Altriusm, a nice way to express your selfishness?

[ThomasEdison]

Of course he receives something from helping her, but that doesn't make the act selfish. An act can be altruistic even though there are elements of "selfishness" involved. In fact, I think its necessary. If he helped her against his good will, then the act would not be as altruistic as in the case in which he wanted to help her. Suppose one reluctantly plunges into the water to save a drowning baby not thinking of any consequential benefits whatsoever. It is absurd to consider this a less selfish act than wanting to rescue the baby because you wanted the baby to be rescued.

I think aperion made a very good point. It is remarkable how we seem to be wired to analyze such moral questions by reducing them down to the individual.

I know that people claim they make action before thought all the time in these situations but I am unconvinced.
Memory of a person's exact thoughts is not easy to map out when interviewed and it is much more simple to say "I acted without thinking." "Acting without thinking" is well received and accepted but I don't buy it. I doubt the brain shuts off when approached with a life or death situation. There might be lightning fast decision making but still it's there.

The idea that motive is relevant to the concept of altruism versus selfishness is not absurd at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

The idea that motive is relevant to the concept of altruism versus selfishness is not absurd at all.

Again, since altruism is observed in creatures that have no semblance of motive or thought, where does that leave your idea?

 

[DanP]

Again, since altruism is observed in creatures that have no semblance of motive or thought, where does that leave your idea?

It leads to the idea that anthropomorphic personification is often used in evolutionary contexts, and this shouldn't be any problem, as long as we don't try to force complete definition on creatures which are not self aware.


But in the case of humans, I don't think we should bend the definition to exclude "selflessness".

Im not an altruist if I give free weapons to the enemy of my enemy , wait until one is wiped out and the other weakened, then send my troops to mop whoever is left of the two of them. I'm maybe an "Machiavellist".

The word may acquire new meanings when used in conjunction which creatures which have no self awareness. There is nothing holy with definitions and words are often used in new contexts.

 

[ThomasEdison]

Give me specific examples. Specific animals. If you mean ants dieing to form bridges then that is specific to ants and how colonies operate.

If you mean wolves within a wolf pack then I would compare them to dogs. Watching dog behavior I am not convinced that they have no semblance of thought.

 

[DanP]

Give me specific examples. Specific animals. If you mean ants dieing to form bridges then that is specific to ants and how colonies operate.

If you mean wolves within a wolf pack then I would compare them to dogs. Watching dog behavior I am not convinced that they have no semblance of thought.

Animals have cognitive processes no doubt about it. Many can solve problems, they do communicate ...

 

[ThomasEdison]

Again, since altruism is observed in creatures that have no semblance of motive or thought, where does that leave your idea?

I was responding to the quote above.

Which idea do you mean?

That humans have identity? That narcissism trumps everything that people do and there is no escape from the self and what a person may think about themself?

Or do you mean the idea that I doubt people who claimed to have acted to save lives without thinking first?

To be clear: a hundred "qualified" people could interview people who saved lives and all their responses everytime could be "I acted without thinking!" this would still not make it so. The people themselves being interviewed may or may not be qualified to rewind their own thought process and regurgitate verbatum what was going on in their minds. It is very easy to say "I acted without thinking;" it is nearly impossible to trace back all the thoughts in sequence.

Even a thought as simple as "I should go do that." Is teeming with presumptions about self and identity.

 

[apeiron]

I think aperion made a very good point. It is remarkable how we seem to be wired to analyze such moral questions by reducing them down to the individual.

Where it gets more interesting is when we ask if there are analogs at the human society level for phenoptosis and apoptosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmed_cell_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenoptosis

Top-down constraint is responsible for keeping individual components even alive. If you are not part of the co-operative whole, then best that you have been designed to self-destruct.

In modern society (out of equilbrium?) it is hard to see that. But what do they say about old eskimoes going out to die in the snow? And there is the euthanasia debate.

There is altruism for you. And from the biological analog, you can see the role of the global system as well as the actions of the individual.

 

[disregardthat]

I doubt the brain shuts off when approached with a life or death situation. There might be lightning fast decision making but still it's there.

