Altruism

[Tomsan]

So I thought lets freshen things up on the politics section, instead of all those religion, war and politics threads.

True altruism does not exicst in my opinion. It depends on how you classify the word. But true altruism: "Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition." never happens. That doesnt say it did never happen.

Sacrificing your own live or putting it in high danger to save another, not genetically/socially related to you in anyway, is something no-one does. There are many examples of people rescuing others though. Yes but I dont see that as an altruistic act, because there is a certain social pressure to save people. It makes you a hero. It is part of our culture. This makes the act not altruistic (an opinion).
It is very hard to proove altruism, in the animal kingdom you never see it (except for some occasions, but you dont see any regularity in it). You do see maternal/paternal animals endangering there lives to save there kin, but that not considered altruistic, for its trying to save his own genes.

what I would see as an altruistic act is when a (sane) human being would sacrifice his live to save an animal, with which he has no bond or what so ever. Lets say to make it clear, he sees a grenade land next to an old dog, and the person throws himself on the grenade to save the unknown dog. I dont think there are any records of people doing such thing. I also think people would find this person insane, or suicidal. That is because the act is made to save something other then a human being. This whole idea makes all similar altruistic acts with human-human interactions flawd, because people would find that heroic.

I truly cannot think of one example to proove altruism, atleast to the meaning I give it. So its very hard to proove it. It does depend on the personal thoughts of the person saving another.
last example: lets say you are in the cold winter woods alone, far from any civilization. you see an elderly man in a rough white water river below you. the water is probably only 1C trying to save his life will highly endanger you own. Would you dive in anyway? I personally would not, but there probably are people who would. Now the question is, is the act truely altruitic, or still fuelled by social pressure, thoughts of heroism, thoughts of reward later, status. In my opinion very likely. but this is something you can never proove.

wikipedia-altruism

debate:

[AapoJoki]

I think the definition you're giving on altruism is a bit too strict. For example, when I open up a door to an old or disabled person, or someone who might otherwise have difficulties with opening doors, and I feel good about myself, I consider it to be a case, although a very small case, of true altruism. With this strict defintion, however, I am only opening the door because I want to feel good about myself, or I don't want to look like an asshole. That may be partially true, but I don't want to think of it that way; I may be a bit naïve, but when I open doors for people, one of the reasons I do it is because I want them to get through the doors.

I think true altruism exists in humans. The reward of "feeling good about oneself" is not just a motivation to feign altruism. On the contrary, the elating feeling we associate with altruistic actions is a sign of true altruism. It just occurs naturally, just like most of our altruistic behaviour. Someone who opens the door and feels 100% indifferent about it, is clearly doing it for insincere reasons.

Some psychological tests have been made with monkeys and human children, regarding altruism. Monkeys did not co-operate unless they would both get the reward, whereas human children had altruistic behaviour as soon as the age of 3. I don't think 3-year-olds understand social pressure like grown-up people, nor would they care about it very much. This case demonstrates how altruism is part of our human nature and one of the things that makes us human. It is also one of our greatest strengths and one of the reasons why our species has survived and prospered all over the world, even in extreme conditions.

I agree that it's difficult to prove altruism however. People who have done heroic things usually become famous or are otherwise rewarded materially. Those who help people in their profession every day get paid for it. If someone is otherwise helpful or empathethic, their friends or family will respect them more because of it. There's almost always a reward. And if someone ever helped anyone without expecting to get any reward, recognition or respect in return, we obviously have never heard of them and neither probably has the person whom they helped. So, we can't even prove that such a person exists.

[Tomsan]

At 1/23/07 05:10 PM, AapoJoki wrote: For example, when I open up a door to an old or disabled person, or someone who might otherwise have difficulties with opening doors, and I feel good about myself, I consider it to be a case, although a very small case, of true altruism.

I dont think opening a door for someone is in any way altruistic. one party must benefit while the other must have negative consequences. opening a door doesnt affect the helping party, maybe in losing some time, but no not altruistic.

Some psychological tests have been made with monkeys and human children, regarding altruism. Monkeys did not co-operate unless they would both get the reward, whereas human children had altruistic behaviour as soon as the age of 3. I don't think 3-year-olds understand social pressure like grown-up people, nor would they care about it very much. This case demonstrates how altruism is part of our human nature and one of the things that makes us human. It is also one of our greatest strengths and one of the reasons why our species has survived and prospered all over the world, even in extreme conditions.

I'd like to believe you on your word, but I would like it very much if you would provide a link of this research, because if its true, it would change my perception about it. It depens on how the research was done though.
If you can I'd like a link.

[Bolo]

What about that guy in New York who threw himself in front of a subway to rescue a guy he didn't know?

I think THAT's altruistic, and although it is indeed rare, it does occur.

[AapoJoki]

At 1/23/07 06:44 PM, Tomsan wrote: I dont think opening a door for someone is in any way altruistic. one party must benefit while the other must have negative consequences. opening a door doesnt affect the helping party, maybe in losing some time, but no not altruistic.

