h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A result of the government supporting a few specifically-chosen charities(not all of them) is perhaps pleasing the people who put them in office and gaining a form of job security?

Sorry - I just can't accept that altruism doesn't exist. Does everyone give to street collections purely out of guilt ? Do people who volunteer for charties do it for some sort of social kudos ?

I don't think so.

It's okay, the point I was trying to make wasn't supposed to be as depressive as it seems to have been taken. More specifically it was addressing the martyrdom of true altruism. I'm sure not everyone who gives a handout does it out of guilt but even if they do it out of guilt or to get that rush of "Look there I've done my good deed for the day" however small and conceptual, is a benefit to the giver. Perhaps consider altruism in terms of scale, some actions may be more altruistic than others but ultimately every action taken, no matter how sacrificial, benefits the giver on some level or another thus negating anything "purely altruistic". If you'd like there are some interesting essays on altruism in KEYWORDS IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Edited by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd that shed a lot of light on the idea for me.

I'm inclined to think that the whole 'no true altruism' argument rests on one of those linguistic tricks that actually make real-world sense.

The argument talks about altruism versus selfishness, but the thing its describing isn't actually selfishness: its self-motivation. Its making your own decisions based upon your own reasons. I don't think making decisions for your own reasons has to be selfish - I think 'because I like people' describes altruism just fine. In fact I think altruism needs that element of self-willed choice to actually be a virtue at all.

Gah, it doesn't make sense.

"one of those linguistic tricks that actually make real-world sense"

*doesn't actually make real-world sense

It's true that any apparently altruistic act can be explained by recourse to non-altruistic motives, but that's not to say that that's the right explanation. I can explain any natural phenomena by recourse to magic pixies, but that doesn't mean that my explanation is the correct one.

I think there's a lot of confusion in discussions about altruism, and I blame Judeo-Christian ethics for much of it. It's from Judeo-Christian ethics that the notion of purity of motive and selflessness comes from, and the view that doing good deeds must not be 'tainted' by any personal satisfaction or pleasure from the act. Immanuel Kant went as far as to argue that a good act had no moral value at all if the motives were not pure.

Aristotle, on the other hand, took the rather more sensible view that there was nothing wrong with taking pleasure from doing what is right. For Aristotle, it was better to be someone who enjoyed doing good deeds than to be someone who had to exercise great effort of willpower to do what is right.

I guess it's cos the only person who stands any chance of knowing if an act is altruistic or not is the person doing it. Another person can always argue otherwise but really it's no better than the thickos way of arguing by shouting their opinion so loud that they hope you can't come back and knowing there's no way to prove you were being altruistic. And, I guess, if the act was genuinly altruistic then it doesn;t really matter what other people think. You know why you did it.

I do not give to charity, period. Ironically however, I have organised events that have raised in excess of £5000 for a childrens home - go figure. I maintain though that any government reducing taxes would win every time. Depressing maybe, but a true indication of human instinct.

I agree that the Judeo-Christian belief system contributed a lot towards the idea that pure altruism is attainable. Even though I believe kind acts will have an aspect of selfishness to them I do not feel that they are devalued in any way as a result of that selfishness. On the contrary I consider it to be healthier to view things in a "everybody wins" light that allows the giver to enjoy themselves as well, rather than the "look at the sacrifice I made" view that most religions seem to nuture. As I write this it strikes me that my statement may sound like a strange grey-area semantics debate however I can't help but feel there is a distinct difference between enjoying helping others for the sake of helping them and feeling good about it rather than enjoying it for the feeling of meeting a (dogmatic)requirement. Getting back to the original question of "is altruism a dying thing?" my original point was that true altruism isn't an attainable thing to begin with. Your post quoting Aristotle brings up a beautiful facet that I did not realize I needed to include with my first statement,which is simply, although I believe true altruistic acts do not occur there is no debasement of charity in pleasing yourself along the way.

Despite having given up my freetime to work for a number of good cases related mostly to children and sport I was told by someone that I dont care about children.

I think its faiarer to say I dont care *in the same way* as the person who made the accusation.

I care about the quality of life for all people but I dont think that every conceived foetus has a right to be born, this is what made one pereson say I dont care.

Who is to measur what caring is anyway? I had an argument with SWL (yeah, really I did, Im not just making it up odd as it sounds) on this very subject a while back. I dont belive in altruism, I know this sounds odd but Im also inclined to agree with Lady Thatcher and say we should stop using the word Society. They are like chimera ie not real and they look differetnt at different times, not only that you can rarely find two people to agree on what they are much less if they are real.


You can do something good for someone for a range of reasons, from being paid to do it for the purposes of showing off or for the good feeling you get but I doubt there is anyone who does anything without some kind of pay-off for themselves.

It is easy to measure caring actions; these many tonns of food were donated or this much money was granted yet although it is as hard to measure it is even easier to see the way people dont care. There are several researchers here who have a callouse attitude towards those who suffer from things they have never experienced, these people I would guess will never identify themselves as uncaring simply because they dont care about something that afflicts many millions of people. yet Id be happy to guarantee we could find something they do care about. Nazi's care about the purity of the European gene pool. Therefore Hitler was caring.

Its been interesting to read peoplpes responses and see some of things they have brought o the table but I think this is a question, as with "life the universe and everything", where we need to understand the question better and frankly I think its beyond the human mind to grasp all the facets of such a question adequaltely.

one love

I've never understood the argument that there's no such thing as altruism.

I do something.

It helps someone else, that was why I did it. It was altruistic.

I benefit in some way - but that wasn't why I did it. I wasn't thinking of that.

In what way do the unintended pleasant consequences reduce the unselfish nature of the act?

I think there is an automatic relationship that goes beyond concious effort to get the good feeling.

In the same way a baby suckles we are programmed to act in a way that reinforces group ties and the payoff is not just the stabilityof the group but the short term warm glow inside when someone thanks us or is visibly happy bease of what we did.

Im not saying people dont grwo and develope a more esoteric understanding of the impact of their good deeds, but we are driven by our base instincts.

So while people might end up with a sophisticated palate and choose carefuly what they eat they are still driven by a desire for food just like when they were an infant yearning for milk.

I'm not sure that even in a most basic/cynical sense, people only do 'good' things to get a nice feeling.

Though it may well have similar biological or cultural roots to doing things to get a good feeling (in terms of what is defined as 'good' or 'right'), it's possible to do 'good deeds' in order to attempt to nullify the bad feelings (guilt?) we get witnessing something that 'isn't right'. Afterwards we may still feel bad, just less bad than if we hadn't done anything.

It's arguably *potentially* as selfish as feelgood altruism, but possibly with subtle differences in the case one ends up feeling worse in the end than if one hadn't witnessed the situation at all. If someone goes out of their way to encounter situations where they will end up doing 'good' but feeling worse than if they had stayed at home, is there some higher-order guilt driving them out into such situations "There are people out there you *could* be helping, but you're just sitting around doing nothing!". there could be more complicated things going on than where someone actually gets a direct positive hit from being altruistic.