Altruism

C

CrazyCatLady

Guest
I know this post will not go down well. Most will debate it, thinking they cannot possibly be one of the humans I’m writing about. How can they be? Humans are GOOD, godamnit! Every day, the (hu)man sacrifices himself for others- even for small furry animals! We would give the shirt off our backs for another in a snow storm; run into a burning building to save the puppy next door- sacrifice our lives for another. All without thinking of the adverse consequences to ourselves.
But really- is true altruism a fact or a wish?

The evolutionary theories of altruism give us:
Kin selection- family and anyone who looks like you or a family member, but screw everyone else.
Ingroup Favouritism- only those non-relations you deem as part of your inner circle and whom you like, but screw everyone else.
Reciprocal altruism- “I do for you, but you owe me one in some form, but I won’t tell you, you owe me one- I’ll just expect it back some day.” The most common type and celebrated in human traditions- for example, Christmas.
Strong reciprocity- only evident in a bunch of lab experiments, so no real evidence it exists beyond what the men in white coats have told us.
Costly signalling/the handicap principle- “I’ve got loads, so I’m going to give you some, because I want you to think I’m worthy of your attention/rich/a good person/a person you want to sleep with and have lots of babies with.” So, effectively showing off.
Group Selection- pretty much the same as ingroup favouritism, but you may not like all members of your group, but you’ll be nice, because if you’re not, no one else will like you and then you’re ostracised from the group and ooh err, you wanna avoid that!

Now, let’s look at the psychological theories:
Exchange theory-I’ll help you, as long as I don’t have to part with too much and I get back more than what I’ve lost.” Like a bag full of saviour high and the inner validation that you ARE a good person and worthy of love.
Empathy-altruism-I’ve been there, so I don’t want to see someone else in that position”. But this only depends on if you identify with the person you have empathy with. A psychological ingroup favouritism- by the possibility sharing of similar negative experiences, that person becomes a part of the ingroup (with those haven’t experienced that as the outgroup).

Neurobiological explanations- being nice actually activates happy chemicals and helps us live longer! However, how empathic you are determines the level of happy chemicals released on being nice to others. So, not strictly an innate human mechanism, but one that is activated largely by nurture.

Religion loves to talk about being nice to others and sacrifice. All the major cults endorse it (among the tales of blood, rape, paedophilia, genocides and murders for not believing in same imaginary friend). However, the biggest religion associated with altruism is Buddhism- under its laws of karma. Yet still, it is not an act without reward. The laws of Karma in a nutshell are that what you give is what you receive- maybe not in this life, but in the next. So, any and all acts of selflessness will be repaid.

Conclusion: My position is that Altruism cannot exist while there is the absence of guilt as a reward for the act. Not only are humans rewarded through the addition of a feeling (e.g. validation, acceptance), they can be equally motivated to avoid a feeling or sensation (e.g. pain, guilt, remorse). Furthermore, we are more likely to feel guilt if others are aware of our lack of action and aware of our capabilities to help.

My question to you: All the theories on the trait of altruism, agree that empathy or some form of connection with the subject needs to be present and all give a reward for the sacrifice made, so does altruism in human nature exist?
 
S

Saphire

Guest
In a minority of saintly people it probably does exist, but for most, giving of ourselves and expecting nothing in return, is usually rewarded by that warm glow of knowing you have done good.

Who wants to be a saint anyway?
 

Moriarty

UKChat Celebrity
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
739
I know this post will not go down well. Most will debate it, thinking they cannot possibly be one of the humans I’m writing about. How can they be? Humans are GOOD, godamnit! Every day, the (hu)man sacrifices himself for others- even for small furry animals! We would give the shirt off our backs for another in a snow storm; run into a burning building to save the puppy next door- sacrifice our lives for another. All without thinking of the adverse consequences to ourselves.
But really- is true altruism a fact or a wish?

The evolutionary theories of altruism give us:
Kin selection- family and anyone who looks like you or a family member, but screw everyone else.
Ingroup Favouritism- only those non-relations you deem as part of your inner circle and whom you like, but screw everyone else.
Reciprocal altruism- “I do for you, but you owe me one in some form, but I won’t tell you, you owe me one- I’ll just expect it back some day.” The most common type and celebrated in human traditions- for example, Christmas.
Strong reciprocity- only evident in a bunch of lab experiments, so no real evidence it exists beyond what the men in white coats have told us.
Costly signalling/the handicap principle- “I’ve got loads, so I’m going to give you some, because I want you to think I’m worthy of your attention/rich/a good person/a person you want to sleep with and have lots of babies with.” So, effectively showing off.
Group Selection- pretty much the same as ingroup favouritism, but you may not like all members of your group, but you’ll be nice, because if you’re not, no one else will like you and then you’re ostracised from the group and ooh err, you wanna avoid that!

