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.
Altruism, selfishness and purity
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
in Philosophy
A couple of weeks ago, there was an article in the New Scientist that touched on the topic of altruism. In the article it was suggested that there is a correlation between levels of altruism and the presence of a particular variant of one particular gene (see here) which gives a nice hormonal buzz when its bearer performs some altruistic act.Feeling compassion and love for others and selflessly giving of yourself to others makes oneself feel good. Not simply in the manner of making you feel like a good, moral person but more a feeling of warmth and connection in your heart and being. This is the way serving our interconnection with others has an immediate benefit for us. For myself I don't think that disqualifies an act as selfless largely because the internal feeling of such an act isn't a calculated effort to get some benefit for oneself but it is born out of a genuine concern for the well being of another.
Now, all of that may be so, but what I wondered about was the throwaway line at the end of the article, where the author Kate Douglas suggested that “some might argue that if random acts of kindness give us a mental buzz, then this is not pure altruism after all.”
This, it seems, is a common claim. We are, alas, terribly suspicious when it comes to acts of apparent altruism – not just suspicious of each other, but also suspicious of ourselves. “Was that a good act?” we find ourselves asking. “Really? But I’m feeling better now I have done it. So perhaps I’m just self-interested after all…” This kind of suspicion can run rampant, so that we can come to the conclusion that there really is nothing in altruism at all, that all is self-interest. And if this is the case, why bother going through the pantomime of altruism at all? Why no go all-out for self-interest?
It seems to me, however, that such a conclusion is not warranted. It is born out of the idea that, for altruism to mean anything, it must be somehow “pure”, that there must be one single motive, and no others. Not only that, but the view is often that there must only be benefit to the object of our altruistic attentions, and any benefit that we thereby accrue somehow diminishes the act (a kind of crude “if it don’t hurt, it ain’t moral” view). But the idea that altruism – or any other virtue – must be pure to be counted a virtue at all is something of a non-starter if we are interested in thinking about how we act in the world. If we reverse the picture, this becomes more apparent. Imagine that I am the recipient of an altruistic act. I fall off my bike, and a stranger stops and helps me back to my feet. From my point of view, this seems very like an act of altruism, and it hardly matters that – for example – they are pleased to stop so that they can be late for that boring meeting to which that they were hurrying. Although they may have accrued a little benefit in terms of shaving five minutes off the dreaded meeting, this does not, as the recipient of the kind act, diminish the act for me. Not only this, but I would really much rather that the person helping me actually derived some residual benefit by helping me. At the very least, I would rather that, in our brief encounter, we exchanged a few friendly words and they went away with a smile on their face, feeling a bit better about life, than I would that they helped me out of grim duty and gained not a single drop of pleasure or of any other benefit from so doing. The kinds of altruism worth having, in other words, are not the kinds that are ‘pure’ according to these exacting standards by virtue of which only one party benefits; and if we look for pure altruism, then we end up failing to see any altruism at all. This does us a disservice. The world that we inhabit is not a world of pure abstractions, but is irredeemably mixed, and any account of ethics worth its salt needs to start from this point, rather than from the position of some abstract idea of purity.
But here’s another thought. If all of the above is true, and if there is no such thing as a purely altruistic act, then it may be that there is no such thing as a purely selfish act, because this idea of pure selfishness makes as little sense – and is based upon the same premises – as the idea of pure altruism. This, however, may be rather harder to swallow. Nevertheless, if we do give up on the idea of pure altruism, and if we also give up the idea of pure selfishness, then perhaps we might be able to see things in a rather more subtle fashion, to see the virtues and the vices not as absolutes that stand outside the ebb and flow of our lives, but as tendencies and currents with this ebb and flow. And with this subtlety may come a rather more generous attitude by virtue of which we might be able to appreciate what altruism there is in the world, and thereby give this goodness a little more space to breathe and flourish.
http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/427/altruism-selfishness-and-purity
We are all interconnected in this world from our social to our economic and just our basic survival interactions. What benefits ourselves raises the well being of the world and what benefits another also raises the well being of the world. So we aren't all just isolated individuals scrambling around trying to get whatever limited scraps of well being we can for ourselves. Well being isn't a limited resource it is an expanding balloon that grows for us when it grows for others.
I don't think there really is such a thing as an act that benefits or harms another without also benefiting or harming myself.
5
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0038x9c
I find it kind of reassuring that altruism and morality comes from within, rather than being prescribed by any man made code of ethics in philosophy or religion. Altruism is a good model for survival in nature, but it's also an amazing force to have in your life! Compassion is just the one
Chimp and animal instinctual co-operative evolution is not the same as the degree of altruism an evolved and determined practitioner can aspire to. How can we do better, more and to a higher degree is part of the vantage of metta practice and enactment. Beyond that is action independent of causality.
Chimp and animal instinctual co-operative evolution is not the same as the degree of altruism an evolved and determined practitioner can aspire to. How can we do better, more and to a higher degree is part of the vantage of metta practice and enactment. Beyond that is action independent of causality.
Even the highest good, what you call metta or what religious people may call god or truth, is only a conditioned phenomenon. It must be surpassed. Truth is not an attribute or a feeling, nor a sensation. It has no name, no form.
I agree. I think though that the spiritual road to liberation is a long one so even if that is your goal you might as well take a road that is warm and comfortable to walk along.
And if your goal isn't a transcendent one then compassion is the best way to live in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/dont-indulge-be-happy.html?smid=tw-share
Their work also proves that religious leader's supposed monopoly on morality is illusory. It also refutes certain religious dogmas, which rob people of their sense of innate personal morality, by teaching that the source of morality is god or inspired scripture. Which can only be a good thing