It is reasonable that the brain channels its capacity for dealing with the situation such that we are less conscious of our acts and decisions in life threatening situations where fast action is necessary. Of course one does not act blindly, I believe the subconscience is capable of deciding to act according to the situation very well. In other words, we act "on instinct".

But I have to agree with that this does not touch the issue whether an act in itself is altruistic or not.

 

[DanP]

, I believe the subconscience is capable of "deciding" to act according to the situation very well.

How Freudian. We advanced by leaps and bounds since then.

 

[disregardthat]

How Freudian. We advanced by leaps and bounds since then.

I'm no psychologist, but I am certainly under the impression that a huge amount of cognitive processing is not conscious thought, at least semi-conscious. It is entirely plausible that the brain under severe stress is using its capacity more efficiently in life-threatening situations such that we are less conscious of the decision-making.

Have you never experienced thinking of something else, and suddenly realize that you have performed several routine tasks, such as turning off lights, or locking a door, without being conscious of the decision-making which took place? I don't suggest that it is equivalent, but at least analogous.

 

[disregardthat]

In modern society (out of equilbrium?) it is hard to see that. But what do they say about old eskimoes going out to die in the snow? And there is the euthanasia debate.

There is altruism for you. And from the biological analog, you can see the role of the global system as well as the actions of the individual.

Interesting points. However, I don't think that the top-down perspective in itself is not entirely compatible with our inner sense of morality. Morality is commonly centered around the individual and individual intention, and I am sure the reason also lies in our self-consciousness, and not only cultural influence. I agree though that denying either one of these perspectives is denying a vital part of the picture.

 

[ThomasEdison]

But I have to agree with that this does not touch the issue whether an act in itself is altruistic or not.

It is relevant because I claim that narcissism is everything. I do believe that people carry along a sense of identity which could also be called a conscience; I am skepticle about a "subconscious."

Where motive relates to altruism is this question : If a person has a really strong conscience and they commit an act of altruism are they operating solely to help someone else or are they working to reinforce what they think of themselves?

For a person that says both happen at once the answer to "Is altruism a nice way to express selfishness?" is Mu.

I don't agree though.

 

[disregardthat]

For a person that says both happen at once; then the answer to "Is altruism a nice way to express selfishness?" is Mu.

Mu is the answer to every philosophical question depending on perspective.

 

[DanP]

I'm no psychologist, but I am certainly under the impression that a huge amount of cognitive processing is not conscious thought, at least semi-conscious. It is entirely plausible that the brain under severe stress is using its capacity more efficiently in life-threatening situations such that we are less conscious of the decision-making.

Check the schema theory in cognition, how schema can be processed controlled or automatically, and the effects which schematic processing have on our daily lives. (It's huge, btw. Most of cognitive biases, stereotypes, prejudices, peculiar facts observed about memory and learning appear as consequences of schematic processing )

Have you never experienced thinking of something else, and suddenly realize that you have performed several routine tasks, such as turning off lights, or locking a door, without being conscious of the decision-making which took place? I don't suggest that it is equivalent, but at least analogous.

You have scripts (event schemas) to which you are very habituated in this case.

But yeah, I kinda get what you want to say.

 

[apeiron]

I'm no psychologist, but I am certainly under the impression that a huge amount of cognitive processing is not conscious thought, at least semi-conscious.

The brain does divide into attention and habits. We even now know the pathways involved. And the timings.

An automatic level of responding takes a long time to learn (forming a habit), but is fast to execute because it is emitted in response to relevant perceptual cues. It is how you can hit a tennis ball with practice.

So this kind of reaction is pre-conscious, rather than sub- or un-. A shortcut reaction when you already know what to do as the result of events. And it takes 200 ms to organise an intelligent response.

Conscious level, or rather attentive level, responses take of the order of a third to two-thirds of a second to organise. This is because they are a "first time" unique response. The brain has to devote large areas (prefrontal, temporal, etc) to thinking of what to make of the situation and begin some reaction.

The time scales are incompressible. Neural signals just take time to get around and the more getting around to be done, the longer it has to take to get organised.

This is also the reason for the disjunct between reflexive, thoughtless, feeling responses (quick habits) vs longer, getting oriented, responses.

Altruistic act would could be the result of either habits or deliberation. You have to train soldiers what to do in the heat of battle, children in how to respond with manners.

