Foo - Does genuine altruism exist?

I say, yes, my best friend asserts that the feeling you get from doing something arbitrarily tagged with the term "good" gets you a "good" feeling, therefore you cannot be truly doing something without any inherent self interest because you are getting something in return. So, does genuine altruism exist?

Yes. I'm not looking for that good feeling when I do something good. I do something good because it is the right thing to do. The good feeling I get is just a perk.

I say, yes, my best friend asserts that the feeling you get from doing something arbitrarily tagged with the term "good" gets you a "good" feeling, therefore you cannot be truly doing something without any inherent self interest because you are getting something in return. So, does genuine altruism exist?

Sure it does, and I be glad to kneecap the contrarian philosopher who comes here to say otherwise, just to prove it's true. :p

I can think of plenty of times when people have done nice things for others simply out of habit, or without even thinking about it.

No.

No.

Hey alanthealan. Would you step over here so I can show you something? :innocent:

No, true honest to goodness altruism does not exist because you can always always attribute it to some perk you are getting directly or indirectly. As my social psych professor says, there is always a reason--even in habitual good deeds, you have learned that in the past, doing good deeds makes you feel good, so you continue to do it. However, that doesn't make any sort of good deed less valuable, IMO. Whatever the motive, prosocial behaviors are to be commended.

*runs away from USAZorro*

I only help little old ladies cross the street if I think they'll put out.

It's impossible to know, but I don't think so. Why did "altruism" survive through evolution? Because humans were more likely to survive and reproduce if other humans were around to help them out.

The problem is that you can come up with any example of an act that you think is altruistic, and someone can come up with an explanation as to why it benefits the person performing the act. For example:


Sure it does, and I be glad to kneecap the contrarian philosopher who comes here to say otherwise, just to prove it's true. :p

I can think of plenty of times when people have done nice things for others simply out of habit, or without even thinking about it.

How did the habit form? Probably because they've done "nice things" in the past and have felt good or been rewarded praise for their acts.

Essentially what you'd have to do is find a person without feelings and see if that person is altruistic without any kind of outside reward. The closest thing you can probably find is a young autistic child, and I doubt such a child is altruistic without an outside reward. But then people would argue that autism provides other explanations for the non-altruism, so this argument can go on forever.

No, true honest to goodness altruism does not exist because you can always always attribute it to some perk you are getting directly or indirectly. As my social psych professor says, there is always a reason--even in habitual good deeds, you have learned that in the past, doing good deeds makes you feel good, so you continue to do it. However, that doesn't make any sort of good deed less valuable, IMO. Whatever the motive, prosocial behaviors are to be commended.

*runs away from USAZorro*

That's a very silly thing to do. I can run faster than you. :lol:

I contend that you can be altruistic without being consciously motivated by any reward - which I believe is the correct criteria for evaluating this.

It's all semantics, i think. you make someone else smile, you smile. you hurt someone else, you hurt.

Love = Love
hate = hate

you can question seemingly altruistic acts, but why fight them when there is so little of them in the world and so much more are needed?

you can question seemingly altruistic acts, but why fight them when there is so little of them in the world and so much more are needed?
For kicks?

For kicks?

yes, or money.

That wasn't very altruistic of either of us:o:(

Unfortunately, those who claim, (however correctly) that there is no true altruism use it as apologetics for extremely heinous things. "I was wrong to dump toxic waste into that river? Well, you got an endorphin high from feeding that homeless person, so I guess neither of us is perfect."

It leads to some very bizarre mental gymnastics on the part of Republicans and Libertarians, as well as just plain dicks, in others words.

In the strictest sense, I agree that there is no pure altruism. There is a something in it for the person who does the seemingly selfless act, even if it is just a fleeting sense of doing the proverbial good deed.

However, I do not think that is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing. I am a great believer in the power of what some have called "enlightened self-interest." It is one the strongest forces - and possibly the single strongest force - for good and for positive change in the world.

Example: The Marshall Plan. It definitely had a significant component of self-interest for the US, as Western Europe falling into total economic collapse would not have been a good thing for us. That does not make it any less of a phenominally generous thing that the US did, something no other major power in the history of the world has ever come close to duplicating. Enlightened self-interest; Western Europe benefitted, we benefitted. Good outcome all the way around. (Well, Stalin may not have agreed, but then I don't care much about the blighted ambition of one of the most vicous, murderous thugs the world has ever seen.)

well put

On of the finest individuals I know used to adopt this stance. I think it was a defense mechanism. It's a bit simplistic. Whatever you do, you do because you wanted to do it so the net motivation when you sum up all the pluses and minuses was to act and therefore it wasn't really altruistic.


Have a kid - altruism can occur without self benefit. More generally, people sacrifice their lives for others and I don't think you can say they were "happy" to do so. A fireman who dies saving someone else isn't devoid of fear, it's just they believe in something bigger than their fear (aka, rational self interest).

In the strictest sense, I agree that there is no pure altruism. There is a something in it for the person who does the seemingly selfless act, even if it is just a fleeting sense of doing the proverbial good deed.

