Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Altruism -- a load of piffle?

"Altruism" is an interesting word. It was coined by Auguste Comte for use in his study of sociology (I think he also coined "sociology") in the mid 19th century. I find it an interesting word because as much and as widely used as it is, it does not really seem to reflect any action in the real world. It seems to me to be an altogether meaningless word. Is anyone truly altruistic, in the sense of the following:
SOURCE:



SOURCE:
... or is it simply an empty, feel-good word, or worse, a word used to manipuate and con others?
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, only you would ask that question. Have you never considered the interest of another before your own? Do you have a child? A loved one?

Really; is this a real question for you?

Well, Phil, some concepts that are mainstream in society generally are foreign to certain segments of society. Kind of like liberty and justice. Very common concepts in the origins of the United States, but I'm finally getting through Dee Brown's Wounded Knee. Was never cynical enough to get beyond the second chapter before. And it makes very clear the reality that liberty and justice were concepts totally foreign to Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, and their ilk. So makes sense that there would be some folks in this day and age who would find the notion of altruism similarly "specious".

Phil I don't think the kind of love you are referring to is often, or perhaps even ever described as altruism. One does not do what one does for one's child or lover out of a sense of altruism.

I think there's definitely a distinction between Comte's definition of the term as describing a moral obligation and the more common usage describing a personal urge or leading. I would agree readily that the former definition invites manipulators: "It's your duty to be nice, and I'm going to tell you what you must do in order to fulfill that duty." But the idea that a word can be empty yet what it describes gives people satisfaction is totally alien to my experience.

It seems from your opening post, iss, that your question is primarily about the original, technical definition than about the more contemporary, colloquial one. I'd rather hear what people have to say about the latter definition. Much more interesting to me!

I like your first quote/definition, Issodhos, rather than the later, more exclusive, It's sort of a matter of degrees isn't it? My ass comes first but I'm gonna do my very best to save your life as well. How about you? Would you give your life to save your daughter?

Given Stereoman's reply I find that my answer is wrong as well, your family doesn't count. Your friends don't count. Only complete strangers? I'd still do my best to save your life Issodhos, to the point of great personal peril.

Yes, I do think altruism exists.

I am fairly sure that whatever examples I come up with will be discounted for one reason or another (I'm feeling contrary tonight) and I can't probably stick around long as the storm has finally arrived here & I'm on battery power.)

This morning I got coffee at a drive-through coffee shop. I don't go there often so I forgot that their exit is way too close to a busy intersection, and for some reason everyone in town was heading west. The backup from the red light prevented me from pulling into the street. Partway during the second red, a car stopped well back, leaving a car length for me to pull into traffic.

Pure altruism.

A more complex version: approximately 12 years ago I was ill and was given a course of medicine. At one point the prescription was changed and the new medication gave me a screaming-willies panic attack. I had no idea what to do, so I called an old friend - someone who lived about 1200 miles away ("rational thinking" and "panic attack" don't exactly go hand in hand.)

My friend could have stayed with me until I started to improve, and then hung up the phone. Instead, he stayed on the phone with me for four hours - until the panic attack was over, then through the shuddering fear that followed (I'd never had a panic attack before and thankfully haven't had one since.) He talked me through a cup of hot chocolate. At about 1:00 in the morning, he told me to hang up and go upstairs to bed (this is pre-wireless), and he'd call me back. He proceeded to do exactly that, making sure I was safely in bed and calm enough to fall asleep.

I am blessed with good friends. At the time of that panic attack, I hadn't seen John in over five years. We didn't talk on a regular basis; he was not an old lover, no romantic interest - a friend. What he did, he did solely for my good - not for any benefit to himself. I still think he's a terrific human being. I haven't seen him in a good eight years now - and if I was in trouble, I still know I could call on him.

Postscript: I would add, many if not most of those whose homes and farms were "stations" on the Underground Railroad.

I would add those - or some of those, if you want to be cynical - who hid, or helped hide, Jews from Nazis in many Eastern European countries.

I would add the Vietnamese man who lived across the street from me many years ago. We had an early blizzard that broke down a ton of trees all over the state. My neighbor and his son - neither of whom I'd ever met - brought a chainsaw to my yard to cut up a huge limb that had fallen in my yard. They wouldn't take money. They didn't speak English. They didn't take the wood.

I won't go into the number of people who have pushed me out of snow in driveways or parking lots as well as streets (my old car lost traction if it snowed in the next county), or the trucker who stopped on a West Texas highway in order to help me change a tire.

This is a false question.

Altruism exists from the point of view of the receiver of the altruistic act.

However, every altruistic act is performed by a person who has chosen to act in such a manner. The "cost" is accounted before prior to the act, and therefore "paid for".

The idea that altruism is a "con" or "pretend" is a false attribution. If the receiver thinks it is altruism, then so it is, regardless of the actor's state of mind. This does bring up the valid question of whether is is possible for an act to be altruistic from the point of view of the actor.

Such questions are really only of concern for people who primarily THINK. For people who primarily FEEL, they are just stupid, and it is annoying for FEELers to listen to THINKers try to break down the elements and quantize the essential elements of the feelings involved. It takes all the sense out of the feelings.

Yes to all of your questions, Phil. Was the subjegation of my interest to another's interest altruistic? I do not see how it could be. In placing another's interest before my own, I did what I wished to do -- and was motivated accordingly. In doing so, I found it to be gratifying to do what I thought was the right thing to do. That would be in my interest, would it not?
Yours,
Issodhos

My question applies to both, stereoman. I provided the various definitions simply to form a basis for discussion. I do not think altruism in any form actually exists.
Yours,
Issodhos