Buddhist monk on TED talk: How to let altruism be your guide

[Lingum]

I wanted to share this very recent TED talk because I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on the subjects.
 

 
The talk was as expected. The speaker rushes through complex issues with (very few) facts, and inexplicably injects altruism as a solution. He discusses whether people are altruistic or selfish. I found his framing of that discussion to be disingenuous. Had he instead chosen to compare to rational self-interest, the topic could've been illuminating.
 
It should be no surprise, then, that his "solution" to problems in the world, is not a world where interactions are voluntary. Instead, he chooses to make no mention of the political structures of modern societies. Considering the fact that people in positions of power generally have less empathy (more likely to be sociopaths or psychopaths), that's a huge, unmentioned gap in his theory.
 
Come to think of it, a lot of the most prominent Buddhists glorify the democracies of the West and involve themselves in world politics (Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi). This is despite the Buddhist principle of doing no harm.

Buddhism: Principles of Moral Thought and Action

4. Right action: Actions that are not "right" are those that are forbidden by the five precepts: lying, stealing, killing, taking intoxicants, and sexual misconduct. Instead, one must act with respect, generosity, self-control, honesty, and compassion.

5. Right livelihood: One should not pursue an occupation that harms or exploits others, nor should one be motivated by a big salary or hope to earn more than one needs. The right livelihood is one that provides for one's needs while at the same time serving others and improving the human condition.

 

All together, I found the entire talk to be frustratingly vague. Instead of getting into economic and psychological realities, he offers no explanation for statements like "you will have a caring economy." Instead of philosophy, he offers sophistry like "finance at the service of society, and not society at the service of finances." Is finance not a part of society?

 

Edit

I forgot to mention the similarities between this talk and Communism.

• Altruism replaces the part of self-interest in economy
• Greed or selfishness is a problem
• People have to change (no detailed approach)

[Pepin]

I got about five minutes in and I had a difficult time listening. There is a tendency for people to speak in extremely high level terms such as "equality", which results in about sixty different arguments being made at once. This is to some degree why concepts are useful, but here, it loses its attachment to reality because the references to instances get cut.

 

After studying this subject for a while, I don't think altruism is too applicable to economics or ethics. Even it does exist, is measurable, and is preferable, it would be difficult to implement as it tends not to be a default state. Many meditators say that they only achieve the ability to be altruistic after five or more years of intense meditation.

 

I would like to see more focus on empathy than altruism, as empathy can be an extreme market force an is very measurable.

 

Of course I am trying not to go off and start arguing against all the Marxism and Kantianism, but I do think that there is potential to swing this altruistic concept into a better discussion about the best way to structure a society with selfish individuals. If altruism is not a practical approach, then convincing people that the question is "what is the best way to organize society given that people are selfish?". The question is of course loaded, as the answer is a market economy, but it would be a good way to introduce people into the idea of decentralized systems.

[jpahmad]

Eastern version of a tarot card reader. 

[fractional slacker]

Haven't watched the video.  It seems to me altruism is a bi product of religion, and hence erroneous when used to separate truth from falsehood.  Altruism as a moral theory is retarded, as Ayn Rand used to preach about.

[J. D. Stembal]

I wonder why Buddhist spirituality and Leftism have such a great affinity for each other.

 

I've come up with two points.

 

1) In Buddhism, desire or craving causes suffering because of the impermanence of satisfaction, therefore desire is not a permanent solution in life. Desire, in the Buddhist teaching, often gets conflated with greed and consumerism, which are often cited as the more negative characteristics of capitalism by the Left.

 

2) Buddhism, as a religion, is completely different from Christianity conceptually and morally, which is often seen as the philosophic and moral bulwark of the Conservative Right. Being mystical or Buddhist is less authoritarian and "churchy" than being a Christian, while containing just as much irrationality and hocus pocus.

 

Does anyone else have any other ideas, or comments regarding these observations?

 

Oh, and plus rep for the hamster avatar.

[nathanm]

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if the ghost of Ayn Rand cried out in pain.

[Alan C.]

Where did his prescription eyeglasses come from, I wonder?

[DaviesMa]

He talks about co operation, altruism, pro social behaviour and then altruistic love but cannot be a realistic solution to the way humans interact.

 

If both parties to a transaction are altruistic, this is reciprocity, or exchange, which is not altruistic. By definition there must be one party who recieves the unearned.

 

Many instances in life are a nil sum game, such as going for a job interview or dating and attractive partner, so if we choose to be altruistic then we will be punished accordingly. This creates a disincentive for following a supposed moral ideal.

 

With a non nil sum game, co operation can allow both parties to enjoy more benefits, however this is not altruism, this is rational self interest and capitalism. If people exchange value then they both have an incentive to co operate. In this instance in order to be altruistic, I would have to give the other person my share of the proceeds, again punishing me for being altruistic.

 

It always surprises me that people don't think of what it is like to be on the end of 'altruism'. I would feel deeply uneasy recieving something that was unearned and I cannot imagine not feeling indebted to someone if the helped me in a significant manner without reward. I would find it highly immoral to not do my very best to repay the person who had helped me, as not engaging in reciprocity feels deeply immoral to me.

 

Matt