As usual, it is an interactive systems story despite being a dichotomy. Habits can be attended to (we can catch slips even in the commission if we are prepared). And attentive level awareness is needed to learn habits in the first place. Every routine was once a novelty.

 

[DaveC426913]

It leads to the idea that anthropomorphic personification is often used in evolutionary contexts, and this shouldn't be any problem, as long as we don't try to force complete definition on creatures which are not self aware.

Wait. Are you suggesting that altruism in animals is not altruism?? Then you are using circular logic. You're defining altruism as an act of intent, then using lack of intent to disqualify acts.

Give me specific examples. Specific animals. If you mean ants dieing to form bridges then that is specific to ants and how colonies operate.

If you mean wolves within a wolf pack then I would compare them to dogs. Watching dog behavior I am not convinced that they have no semblance of thought.

Animals have cognitive processes no doubt about it. Many can solve problems, they do communicate ...

The Wiki example of animal altruism is that of spiders that allow their young to eat them.

 

[disregardthat]

You obviously knows quite a lot of how the brain process information and how it decides and act. How is this though related to the "level of consciousness", or "focus", we feel when acting or deciding? Certainly we are less focused when performing reflex-like routine tasks such as open a drawer than having a live conversation or debate.

Wait. Are you suggesting that altruism in animals is not altruism?? Then you are using circular logic. You're defining altruism as an act of intent, then using lack of intent to disqualify acts.

Precisely.

 

[DanP]

However, I don't think that the top-down perspective in itself is not entirely compatible with our inner sense of morality. Morality is commonly centered around the individual and individual intention, and I am sure the reason also lies in our self-consciousness, and not only cultural influence. I agree though that denying either one of these perspectives is denying a vital part of the picture.

Explaining is not excusing.

There are still many debates against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which are centered on the idea of morality. There are claims that evolutionary psychology is intrinsically sexist, homophobic, racist, finding excuses for male aggression, that it is an excuse for amoral & immoral behaviors and so on. Which of course aint true.

Like in most of the cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We are what we are due both our phenotype and learned behaviors. We are the result of both nature and nurture.

 

[DanP]

Wait. Are you suggesting that altruism in animals is not altruism?? Then you are using circular logic. You're defining altruism as an act of intent, then using lack of intent to disqualify acts.

I am suggesting that as words are used in new situations, new meanings may arise in the same word. We can simply define evolutionary altruism without using the word "selfless". There is nothing sacred with word definitions, and new uses / meanings for a word may arise from necessity to apply it in new situations.

 

[disregardthat]

Like in most of the cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We are what we are due both our phenotype and learned behaviors. We are the result of both nature and nurture.

It was never my intention to protest that if you interpreted it as such. In fact, I believe I said the opposite.

 

[DanP]

Precisely.

See posts above again. I allow for new meanings of the words to be developed in new situations. This is probably how words meaning multiple things came to exist in the first place.

 

[DanP]

It was never my intention to protest that if you interpreted it as such. In fact, I believe I said the opposite.

You did. My post was linked to the morality issue, and I felt the need to reinforce nature vs nurture. Thats all.

 

[DanP]

Ok, I found those 2 definitions linked to altruism in evolutionary psychology:

Phenotypic altruism: benefiting another (physically or materially) at some physical or resource cost to itself

- the case with vampire bats which drink excess blood regurgitating blood to feed members in need of food in the colony
- the case in which parents care for offspring at material cost for themselves

Genotypic altruism: Benefiting another one reproductive success at the cost of own reproductive success.

- Dave's example with spiders who let themselves eaten.

I believe that those 2 definitions are pretty cool. They do not contain any incommode words such as "selfless".

 

[DaveC426913]

See posts above again. I allow for new meanings of the words to be developed in new situations. This is probably how words meaning multiple things came to exist in the first place.

Whether a young or an aged definition is immaterial as far as I'm concerned; I don't see why you raise it at all. Either an event meets the criteria for altruism or it does not. Speculating about how old it might be changes nothing.

 

[DanP]

Whether a young or an aged definition is immaterial as far as I'm concerned; I don't see why you raise it at all. Either an event meets the criteria for altruism or it does not. Speculating about how old it might be changes nothing.

Its an overloading of the meaning of a word. Just that simple.

