Is Generosity Altruistic or Selfish?

[MysterionMuffles]

You know that saying, just give without expecting anything in return. Is that ever possible? Or is that just a phrase to mask any virtuously selfish gain in the process? Do we do favours for others to simply create obligations in them or can we really just do things for them without expecting, or getting anything in return? Because at the end of the day, even if they don't ever repay the favour, we still usually feel good for doing things for others, which in itself is selfish. And I don't mean that in a critical way, just the facts.

 

For instance, back in November, I went on one of those Tony Robbins Basket Brigades where I delivered turkeys and other food to poor families. On the outside, people will see that as a generous and kind thing to do, that I must really care about the poor. The truth is, I just wanted something productive to do on a Saturday morning and giving care to those less fortunate than me was just a secondary aim. I appreciated their gratitude for sure and I hate to say it, but I just saw it as your run of the mill delivery job. Except they got the food for free.

 

What are your thoughts?

[Alan C.]

Altruism is a conceit. Even if a person were to make a concerted effort to act solely for altruistic ends, he does so ultimately to please himself.

[Alice Amell]

As you said, if you do something nice for someone even without expecting material reward, you still feel good about it, and often receive gratitude or favor. It is good that altruism doesn't exist. Because that would mean people gain nothing from helping others, and so people would help much less. It is also not surprising that it is beneficial to ourselves to help others because we are a social species and depend on one another - we have evolved to protect the tribe, and to get along with those in the tribe else we be ostracized.

[Pepin]

The preceding question would be "is true altruism possible?", which has been the focus of much philosophical writing. The qualification "true" differentiates it from instances which appear altruistic, but actually aren't. In biology for instance, the term is used to describe interactions which appear to increase the survival of the benefactor while decreasing the survival of the altruist. It always ends up that it is beneficial to both, and most to the one who is altruistic.

 

The issue with altruism in regard to humans is that it always requires the judgement of the altruist. If it did not, as in the person was just following orders like a program follows code, then there would be no altruism or selfishness to be found. To act in an altruistic manner is to prefer altruistic behavior preference revolves around the person's beliefs.

 

People would call that selfish, and though it is true in a particular sense, context is needed. If altruism is defined as "valuing others state of beings to a high degree", then there is no inherent contradiction. Where the debate always becomes dumb is in asking if you can value others without concern for yourself, which is again dumb because value pertains to your values.

 

Now that I have addressed that, I can answer the question.

 

Selfish acts of generosity are means to an end. Doing community service may be generous, but the person wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't required. A politician may have a dinner to raise money for a disease, but that is only a means to paint a public image. As the OP said, you might help out at a food drive, but only as a means of relieving boredom or the feeling of unproductiveness.

 

Altruistic acts of generosity are ones where the act achieves the end. Doing community service for no real reason but the feeling that you helped someone would be altruistic because the mean is an end in itself. If an activist raises money for a disease, there may have been no other reason for the activist to have that event than to end that disease. If a person helps out a food drive, what they are getting out of it is feeding people.

 

Of course many acts will be somewhere in the middle.

 

To be more specific, altruistic acts are ones where the motive has a high relation with the act. Not liking the idea of people starving and feeding them is altruistic because the motive and the act are in synchrony.

 

Selfish acts which appear to be altruistic are where the motive has little to no relation to the act. Wanting to look good and feeding hungry people to achieve this desire are less connected. It is not that it won't work, you will likely be perceived as a better if you feed hungry people, but rather that the motive is disconnected from the end.

[WasatchMan]

 

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

 

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

 

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”    "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" Philosphy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

[AjaxTheGiant]

With issues such as this it all comes back to intentions. Feeling good about helping others doesn't make you selfish, I submit that is a natural reaction to seeing goodness being projected into the world.

[DaviesMa]

Altruism, in practical or physical terms in easy; you can simply donate anonymously to a charity for example.

 

Being altruistic in emotional terms however is impossible. You are saying, "I want to do something that I don't want to do"

 

You cannot do something that does not have a perceived benefit to yourself, however deeply buried that may be in your freudian subconscious.

 

It could be positive, such as the fuzzy feeling of making the world a better place or it could be more dysfunctional such as the benefits of fulfilling the need to ease guilt, avoiding self attack through martyrdom or other destructive emotions. Either way you wanted to do it, so it is not just for someone else.

 

(Unfortunately, statists and leftists in particular try to portay altruism as an act of self erasure rather than an act of love and kindness. Maybe because guilt is a tool to control others where as self esteem is a tool to control yourself.)