However, I do not think that is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing. I am a great believer in the power of what some have called "enlightened self-interest." It is one the strongest forces - and possibly the single strongest force - for good and for positive change in the world.

Example: The Marshall Plan. It definitely had a significant component of self-interest for the US, as Western Europe falling into total economic collapse would not have been a good thing for us. That does not make it any less of a phenominally generous thing that the US did, something no other major power in the history of the world has ever come close to duplicating. Enlightened self-interest; Western Europe benefitted, we benefitted. Good outcome all the way around. (Well, Stalin may not have agreed, but then I don't care much about the blighted ambition of one of the most vicous, murderous thugs the world has ever seen.)

Lawyer... Philosopher...

Same thing right? :thumb: :p

I'm out camping with the Scouts, and it's cold. I have hand and foot warmers that I'm really appreciating, and I have extras. "Here kid. You want a hand warmer?"

Someone please show me what selfish consideration motivated my action. Don't sprain your neurons going through the mental gymnastics. :lol:

Lawyer... Philosopher...

Same thing right? :thumb: :p

I'm out camping with the Scouts, and it's cold. I have hand and foot warmers that I'm really appreciating, and I have extras. "Here kid. You want a hand warmer?"

Someone please show me what selfish consideration motivated my action. Don't sprain your neurons going through the mental gymnastics. :lol:

For the sake of argument. I'm a dad. Ever have a kid whine on you? hand/foot warmer loss = prempting whining = self interest. You're welcome. :thumb:

For the sake of argument. I'm a dad. Ever have a kid whine on you? hand/foot warmer loss = prempting whining = self interest. You're welcome. :thumb:

Our Scouts weren't whining. There was a nearby cabin available to them too.

I say, yes, my best friend asserts that the feeling you get from doing something arbitrarily tagged with the term "good" gets you a "good" feeling, therefore you cannot be truly doing something without any inherent self interest because you are getting something in return. So, does genuine altruism exist?

If you define it like that, no.

Lawyer... Philosopher...

Same thing right? :thumb: :p

I'm out camping with the Scouts, and it's cold. I have hand and foot warmers that I'm really appreciating, and I have extras. "Here kid. You want a hand warmer?"

Someone please show me what selfish consideration motivated my action. Don't sprain your neurons going through the mental gymnastics. :lol:
I think they would say it hurts you to see them cold and it makes you happy to see them warm. I don't buy it. I think that because something good can occur to the do-gooder, that, in itself, is not the motivation behind the good deed.

I have done good things for people and suffered for it. Many people take care of sick loved ones without any benefit and the only outcome, to see them die. If altruism did not exist, why would we continue to do these things? Do I hope a reward will occur each time I do something good? No, I do it because it is the right thing to do.

Have a kid - altruism can occur without self benefit.

How does a better child not benefit you?

How does a better child not benefit you?

While this is doubtless true, you're leaping to a conclusion about his motivation.

There's no way of knowing. Even if you find what seems to be a sure fire example of pure altruism, we don't know enough about our subconscious.

Lawyer... Philosopher...

Same thing right? :thumb: :p

Well, as much as I'd like to think so . . . . no, not really. :(


I'm out camping with the Scouts, and it's cold. I have hand and foot warmers that I'm really appreciating, and I have extras. "Here kid. You want a hand warmer?"

Someone please show me what selfish consideration motivated my action. Don't sprain your neurons going through the mental gymnastics. :lol:

Well, if you're a member of ****** . . . .

Well, as much as I'd like to think so . . . . no, not really. :(



Well, if you're a member of ****** . . . .

Assuredly not. :eek:

Was kidding about the lawyer/philosopher equivalency, but they do argue the same way sometimes.

There's no way of knowing. Even if you find what seems to be a sure fire example of pure altruism, we don't know enough about our subconscious.

Here's a perspective...

Since we don't understand this, and is isn't consciously motivating us, we call the phenomenon altruism. :thumb:

Many people take care of sick loved ones without any benefit and the only outcome, to see them die.

Many people take care of sick loved ones because they don't want them to die. There's plenty of selfish motivation there.

While this is doubtless true, you're leaping to a conclusion about his motivation.

Why would he help his kid unless he either wanted the kid to turn out better or wanted the kid to shut up and leave him alone? ;)

Many people take care of sick loved ones because they don't want them to die. There's plenty of selfish motivation there.

So? Does this somehow diminish the people that do take care of their loved ones, knowing full well that they will die? That's what I get from your post.

A fireman who dies saving someone else isn't devoid of fear, it's just they believe in something bigger than their fear (aka, rational self interest).

Thank you

I will never forget seeing blurry cell phone snapshots taken by lucky survivors of 9.11 as they ran in huge numbers down the WTC stairs to safety. Along their descent they were passed by firefighters in full gear charging up the stairs. Of course none of those brave souls is with us today, at least physically.

One of the survivors said the entire staircase of people - though choked with fear and hysteria in their attempt to flee - stopped and thunderously cheered in the stairwells like crazy for these guys.