 

[DaveC426913]

Its an overloading of the meaning of a word. Just that simple.

Okay, so you accept both examples (human/intent and animal/instinct).

(I guess I don't see why that has to be mentioned at all. Simply agreeing that "animal instinct is a valid form of altruism" would have accomplished the same thing without all the confusion. )

 

[DanP]

Okay, so you accept both examples (human/intent and animal/instinct).
.

Yeah.

 

[apeiron]

You obviously knows quite a lot of how the brain process information and how it decides and act. How is this though related to the "level of consciousness", or "focus", we feel when acting or deciding? Certainly we are less focused when performing reflex-like routine tasks such as open a drawer than having a live conversation or debate.

If you were asking me, well this was indeed my specialist subject. And the answers are complicated, multilayered. So I could only gloss them here.

A first step is to separate the socially-constructed aspects of human psychology from the neurobiological.

So this is where I would cite social constructionism, or even better, go back to Vygotsky's research on human self-regulation. The Russians, with their Marxist orientation, had no trouble getting the social nature of choice (whereas anglo-saxon treats social factors as the anti-Christ).

Anyway, there is much to be said about how we are trained from childhood to introspect and so be able to actively negotiate our actions - make choices that "consciously" balance the individual need to be competitive/constructive and the social need for co-operation/constraint.

This the great irony. Everyone (anglo-saxon) agonises about their personal freedom. But it is that agonising about having to think everything through at the individual level which is a socially-evolved trait. It underpins the Western expansionist mindset. It kicked us out of the old peasant/feudal equilibrium and set us on the entropically powerlaw - ultimately doomed - course of technologic over-drive.

What's that coming round the corner on the wrong side of the road? Whoops, peak oil.

Anyway, there is the social angle as to why we get into the habit of thinking so much about our individual actions weighed against a social context. "Primitive" cultures just encourage individuals to act on a stable customary basis.

Then there is the neurobiology - which here becomes the question of how well can you actually control your own actions? The time slippage between fast, reflexive, learnt, automatic, habitual, instinctive reponses and thoughtful, attended, deliberated responses is an issue. Who should get the credit when you make lightning decisions in tennis? And who should get the blame when you do something dumb and habitual through "inattention"?

Anglo-saxon society does not care to make fine distinctions. You take the rap either way. The French recognise crimes of passion for example. There is some excuse for the heat of the moment. But mostly it is all about "you". Society can get by without you really having to understand the way you truly work. Which gets you back to the socially-constructed nature of self. You only get to see what suits society - unless you really make an effort and learn the science.

Most people operate not at the level of determined automatons (the computationist's nightmare). But they really are socio-matons. What they are deep inside is just a meme framework which evolved culturally and gets downloaded into every kid through the institutions of a culture.

Nothing bad in this of course. It is the way systems work. The whole has to be able to shape its parts to persist (as it needs exactly those parts to create it as a whole).

But it makes a nonsense of a widespread belief in the specialness of human individuality and self-awareness.

Words like altrusism are part of this. The Western trick has been to externalise moral imperatives (ie: socially valuable memes) as abstract concepts to which individuals are taught to aspire.

You suddenly have this bunch of stuff "deep inside" that you want to express, ideals you want to live up to. A very clever and effective trick that has evolved to shape individual human behaviour.

Many people are dimly aware of how much of all that they do is a social game. And it conflicts them because "it should be coming from inside, but it seems to be coming from outside". And also the concern you mention of "I should be attentively in charge, but so often my too-quick habits catch me out."

However try to think about the situation more carefully and you are having to swim against social constraint. Western society will keep telling you, no thanks son, we prefer you to be our socio-maton. Altruism is an internal quality which you must discover in yourself, not a social constraint that arose for co-operative purposes. And you can't get away with blaming your too-quick reflexes, your murky basement unconscious. Society holds you totally liable for your goodness and badness.

You may think this unfair - oh wait, we haven't loaded you with that capacity to even consider the question. You could do a psychology masters and still not learn it, that's how successfully the truth has been suppressed.

And if you do stumble upon the truth, there are plenty of thought police in the world - the joedogs - who will jump all over you angrily. Society only wants you to have the level of self-awareness that serves its global needs.