OK, bad example. However, I would still describe this situation as altruistic. Altruism to me means helping people when there's nothing to gain for yourself. There doesn't have to be a huge loss or other negative consequences for the helper, although if there is, we're of course talking about a lot bigger amount of altruism. If we really don't care about other people, why would we bother to slow ourselves down even that bit for their sake?

I'd like to believe you on your word, but I would like it very much if you would provide a link of this research, because if its true, it would change my perception about it. It depens on how the research was done though.
If you can I'd like a link.

I'd really like one too, but some of us, like me, apparently live on the stone age and still read newspapers :) That's where I read about the tests. I still have the article somewhere. I found it so interesting to read that I cut it off and saved it.

[Eoewe]

If someone feels good by helping others, what does it matter? Definintions are tricky as most come down to perspective.

[SilentProtagonist]

At 1/23/07 07:55 AM, Tomsan wrote: So I thought lets freshen things up on the politics section, instead of all those religion, war and politics threads.

True altruism does not exicst in my opinion.

I wouldn't say that.

[Camarohusky]

You are seriously wrong in your reading of the word altruism. The way you put it, it IS impossible, but in the way it is used in the world is not one that is so strict it makes itself undoable.

The REAL meaning of altruism points toward an act where the reward is either negligable, or not tangible.

Like a person who helps the homeless because in return they recieve satisfaction in seeing them grow, or just smile. By your definition, it's not altruistic, because that person's joy in seeing the other person's happiness is selfish, but to a normal person, it is very altruistic. That person will not leave that situation with anything more than they had before, hell they might even have less, but they will have done something to help another, and that's the connotation fo the word altruistic, not the ultra strict definition.

[Boltrig]

At 1/27/07 06:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You are seriously wrong in your reading of the word altruism. The way you put it, it IS impossible, but in the way it is used in the world is not one that is so strict it makes itself undoable.

Agreed. If the definition is made so strict to the point where the act appears to be an insanity, then it porbably is an insanity. The case of the man throwing himself on a grenade next to a dog (mentioned above) This would probably be viewed as insanity by society, so the definition needs to be loosened a bit.
I think altruism could exist in the animal world (unlikely, however) because animals have to cogitive thought process that would lead them to the conclusion "if I sacrifice something, I will be rewarded"

[Tomsan]

At 1/27/07 06:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You are seriously wrong in your reading of the word altruism. The way you put it, it IS impossible, but in the way it is used in the world is not one that is so strict it makes itself undoable.

its definately not impossible, only nearly impossible to prove. The meaning of the word, in general is indeed less strict, but the meaning I've been taught in evolutionary science is different.
I did highlight the meaning I give it.
the picture below is a picture given in some of my literature (sort of)

The REAL meaning of altruism points toward an act where the reward is either negligable, or not tangible.

real meaning is so relative.

Like a person who helps the homeless because in return they recieve satisfaction in seeing them grow, or just smile. By your definition, it's not altruistic, because that person's joy in seeing the other person's happiness is selfish, but to a normal person, it is very altruistic.

This would pass maybe as Reciprocal altruism. donating money i.e. to a homeless person, is not only considered good because of our culture (its not as commen in other cultures, so its indoctrinated), it is also a form of Reciprocal altruism. a good example are the bats. they give blood to 'beggers' when those beggers couldnt find any blood. but the giver remembers there scent. when they will come to often or when they will not return the favour, they are not given any blood anymore.
giving money to homeless or helping them, in a way is the same. When you might end up in a situation like it, you hope to get help of others to.

That person will not leave that situation with anything more than they had before, hell they might even have less, but they will have done something to help another, and that's the connotation fo the word altruistic, not the ultra strict definition.

yes I again agree, but its not the philosophical definition. and that was what I was talking about.

[Tomsan]

sorry forgot the picture

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Who uses a grenade on ad dog? But people will swerve in a car risking their life for a dumb squirel with a nut, they have no bond, and it happens daily, i do realize some don't swerve but i think the swervers are more common.

[Imperator]

This would pass maybe as Reciprocal altruism. donating money i.e. to a homeless person, is not only considered good because of our culture (its not as commen in other cultures, so its indoctrinated), it is also a form of Reciprocal altruism. a good example are the bats. they give blood to 'beggers' when those beggers couldnt find any blood. but the giver remembers there scent. when they will come to often or when they will not return the favour, they are not given any blood anymore.

That's not exactly fair, you are judging the end result to make assumptions on the means. In other words, just because we can receive benefits from our actions does not make that the primary cause of DOING the action, thus, we are indeed altruistic. In fact, it is hard to find examples where generosity is NOT rewarded, since it seems basic human nature, but that doesn't mean we do the action to receive (Recip alt). In many cases, the return on the action isn't even noticed, ie, we don't even know that we will benefit from it until we actually do.

Read up on Social Psychology a bit, and you'll find buttloads of research on altruism. I think most have come to the conclusion that we are altruistic.