Now, let’s look at the psychological theories:
Exchange theory-I’ll help you, as long as I don’t have to part with too much and I get back more than what I’ve lost.” Like a bag full of saviour high and the inner validation that you ARE a good person and worthy of love.
Empathy-altruism-I’ve been there, so I don’t want to see someone else in that position”. But this only depends on if you identify with the person you have empathy with. A psychological ingroup favouritism- by the possibility sharing of similar negative experiences, that person becomes a part of the ingroup (with those haven’t experienced that as the outgroup).

Neurobiological explanations- being nice actually activates happy chemicals and helps us live longer! However, how empathic you are determines the level of happy chemicals released on being nice to others. So, not strictly an innate human mechanism, but one that is activated largely by nurture.

Religion loves to talk about being nice to others and sacrifice. All the major cults endorse it (among the tales of blood, rape, paedophilia, genocides and murders for not believing in same imaginary friend). However, the biggest religion associated with altruism is Buddhism- under its laws of karma. Yet still, it is not an act without reward. The laws of Karma in a nutshell are that what you give is what you receive- maybe not in this life, but in the next. So, any and all acts of selflessness will be repaid.

Conclusion: My position is that Altruism cannot exist while there is the absence of guilt as a reward for the act. Not only are humans rewarded through the addition of a feeling (e.g. validation, acceptance), they can be equally motivated to avoid a feeling or sensation (e.g. pain, guilt, remorse). Furthermore, we are more likely to feel guilt if others are aware of our lack of action and aware of our capabilities to help.

My question to you: All the theories on the trait of altruism, agree that empathy or some form of connection with the subject needs to be present and all give a reward for the sacrifice made, so does altruism in human nature exist?

I take it you have never seen a battlefield.

Do some research on the Victoria Cross and tell me sacrifice doesn't exist.
Please dont attempt to psychoanalyse those who have laid down thier own lives in defence of their fellow soldiers.
That is not some petty virtue signalling, we are talking about peoples lives.

It would be the same as questioning a mother who dies to protect her child.
Is it instinctive or is it because she couldn't live with herself if she didnt?

Futile.

That aside. philosophically your right, it's Hobbes/Rousseau.
Either people are inherently good but society turns them into self important asshats, or they were self important asshats anyway.

Why does everything have to so black and white when it comes to altruism?

Real life falls somewhere in the middle and ignores the biological determinate that Hobbes/Rousseau does not address.

If you have ever been in a combat situation you react.
There is no overarching philosophy to it, you just do it.
It's not a conscious thought, it's simple instinct.

It's easy for academics to argue the pro's and cons, but unless one has been in a life threatening situation, one cannot understand the strength of the survival instinct, not just for yourself, but for those around you.

Yes you can say its an ingroup preference.
Yes you can say your protecting your own faction.
But that argument cant avoid when Army Medics in the trenches during WW1 risked thier lives to save enemy soldiers.

That is simple heroism.
Or altruism.
Take your pick.

Conclusion: My position is that Altruism cannot exist while there is the absence of guilt as a reward for the act. Not only are humans rewarded through the addition of a feeling (e.g. validation, acceptance), they can be equally motivated to avoid a feeling or sensation (e.g. pain, guilt, remorse). Furthermore, we are more likely to feel guilt if others are aware of our lack of action and aware of our capabilities to help.


Your talking about giving to charity, feeling good.

When your sitting on the street with your friends head in your arms while he takes his last breath, because he took a bullet for you, then you can talk about sacrifice.
You think he did it because of the guilt he would suffer if he didnt.

Academic conclusion with no experience of real sacrifice.
 

Moriarty

UKChat Celebrity
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
739
I was going to post more, but it's probably not a good idea.

Lets just say that Philosophy, which I love, has it's limits when it hits evolutionary imperatives.

It needs to grow the feck up and realise that academic debate and real life are very different.
 
Back
Top