 

[DanP]

However try to think about the situation more carefully and you are having to swim against social constraint. Western society will keep telling you, no thanks son, we prefer you to be our socio-maton. Altruism is an internal quality which you must discover in yourself, not a social constraint that arose for co-operative purposes. And you can't get away with blaming your too-quick reflexes, your murky basement unconscious. Society holds you totally liable for your goodness and badness.

Why should altruism come from "within you" ? Do you dislike theories like Lewin's field theory which says that behavior is a function of individual and environment ? . Or maybe you mean that the society wrongly insists that you have to discover altruism inside yourself ?

From a practical point of view, does it matter from where altruism arise ?

 

[disregardthat]

Thanks for a very interesting and informative reply.

I suppose it makes more sense to analyze a group of inter-socializing people as a single moral entity in many cases. Condemning people for acts they have done which they held as morally responsible at the time because it was the social norm can often in itself seem morally irresponsible, even though it is general practice. I also think we through history have learned how elastic our moral values can be, and how dependent of social context they are.

Although I understand there are many philosophical difficulties with dealing with the individual self responsible for its moral actions, I can also see the practical use of this perspective. To hold an individual fully responsible for its own actions, and institutionalize this norm, even though it is governed by the social framework in which it has been shaped has obvious beneficial consequences for the whole. Besides, the very institutionalizing of any norm justify its use in some sense.

 

[apeiron]

Why should altruism come from "within you" ?

What I said was that it comes from "without" - it is socially constructed.

And then that the trick of the Western concept of the free individual was to place social constraint "inside" - make it an issue of psychology and not sociology.

Society put it in a place where you could no longer question it because it was "you". Or a failure of "you". Smart trick, eh?

What do you think Catholic guilt is all about? And why Catholicism then flourished as a social institution.

From a practical point of view, does it matter from where altruism arise ?

I was treating this as a philosophical and scientific question. But it is also practical as knowing the truth about self-regulation is the only way you could begin to really form your "own" views about the way you act in the world.

 

[magpies]

I think the point is that your trying to be good where as with the other you are trying to be either evil or indifferent. It's clear to me why trying to be evil is a bad move in the game of chess and I hope its also clear to you heh.

Who do you think has a better chance of winning that game of chess the player who is trying to make the right move or the player that is trying to make their opponent make the wrong one?

 

[apeiron]

To hold an individual fully responsible for its own actions, and institutionalize this norm, even though it is governed by the social framework in which it has been shaped has obvious beneficial consequences for the whole. Besides, the very institutionalizing of any norm justify its use in some sense.

It can be a healthy situation. If the total system is well adapted, then the institutions and the individuals will be in alignment. All will be happy. Which is why some very poor and undeveloped people, living in traditional settings, rate their lives highly.

Is modern Western society healthy, happy and well-adapted so far as its environment is concerned?

 

[DanP]

What I said was that it comes from "without" - it is socially constructed.

I see. This is my view too. Thanks for clarifying.

Although I never seen it at a trap, as a trick to make you believe that lack of conformity is a problem with "you". It's interesting and Ill search more data and think to this issue.Its cool you brought it up.

But it is also practical as knowing the truth about self-regulation is the only way you could begin to really form your "own" views about the way you act in the world.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. I've heard social psychologists and cog sci professors saying time and again that once you study social cognition , you'll never see the world with the same eyes again.

 

[disregardthat]

It can be a healthy situation. If the total system is well adapted, then the institutions and the individuals will be in alignment. All will be happy. Which is why some very poor and undeveloped people, living in traditional settings, rate their lives highly.

Is modern Western society healthy, happy and well-adapted so far as its environment is concerned?

I grant you that it may be a question of empirical study, but it may also be a question of value. Perhaps the concept of maximizing happiness (i.e. optimalizing the conditions for happiness) is not ultimately our highest value, and any effort in achieving that other potentially more important values may be lost in the process. Of course, our values are social constructions of the predisposed social structure, but that doesn't affect the argument I believe. In addition, the very process of "optimizing happiness" is not necessarily going to result in something better than we already have.

 

[apeiron]

Yeah, I think this is a good point. I've heard social psychologists and cog sci professors saying time and again that once you study social cognition , you'll never see the world with the same eyes again.

