Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does true altruism exist?
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
Does truly altruistic behavior exist (acting in the interest of others often at the expense of their own interests and with no expectation of benefit for themselves in the future), or is it all simply enlightned self-interest or psychological egoism?
Here's an interesting Radio Lab show on altruism if interested.
To my mind if it can be shown that someone acts solely in the interest for another without expectation for return (either directly or in the sense of passing genes on or for the benefit of the social group), such as the story of Wesley Autrey, then that motivation can be cultivated in meditation and can grow to the point that it becomes ones primary motivation.
Agree, disagree, thoughts, opinions?
Here's an interesting Radio Lab show on altruism if interested.
To my mind if it can be shown that someone acts solely in the interest for another without expectation for return (either directly or in the sense of passing genes on or for the benefit of the social group), such as the story of Wesley Autrey, then that motivation can be cultivated in meditation and can grow to the point that it becomes ones primary motivation.
Agree, disagree, thoughts, opinions?
0
Comments
By seeing and acknowledging that we are mostly selfish, we can then try to actively combat our egos.
So yes true altruism does exist. But first the self must be understood.
Also altruism is a middle stance imho. Not overly focusing on self or other, but on both (individual and collective). And in a way without wisdom it doesn't last too long.
There's also this example of one dog saving another from traffic.
I'd particularly like to hear how a skeptic of altruism explains these acts and if anyone else knows of an act of altruism (of a stranger, not family or friends) please post them.
Buddhism asks some pretty skeptical questions about the separation between one thing and another. In fact, it can come down pretty hard on an "other" -- just about as hard as it can on an imagined "one" or "oneness."
Dualism, monism ... it's a lot of sweat. Probably better just to be as kind as possible, where possible, and let some philosopher worry about who benefits.
So, may I infer from your OP that you've never done anything altruistic in your life? This is what you're leading us to think.
As far as my own experience, I come from a place of a very narcissistic personality. I've managed to change my ways to a degree but I do often feel like its just an act. I recently took a simple online test for narcissism and scored a 16, 13-15 is normal 20 is narcissism. I honestly don't know that I've done anything altruistic, I've done lots of kind things and some compassionate things but I'm not convinced they weren't done more just because I wanted people to like me or because I thought it was the 'right' thing to do.
We are altruistic to our core. We just have ignorance.
Evolution is driven by reciprocal alturism (recounted by Kant's social unsociability) - human behaviour (by game theory) is split into zero-sum and non-zero-sum games - in effect, noone is truly alturistic and if they are then it is for limited periods when it benefits them (as fortunes are mixed and dependant on each other) - this however assumes that everyone is motivated by self-preservation (which underpins innate behaviour and evolutionary challenges and responses).
Alturism is possible as a principle - it is defined sufficiently succinctly.
However, if you connect all the dots in your behaviour then perhaps true / pure alturism will undoubtedly be blemished by another facet of your personality - e.g. you give a homeless person some money - at the time you want nothing in return - in your mind somewhere you know giving is the path to heaven - you'd like to go to heaven (or maybe you just fear hell) - where is the driver for the giving? was it subconsciously or consciously motivated by your desire to avoid hell or go to heaven?
Challenging one as though my snap thought was yes it is perfectly possible - i think I'm resting on 'yes it is possible and if it is achieved then it will be a systemic condition and not something that can be judged on one act or another'...
@person Thanks for the explanation.
This is why altruism can exist. Because anything can happen in a vast view that doesn't have a clue what he or she is doing. Lower yogis are corrected by higher ones.
@person For some reason I can't envision you as narcissistic.
I think this is where the motivation for this post comes from.
For example taking on a foster child because you want to be a good person. Then the child has problems and it becomes somewhat of a hardship so you give up on the child that has maybe come to depend on you.
to say one is 'alturistic' presents challenges as alturism demands utter self-sacrifice (it is an act benifitting another at its own expense) - this goes against the core human survival trait - I think to qualify as an 'alturitic person', one would need to abandon all desires of self-preservation completely and devote wholeheartedly to the pursuit of others' gain probably (?) at expense to oneself - I cant imagine that life would last very long in that state - perhaps one way around this is to look at it as 'I preserve myself to some extent so I can serve others more'... that theme is echoed by Buddhist principles of look after yourself so you can serve others etc - however by definition alturism would be at the 'expense of yourself' so therefore should you be looking after yourself in a perfect alturistic position?
That said, individual acts may well be alturistic and it is possible to engage in an act of alturism... that may be as one can absorb a certain level of 'expense' but there is a line - as long as there is a line then maybe it is not possible to be truly purely alturistic.
Maybe it doesnt need to be looked at too closely - if a person performs an 'alturistic' act however that person is motivated by say a desire to go to heaven but the effect and performance of that act would be same regardless then maybe it doesnt matter as the net effect is the same.