[Better Future]

Is it altruistic when a new mother gives generously to her baby? Or is it selfish because she does not understand why she does it, she just does it because it makes her happy. Is it selfish when a male seeks female company only for the purpose of sex?

 

I would say that natural is a better word for the behaviours that we describe as altruistic and selfish. We feel good when helping others because we are a social species relying on cooperation to survive. A new mother does not choose to be generous to her baby, it comes naturally.

 

When would giving be truly altruistic? Would there need to be a lack of neurochemical reward for the giver while he simultaneously cares about the feelings of the receiver? How could a person care about the feelings of another while lacking feelings of his own?

 

Most people would say altruism is good, selfishness is bad. I just see nature.

[J. D. Stembal]

 

Is it altruistic when a new mother gives generously to her baby? Or is it selfish because she does not understand why she does it, she just does it because it makes her happy. Is it selfish when a male seeks female company only for the purpose of sex?

 

I would say that natural is a better word for the behaviours that we describe as altruistic and selfish. We feel good when helping others because we are a social species relying on cooperation to survive. A new mother does not choose to be generous to her baby, it comes naturally.

 

When would giving be truly altruistic? Would there need to be a lack of neurochemical reward for the giver while he simultaneously cares about the feelings of the receiver? How could a person care about the feelings of another while lacking feelings of his own?

 

Most people would say altruism is good, selfishness is bad. I just see nature.

 

 

There's nature, and then there is government propaganda. I wonder which is stronger.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/01/babies-dont-suffer-working-mothers

 

My mother returned to work when I was eight weeks old.

[Better Future]

There's nature, and then there is government propaganda. I wonder which is stronger.

 

Biology is stronger but natural instinct can be overcome by culture. Sometimes the indoctrination can be so strong that people can choose to starve themselves to death. That is rare though because instinct is so strong.

 

Instinct is filtered through our cultural programming. Instead of raping each other we dress up nicely and go to a bar. Unless you live somewhere like the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Women love their children just as much but now there are new forces in our industrialised world.

 

I disagree with that article. Sure, we can get away with mothers returning to work early but that is to disregard the vital importance of parenting. 

 

Do you think your mother loved you less because she returned to work when you were 8 weeks old?

[free-b]

I think that is an excellent question and it is one that I wonder a lot too!  OK now I lose from square one-I compliment you on the quality of the question then I conveniently add myself in as a co-recipient of the credit of the compliment.  How convenient!

 

As best as I could guess thinking about it, I think apparently all acts of humans are inherently selfish-even donations.  Robert Ringer's old 70's pop philosophy books, "Winning Through Intimidation" and "Looking out for Number One" would see them this way-and I mostly agree.  It takes mind-bending, a hefty dose of detailed thinking and humility to go there.

 

I have considered that in a universe that appears to be absent absolutes, there seems to be an exception to every rule.  In humans that might be forms of insanity-whereby people take crazy actions because their facilities which process self-interest may be malfunctioning.  The old saying, "take my offer before I come to my senses and change my mind" could be sort of a way of thinking about this.  I am sure if you looked at that particular example you could shoot holes in it but the idea is that it may be possible for people to be unselfish through mental illness.  Consider also that people who smoke or do other poor habits usually make an irrational choice whereby they take an action they erroneously judge will be a source of pleasure to them them when it really is not.

 

I've considered that some people could be disgusted by human nature and even reality and want to rebel against it.  The entrapping idea that one cannot forfeit selfishness, it seems to me, might tempt certain philosophers and priests to experiment with the possibility of breaking this barrier if they were in the proper frame of mind to.  Especially when one consideres the finite nature of life (nothing to lose trying because we all die anyway).  Again, superficial examples of this principle might be seen in such people as martyrs, hermits and monks.  They seem to be attempting to do this but I am still not sure whether or not they harbor a perspective that somehow they will benefit.

 

Advancement of humanity through Darwinism comes through error (perhaps as mentioned above)-probably not willful error.  I would also add that while people are concerned with their well being, it could be possible that humans who have achieved their well being sufficiently may stop seeking it though selfishness.  It might be that we don't even have the intellectual abilities to understand a paradigm without selfishness even if we are partly participating in it without knowing it.

[Libertus]

It's selfish, and that is OK. You're giving up something you value less (money, e.g.) for something you value more (another person's well-being, and the nice feeling of doing good in the world) and that is selfish, and it's cool.