Absolutely true. Like they say, travel broadens the mind. Seeing life through the eyes of other cultures reveals the fact we are culturally entrenched.

 

[DanP]

This may be of some interest to some of the participants in this thread: It discusses the significance of social identification in the theory of "self", and subscribes to the idea that western world falls short in insisting on a highly individualized concept of self:

Marylinn Brewer, UCLA: The Social Self: On being the same and different at the same time

http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ihansen/JOBSEARCH/optimaldistinctiveness.pdf

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The intention is irrelevant.

You say that intent is irrelevant and this based on a specialized definition of altruism borrowed from the jargon of a particular field of science. The standard definition of altruism involves intent. You can not simply define it out of the equation to gingerly sidestep the muddiness you see in the traditional definition. You need to explain why your definition resolves these issues, you can not simply say that we can now safely ignore them.

You could frame it in a number of ways.
....
Or:

He stopped, changed the tire, and then raped her.

I am assuming that you are here appealing to your own reference frame where we discuss actions and not intent? If so I am sorry but you should then remove the term rape. it should read something like...
"He stopped, changed the tire, and then had sexual intercourse with her."
Because of course rape involves intent and intent is irrelevant. It does not matter that he intends to have sex with her despite her unwillingness and it does not matter that she does not intend to have sex with him.
And if we reference your earlier arguments...

Procreation is instinctive. It is completely irrational and altruistic.

We find that he is an altruist after all, so long as he does not use a condom I suppose, because procreation is altruistic.

As soon as you expand the action, to include the rape, the act itself changes.
So, how you categorize it changes.

This is merely a way to reframe the events so as to fit your argument without having to acknowledge the role of intent. It ignores that one event leads into the other due to the intent of the rapist. Perhaps to the chagrin of some it does not naturally follow that if you change the tire on a females car you will have sex with her. Even as a series of events stringed together for a strategy to rape the change of the car tire may be the end of the action if perchance some outside event prevents the attempted rape. And in your reference frame we are to believe that the unsuccessful strategy for rape is categorized as altruistic since the rape never happened and intent does not matter.

Altruism describes action, because when we talk about intent, we're generally talking about high level cognitive function, which is not really required for altruism. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. Reproduction, where an organism sacrifices for it young, is a basic form. There is no intent there, some did, some didn't and organisms that didn't do it, aren't around anymore.

I can not agree that intent is so complicated. I believe you are mixing up 'intent' with 'rationalization' and/or 'justification'. While a mouse may not be able to rationalize that it is in the best interest of its species to take food back to its offspring I believe that there is in fact an intentionality to the action; it intends to feed its young.
I think that the primary issue here is the concept of self. If an animal does not seem to possesses a perception of self then its actions would appear selfless and therefore altruistic.

 

[JoeDawg]

The standard definition of altruism involves intent.

We're discussing what altruism is, appeals to authority are therefore not helpful. The definition that involves intent is extremely problematic, and since we can observe altruistic behavior, self sacrificing behavior, throughout nature... where 'intent' by any definition simply doesn't exist, my point is, intent is not necessary for altruism.

Because of course rape involves intent...

It can...if you want to be pedantic and completely miss the point... involve a very specific brand of legal 'intent'.
Rape, legally speaking, tends to be defined as sex without consent.
In many jurisdictions, "I didn't know she was underage" is not a valid defense for statutory rape. Legal intent, in this case, doesn't matter. But jumping to legal intent is a complete tangent.

And I'm not saying you can't talk about altruism and intent. I'm saying intention is not necessary when talking about altruism.

 

[apeiron]

Marylinn Brewer, UCLA: The Social Self: On being the same and different at the same time

There you go. An equilbrium approach. The individual develops out of the opposed tendencies of assimilation and differentiation. The system is healthy when these are in balance.

 

[DanP]

It can...if you want to be pedantic and completely miss the point... involve a very specific brand of legal 'intent'.
Rape, legally speaking, tends to be defined as sex without consent.
In many jurisdictions, "I didn't know she was underage" is not a valid defense for statutory rape. Legal intent, in this case, doesn't matter. But jumping to legal intent is a complete tangent.

mens rea is a required element in criminal law to prove intent. Intent is a paramount legal concept in every democracy I know of.

