I have long been a fan of Thomas Hobbes, who in his book Leviathan suggests that people are inherently selfish creatures, and behave as such- So altruism is in effect a fantasy.
On the other hand, Sarte and others have suggested that this is unfair speculation, and Hobbes cannot know other people’s motivations as well as they themselves can. This would give insight into Hobbes’s own motivation- pessimism perhaps.
To me, Altruism imply’s no selfish motivation- doing something only for someone else. It may also imply an element of sacrifice. Unconcious motivators for an act probably do not apply here- as soon as they effect the concious- and effect your behavior- you are aware of them as such.
I’m going back and forth on this issue w/ a friend- I’d love to hear some other ideas on the subject. Tell me what you think!
I think Hobbes may be a child of his times: England torn by bitter and bloody civil war, conducted by selfish Lords with their private armies on the backs of hapless and disenfranchised commoners and serfs.
In all seriousness, I do think people are capable of true kindness, it’s just rare for most to exersize that capability on a regular basis. It’s not impossible though, as old Hobbes suggested.
This makes me think of an experience I once had. I met a man in a very humble, boring, low-paying occupation and found out later that he was the brother of a very famous movie actress. I wondered out loud to a friend about this man having to work at what he did when his sister obviously had more money than she could ever possibly spend. I said that if I came into money like that, my first thought would be how I could help my family. My friend’s reply surprised me. He said that was my religious upbringing - that it would never enter his head to give any of the money to his family.
Without going into the “maybe they’re not a close family” discussion, I think you can do things for people you love, particularly, without any thought of what you might get in return - and also without any “religious” motivation - simply because you love them.
Of course, if you do something b/c you know before hand that you will recieve some benefit- such as happiness or personal satisfaction- than it would be a selfish act- Even if it may have good consequences for someone else. Or so Hobbes may say.
So is it possible to do something entirely for someone else, where you get nothing in return? And where you intend to get nothing in return, or at least have no selfish motivation before you do it?
We normally lean toward that which makes us feel good. Failing that, avoidance of suffering.
Altruistic acts can make me feel good (within the limits of my discretionary resources; culture frequently determines one’s perception of that).
I can commit altruistic acts out of a sense of obligation. This is not necessarily a negative thing.
To brush off opportunities for altruistic behavior incurs a less-than-good self image for me.
I may feel good about being altruistic, or I can avoid suffering by engaging in it, or I can do so out of dour duty (it’s expected of me).
In all cases, either boosting my good feelings or an avoidance of suffering are involved.
Selfish? I don’t know. The term selfish is a loaded one, and although basically true, doesn’t negate the good done in altruistic acts. I think that any self-interest that goes along with an act of charity is moot. You can’t avoid it. At least I can’t. I say it goes with being human.
I have to disagree with your friend’s reasoning. Yes, it was probably your upbringing, which happened to be religious, but the religious nature of it was not the only possible cause of your generosity. I would absolutely take care of my family if I could and they needed it. In fact, I intend to build a house for them on our property. And my upbringing was not religious. If I had tons of money, I would take care of my friends, too.
As for altruism, I have done (at least) one completely altruistic deed (at least I think it was). I knew I wouldn’t be thanked. I didn’t need the ego boost. A 6-year-old child needed help with extremely soiled clothing and I took care of it, not letting her know that each wipe made me gag (I have heard, and am hoping, that it’s not so gross with one’s own children). To her it was normal, because her parents laughed when she soiled herself, thinking it was cute. She wasn’t embarrassed. It was totally disgusting to me, but I did what needed to be done. I knew her parents through Irish music.
Selfish? I don’t know. The term selfish is a loaded one, and although basically true, doesn’t negate the good done in altruistic acts. I think that any self-interest that goes along with an act of charity is moot.
It doesn’t negate the good done in AN act, I agree completely. But, it would mean that the act was motivated by egoism.
I knew I wouldn’t be thanked. I didn’t need the ego boost. A 6-year-old child needed help with extremely soiled clothing and I took care of it, not letting her know that each wipe made me gag
I think the fair answer, that you would not get from Hobbes, is that only you know if it was truly altruistic. What were all of your motivations before you did it? If I, or Hobbes, pretends to know, that’s like saying, “I know you like the back of my hand” And, that is why everybody hated Hobbes when he was active back in the day. Its not fair to presume you can know someone better than they know themselves. Although, arguably, many people do not know themselves very well, or so it seems.
Nah, it wouldn’t have been neglectful not to do it…someone else should have done it. The people who were hired to take care of her should have. Her parents should have and would have if I hadn’t.
Good point. But on a humane level, it needed to be done one way or another. When you were presented with this opportunity, Jessie, would you have been OK with letting it wait instead? The child may or may not have been quite uncomfortable for a bit of time; I don’t know the details. Me, I’d be inclined to take care of it at least by getting hold of the parent as soon as possible. Cleaning, well, that would REALLY depend on how available the parent was. I think -and I’m not tooting my hypothetical horn, here- that this urge falls within the scope of altruism as a human motivation.
Frankly, I’d take any and everything said by Nietzsche with a grain of salt…
Oh, I donno. Sometimes people like to write him off by saying he was crazy, or he was an anti-semite etc. When he was actively writing he was perfectly sane, and he was clearly not an antisemite. His sister was, and he cut off ties w/ her as a result. He also cut ties w/ his friend Wagner, the composer, for his antisemitic views.
He likes to be provocative, and get people to think.
I like him
I think he was just surly and had a bad case of sour grapes and wanted an excuse for bad behavior. Probably spent too much time reading Machiavelli at that. I can’t say I’m an authority on him, I’ve only read bits and pieces of his writing, but I can safely say he probably didn’t really believe half of what he wrote. You’re right about one thing though: he was a consumate troller, long before the days of message board trolling…
Me, I’d be inclined to take care of it …this urge falls within the scope of altruism as a human motivation.
But what is your motivation? If you want to do something good for someone, so you “take care of it”, one could say that is a selfish motivation, b/c you are getting something out of it, namely, YOU LIKE POO. hehe, nonono. But if you set out to do something b/c you know you will recieve something you want in turn, that may not be true altruism.
But in all fairness, I’m just not sure. That’s why i brought it up…
It’s a good topic. I myself don’t see any difference at a very fundamental level between doing something knowing I’ll feel satisfied with myself for it, or doing it to gain something out of avarice. Either way, I’m unavoidably getting something in return. The act remains: what is left is one’s character. I would prefer the former over the latter, myself.
I think Nietzsche wanted to raise the bar for humans. The whole notion of the overman, throughout the stuff of his I’ve read anyway, is someone who is above the “hoard” or the sheep in our society. He’s a free thinker, and has progressed to a higher level among man, he’s a goal for us, someone who we should try to be.
Its not a concept I fully understand just yet, but I like so far…
I think -and I’m not tooting my hypothetical horn, here- that this urge falls within the scope of altruism as a human motivation.