, and the murderer did so without any selfish motives. Is the act any less commendable then say an act where one saves a life without any selfish motives?
-
Regardless of whether the killer thought the victim had to be killed, murder is still against the law. He or she will still go to jail unless there's a defense for what the killer did.
I think this is a case of finding the most unrealistic possibility and trying to portray it as altruism in an attempt to stir things up. -
Have I not already stirred things up? And regardless of what you "think" my intentions are, the example is still there. Didn't you learn from this thread that "ones motivation ultimately doesn't matter" That's what people are saying now. Read above.
So what's so unrealistic and not altruistic about the example?
-
-
I haven't read all the responses because I don't have time, so if this is covered excuse me. I read something not too long ago which attributed Altruism, or people more likely to be altruistic, as actually getting some kind of gratification chemically from the brain, those more altruistic have the chemical those who are not do not. I am going to have to try to dig up that information again.-
That would be great cooper!
-
-
Cooper, interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised. You can practically get a buzz from feeling good about something you've done.
Morgantj, I'm not sure I understand the example. Do you mean in the case where someone murders someone to protect another? That person would be protected under law, wouldn't he/she? -
Oh dang it, who let cooper in to play, now you might have wrecked all my great arguments in this thread
-
morgantj;
I'm am still searchihg for the original article but these are others you may be interested in
--
The Selfless Gene: The Selfless Gene - there are oppsoing viewpoints of course. www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710/generosity-and-evolution
--
Is Being Good Based on Biology? npr news blog:
www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/05/is_being_good_based_on_biology_1.html
---
Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption
www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9581656
---
Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5831/1622
- the study done at NIH and written up in several journals a yuear and a half or so ago I still can't find except the excerpt of the Economist where you still need a subscription to look at it
Can't Buy Me Altruism: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5831/1622
there was a study done at NIH as well over a year and a half ago but I don't have time to look that up right now. -
Altruism creates gratitude and positive feelings which are good for you.-
Positive feelings I can buy, but not gratitude. It is possible to be altruistic towards projects, the environment, animals etc, none of which are likely to show any gratitude whatsoever.
-
If your motive to act is to gain these positive feelings, is the act really altruistic? These are feelings that are good for YOUR well being. And if you want to say that these "positive feelings" are not the motive, then why even mention the benefits unless you want to use them as a motive to act altruistic which would in turn not really be altruistic.
-
-
Right, Morgantij. Pure altruism is pure giving, with no thought of compliments, notariety, or recognition in any form.-
Those are pure words there jack, absolutely pure. LOL.
-
-
Feeling good is part of altruism. You can't say to a mirror, "If you reflect, you are not a mirror"
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