Im sorry man, but it doesn't work as you appear to think it does.

 

[noblegas]

We're discussing what altruism is, appeals to authority are therefore not helpful. The definition that involves intent is extremely problematic, and since we can observe altruistic behavior, self sacrificing behavior, throughout nature... where 'intent' by any definition simply doesn't exist, my point is, intent is not necessary for altruism.

We observed the act of self-sacrificing in many animals because the person or animal doing the self-sacrficing values the cause that institigated the self-sacrificing more so than they value their own life. That person doing the self-sacrificing wants to see some sort of legacy being carried on in subsequent generations whether that legacy be in his genes , because of some religion , or a philosophy. Selfishness is apparent in acts of self-sacrifice because obviously the reason for sacrificing themselves is out of selfishness. Bombers and the hijackers of the planes that would crashed into the world trade center were obviously committed their acts because of their ideology and were not considerate of the life of others around them. Intent does not exist? If intent didn't exist , all of the behaviors and acts we carried out in our daily lives would be based on randomness, which is obviously not the case. Intention implies a purpose or goals that you set for yourself or that others set for you. To further illustrate the point why the idea that 'intention is an illusion ' is ludicrous, the events that take place everyday, brushing our teeth, going to work, driving on the right side of the lane, would be based on pure randomness and these events would not exist because , certain actions would not be carried out, such a driving in the right side of the lane to avoid getting a fine from an officer because , like lower forms of animals, we would completely disregard the legal and social consequences for not carrying out such actions, because we would possesses a lower level of consciousness that many animals have inherent that prevents human beings from achieving the level of self awareness that many human beings have now. The same notion applies to altruism concerning if it is based on intention which it obviously is.

 

[DaveC426913]

Selfishness is apparent in acts of self-sacrifice

This is a false definition of selfishness. Simply put: you cannot sacrifice yourself and be selfish at the same time. They are opposites.

The fact that you are motivated to sacrifice yourself for some reason does not mean you are thinking only of yourself (the definition of selfishness) in doing so.



Again, you are using circular logic. You are claiming that no sacrifice can be selfless because, with any example you are presented with, you claim that the sacrifier gets something out of it, therefore that makes it selfish. You are stating a foregone conclusion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We're discussing what altruism is, appeals to authority are therefore not helpful. The definition that involves intent is extremely problematic, and since we can observe altruistic behavior, self sacrificing behavior, throughout nature... where 'intent' by any definition simply doesn't exist, my point is, intent is not necessary for altruism.

Appeal to authority? You're joking?
This thread is about the common use definition of "altruism" and the muddiness in its application. You are proposing the use of a specialized definition of "altruism" which you believe relieves us of this muddiness. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that this lesser used definition actually operates well in application and resolves these issues. You can not simply insist upon its superiority and discard conflicts which do not sit right with your definition as irrelevant.
You are appealing to the authority of your proposed definition. Or just handwaving.

It can...if you want to be pedantic and completely miss the point... involve a very specific brand of legal 'intent'.
Rape, legally speaking, tends to be defined as sex without consent.
In many jurisdictions, "I didn't know she was underage" is not a valid defense for statutory rape. Legal intent, in this case, doesn't matter. But jumping to legal intent is a complete tangent.

I am not referring to any legal definitions. I am referring to the simple common use definition. That being that one person forces themselves upon another against their will. If you can find me a definition of rape that does not involve the intent of one individual to overwhelm the intent of another then do so.

You are seemingly handwaving again.

And I'm not saying you can't talk about altruism and intent. I'm saying intention is not necessary when talking about altruism.

And I am saying that you have not properly demonstrated the qualification of this definition which you assert. I noted in my previous post that you seem to be mixing "intent" with "rationalization"/ "justification"; you did not respond to this. I also noted the possibility that lack of a perceived "self" is responsible for the apparent selflessness, or altruism, in animals; again you do not respond.

If you have arguments to make then please make them instead of simply dismissing mine.

 

[noblegas]

This is a false definition of selfishness. Simply put: you cannot sacrifice yourself and be selfish at the same time. They are opposites.