I don't care what anyone says...or what they call it. It's good enough to call altruistic for me.

No, true honest to goodness altruism does not exist because you can always always attribute it to some perk you are getting directly or indirectly. As my social psych professor says, there is always a reason--even in habitual good deeds, you have learned that in the past, doing good deeds makes you feel good, so you continue to do it. However, that doesn't make any sort of good deed less valuable, IMO. Whatever the motive, prosocial behaviors are to be commended.



Agree.....even if we are driven to do these kinds of acts by unconscious genetic influences, or by social influences, they are still very valuable acts.


... and I like that kindness and compassion makes me feel good :)

So? Does this somehow diminish the people that do take care of their loved ones, knowing full well that they will die? That's what I get from your post.

All I'm saying is that personal motivations do exist.

All I'm saying is that personal motivations do exist.

whatever...

Assuredly not. :eek:

Well, when you're talkng to a guy who rides around in the night, dressed all in black, including a mask, carving "Z's" into all and sundry, one can't be too sure . . . . :D


Was kidding about the lawyer/philosopher equivalency, but they do argue the same way sometimes.

No explanation or apology needed. I can assure you that a "philosopher" would be the nicest thing anyone called the typical lawyer on a typical day.

And we lawyers argue the same way as one particular group of ancient Greek philosophers. They were called Sophists.

You'd have to ask yourself, before helping someone out, if this act will give you personal gain ... including just feeling better about yourself for helping someone. I doubt anyone can answer this question as "no". Your mind always weighs concious decisions against personal gain. That's just the way it is.

Oh, this thread reminds me of that Friends episode where Phoebe tries to prove that there is real atruism by donating to PBS...lol

yes it does exist....I do a lot of crap for people that makes them feel good and just pisses me off


:crash:

Oh, this thread reminds me of that Friends episode where Phoebe tries to prove that there is real atruism by donating to PBS...lol

is the name of the episode "The one where Phoebe tries to prove that there is real atruism by donating to PBS"?:D

personal motivations do exists, but they are sometimes not what people want to hear.

I was in the last round of firing fighter testing before I got sick.
a big part of the reason I wanted to be a firefighter was because I was suicidal, but didnt want to kill myself. and just figured I would try as hard as possible and try to make a difference, but if i didnt make it no big loss.


and thats my big dark secret.

Sounds like my social Psych prof. ;) Altruism is a resulot of enlightened self interest, as well, but is still a social good, regardless of motivation.


No, true honest to goodness altruism does not exist because you can always always attribute it to some perk you are getting directly or indirectly. As my social psych professor says, there is always a reason--even in habitual good deeds, you have learned that in the past, doing good deeds makes you feel good, so you continue to do it. However, that doesn't make any sort of good deed less valuable, IMO. Whatever the motive, prosocial behaviors are to be commended.

*runs away from USAZorro*

I say, yes, my best friend asserts that the feeling you get from doing something arbitrarily tagged with the term "good" gets you a "good" feeling, therefore you cannot be truly doing something without any inherent self interest because you are getting something in return. So, does genuine altruism exist?

I think that it isn't worth worrying about whether true selfless altruism exists.
Probably worth more to try to do good things, regardless of whatever psychological
incentive we may feel.

I tro to do good things for people if htey are in need becauseit helpsthem. If a good ffeling comes from itso be it but the impotant part is tht they be taken care of. so yes, my reward isknowing they are a little bit more okaybeause I cna give apart of myelsef.

ineed to stop posting becsause it's too hard to fix my typins.sorry.

ineed to stop posting becsause it's too hard to fix my typins.sorry.

I can read it. :)

at the risk of embarrassing Siu I'll bet many of us recall a recent thread where her coworker was on the receiving end of first a hostile negative act (bike stolen) and then a wonderful positive one (Siu bringing her a new bike).

I didn't know Siu personally, let alone her coworker...so impossible for me to know what the 'motivations or rewards' were, but that thread just made me feel so great...pretty much everyone else here who posted seemed to me to feel similar. So out of that act came so much good, for so many people. Is that 'true' altruism? Something more? Who cares?

Again, I say, if it feels good, do it.

yes it does exist....I do a lot of crap for people that makes them feel good and just pisses me off


:crash:

Give an example.

Making a turkey on Wed for the church, I don't want to do it because I'm also making one on Thursday. :notamused:

personal motivations do exists, but they are sometimes not what people want to hear.

I was in the last round of firing fighter testing before I got sick.
a big part of the reason I wanted to be a firefighter was because I was suicidal, but didnt want to kill myself. and just figured I would try as hard as possible and try to make a difference, but if i didnt make it no big loss.


and thats my big dark secret.

I'll preempt UA and do this for you:

http://www.realclearsports.com/blog/virtual%20hug.jpg

Have you ever helped another cyclist on the road just because they are a cyclist? I gave a spare tube to a stranger with a flat. I wasn't expecting anything back, and I didn't get goosebumps of happiness. It was just the right thing to do.