In one way, the monks who set themselves on fire were performing a truly alturistic act? How many could follow that level of devotion to a doctrine... Granted - many assumptions - its not meant as a slight at anyone who is undertaking an alturistic act (whether that be true or not) - I'm just engaging in the thought experiment without meaning to take anything away from anyone.
I agree with you that people do go 'out of their way' a lot just because they do... that said, what about the desire to 'make the world a better place'? Is this not a desire of the giver? or another way, is that something that is as 'expense' to the giver?
I think that the definition of alturism is a tough one - it appears to require 'disinterest' in personal position as well as 'at expense' to you...
http://www.teatime-mag.com/magazines/12-de/did-you-know/
Does that answer the question? Why it exists is a whole other question.
To contribute to the topic:
Is there even a strict definition of altruism? Does it count as altruism if you feel good while acting? Do you have to feel bad while acting or do you need to feel nothing?
On several occasions i gave money to people that were in a pinch. I never got the money back but the giving made me feel good or better the giving made a unpleasant feeling i got when thinking about their situation go away. From a financial viewpoint it was altruistic because that went on my expense. From a emotional viewpoint it was egoistic.
In the OP there is "acting in the interest of others often at the expense of their own interests and with no expectation of benefit for themselves in the future."
This is in opposition to the partly evolutionary theory of altruism as a means of furthering your genetic code or altruistic behavior in order to benefit the in group for advancement of the group.
don't do things if they are harmful to you but good to others
don't do things if they are good to you but harmful to others
Do things if they are good to you and good to others
(above is in a sutta but i am not quite sure in which sutta)
We have mirror neurons. They make us feel the pain and the joy of other beings, much like they are our own.
When we see someone is burning his hand, the brain does a check on the nerves in our own hand. Only because of that check, we don’t literally feel our own hand getting burned.
It’s so good -psychologically- to have a dog, because the easiest thing in the world is to make a dog happy. Give it some attention, give it a cookie, and throw a ball. The dog will be happy without restraint. And we feel the joy through our mirror neurons. Bingo.
The short cut to happiness is giving the dog a cookie. It’s both selfish and altruistic. There’s no gap.
We need to open our hearts. That is; we have to carefully experience what our mirror neurons are doing. When we suppress the experience, our world will become very small. Our mirror neurons open up the world to us.
There were things that have struck me as odd, and one was that when I was struggling with a person I had volunteered with spreading lies about me my ex said that everyone does that, plus he refused to help with his kids' activities by volunteering because he said he was not a 'sucker' (to me who always helped). I honestly did not believe this mind set was possible before I had a lot of experience with him. I assumed people were truly altruistic or at least trying pretty hard at it with glitches. To hear and fully understand that some people were not at all altruistic was as mind-bending as someone who can't imagine true altruism.
Sorry, this topic and a recent conversation with ex have me in a shudder mood.
Then the worst thing that happened was he started earning a lot more money in just a few years after lots of struggling years. He got so much worse. He didn't care anymore and now deserved everything material because of how much he had suffered. He has decent moments like his mom dying 2 weeks ago, but I have not seen an underlying change.
You should be really proud of yourself. We are all self concerned to a large extent and need to pay attention to that, but Buddhism really helps that.
If being altruistic truly means the person is that all the time about every single thing, then I would go with Zero's comment that the person would not be able to live very long, as there are some people that would take advantage of the person until is utterly exhausted.
However, I do firmly believe there are people that live a large portion of their lives in an altruistic way, and there are even more out there that do altruist acts and a few that never doing anything altruistic at all. I believe there are people that altruism naturally comes to and there are those that have to work hard at it. However eventually of those purest people that live out here with the rest of us do reach a limit, become sheltered, or die. Society simply would eat a person up that was pure altruistic these days. I would think if there are any purely altruistic elders left then they would be people born in and live nearly their whole life in a monastery or convent, thus there would be very little knowledge of such people. Also consider the acts of very young children, many things that come from them come from the purest of hearts. It is the events of living and that teach us we need to preserve ourselves, we slowly close us off to altruism.
Or download it here.
In past few years I have had experiences where I have seen that my own position meant that when asked " what I thought " in a particular situation I needed to acknowledge to the other person that I could not be all that altruisitic in the scenario due to my own position !!
Some of the writing and reading I have done on Mother Teresa has this understanding in it also and a Catholic priest I know has this understanding and he will say to me I am speaking as a Catholic - as human beings we are all cultured into a world view.
That is what is so liberating about being introduced to and being able to practice the ideas of Buddhism, isn't it?
The point was more along the lines of Mother Teresa was not a practicing Buddhist.
HHDL has made public comments about her work as a Catholic nun.
As Buddhists it seems what they are really saying is " I believe better than you " and that is where the problems often begin.
My understanding of Mother Teresa's work is that much good was done - often those involved were definately seeking " something " if not actual " conversion' as you put it.