Selfishness is simply putting YOUR self-interests above the interests of others. The type of self-interest that I am describing where you sacrifice yourself for a "greater good" such as a soldier dying for a country or a religious fanatic dying for his religion is called an indirect self-interest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_self-interest ). Self-sacrificing yourself for a cause larger than yourself while sacrificing the lives of other people certainly is not an act of altruism.

 

[DaveC426913]

Selfishness is simply putting YOUR self-interests above the interests of others.

Perfect, thank you. What I've been arguing all along.


And altruism is simply putting OTHERs' interests above your own.

 

[disregardthat]

Selfishness is simply putting YOUR self-interests above the interests of others.

Well, he's been arguing that it is your self-interest to benefit the interests of others in those cases you do. I don't see how your point is valid.

However, I don't agree with him for that matter, that is, I don't agree with his definition of self-interest, because I think his logic is sound from the premises he sets regardless of their absurdity.

 

[noblegas]

Well, he's been arguing that it is your self-interest to benefit the interests of others in those cases you do. I don't see how your point is valid.

Well, what about the case where you are engaging in the act of sacrificing yourself for a cause not necessarily related to the well being of others such as a religious cause. The example being the hijackers on september 11th who sacrificed themselves and sacrificed the lives of other human beings for a religious cause? The act showed elements of selfishness because innocent people died along with the terrorists who committed suicide.

 

[apeiron]

And altruism is simply putting OTHERs' interests above your own.

And "others" would be a group - a larger scale of the system. Of which the self feels a part.

It is fascinating how these kinds of arguments go on forever as there is always truth on both sides of a dichotomy. And yet the desperation to reduce causality to a monadic, non-systems, model means the greater picture is missed.

I would prefer to use the more general terms, competition~co-operation, differentiation~integration, or construction~constraint to capture the local~global dynamic at play here.

If people must use the terms selfish~altruistic, then that makes the threads harder to disentangle.

But anyway, a system is an equilbrium structure that persists because it dissipates its foundational tensions across all scales. By foundational, I mean the contrasting forces of local construction and global constraint. You have two actions, top-down and bottom-up, and if they work together in synergistic fashion, you can have a structure that is always rebuilding itself and so will persist in time.

So the basic moral puzzle is it natural only to be selfish? Are examples of altruism actually disguised self-interest? Or is disinterested action, even self-sacrificing action, also natural, and therefore not in any way surprising?

The arguments are then based on the idea that one or other must be the case. And examples of non-equilibrium situations seem to prove it.

So a suicide bomber might be taken as a case where a person foolishly puts the needs of the group above their own. Or a person who gives freely to charity might be said to be actually selfish because they clearly just want to buy our esteem.

As social creatures, evolved to weigh up very complex competition~co-operation cost~benefit analyses, we are very sensitive to perceived imbalances between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group.

But this comes back to the point that what we seek as natural is a balance of self and group across all scales. Which means our motivations when acting are never purely one or the other - selfish or altruistic. They are a synergistic blend. That is what makes the behaviour of the system as a whole adaptive.

And again, altruistic is just a bad word because it has certain false connotations. It atempts to site the decision in the head of the acting individual rather than make it a systems property. A suicide bomber doesn't just act out of some personal choice. Their thinking has been shaped as a group dynamic. Research has shown how bombers always come from groups who all came from the same village, hung around the same coffee shops, or in some other way were part of a very particular grooming process.

The balancing act between competion and co-operation must find its equilibrium over all scales. So it has to work for the "selfish" individual. And it also has to work for the family, the village, the nation, the world.

Nations act selfishly. They also co-operate. They fight wars and they also give disaster aid. After wars, they try to rebuild trading relations. After giving aid, they expect something in return - goodwill, influence, esteem.

This seems like having mixed motives and reductionists like monadic purity. But systems are the product of opposed causalities that then have synergistic results. That is why the exist at all.

 

[JoeDawg]

mens rea is a required element in criminal law to prove intent. Intent is a paramount legal concept in every democracy I know of.

Im sorry man, but it doesn't work as you appear to think it does.

A quick google search says different, man:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/437789.stm

"The implication of the rule is that anyone who has sex with a girl under 13 is committing what is termed "statutory rape". There is no defence to this charge - even if a boy says the girl was willing or that he thought she was older than she was, it would not matter."