Author
|
Topic: Altruism (Read 3476 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Altruism
« on: 2005-06-14 12:08:05 » |
 |
I would like to re-examine the nature of altruism here. The common conception of an altruistic act as one that benefits someone at the expense of the actor is problematic because it almost never happens. Most people that give it any thought realize that the actor usually benefits from charitable acts somehow, usually in terms of self-esteem or reputation. This realization has led some to say that altruism doesn't really exist. I can see why that may be appealing considering the common (mis)conception of altruism, but there is a more productive alternative. Let's redefine altruism to mean any act that benefits the recipient more than the actor.
Let's say that you give some random charity $20. We can assume that the act of giving was worth more than $20 to you because if it wasn't you would have kept the $20. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you would spend no more than $25 for the same amount of benefit (self-esteem, reputation or whatever), so you net the equivalent of $5 on the transaction of giving ($25 benefit minus $20 cost). The charity will spend the $20 on something worth at least $20 to it so it nets a minimum of $20 ($20 in goods or services minus $0 cost). Clearly this is a charitable act using our new definition because the recipient (the charity) gets a benefit of at least $20 while the actor (you) gets a net benefit of $5 (equivalent) from the act of giving.
Now let's change the situation a bit to illuminate the difference this definition makes. Let's say that instead you have reason to believe that giving $20 will lead to a much larger benefit, for example it will ultimately land you a job or get you laid or something worth much more than $100 to you. In that case you net more than $80 while the charity is unlikely to get something worth that much to them for the $20 you give them. In this case the same act of giving $20 to the charity is not altruistic.
This new defintion fits with my intuition more than the common definition. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Altruism
« Reply #1 on: 2005-06-14 13:08:04 » |
|
I think this definition reflects a lot of the common sense of altruism. Some in the Objectivist movement have tried to make "altruism" and "sacrifice" bad words. I remain skeptical of bad words. I commend the Objectivist intent to point out the selfish gain in altruistic acts and to make the individual the point of focus rather than some cultural superorganism. I concur in that judgment on the grounds of basic empathy, that people are more important than ideas, which also implicates anti-dogmatism. I however I remain skeptical of bad words and think "altruism" and "sacrifice" have reasonable meanings less ominous for the individual. For the sake of the greater enlightenment of humanity I might risk or even sacrifice my own life if under the circumstances I thought it would actually make said difference. Though I remain committed to immortalism at least as an idea (I would probably want someone to save some sample DNA of mine along with the cultural memory of the act if not of my life as well), I also believe that I am something of a lab animal, life being so full of risk anyway. I know my life has a price tag on it (just ask an actuary), I just prefer to work with that fact rather than deny it.
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Jorrit
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2
Reputation: 5.00
Rate Jorrit
|
|
Re:Altruism
« Reply #2 on: 2005-10-13 10:53:57 » |
|
I would like to add that it is scientifically commonly accepted that human society is based on reciprocal altruism, which actually comes down to hoping that someone will return the favor if you give them something. I.E.: Your collegue forgot to bring his wallet, so he can't buy any food. You offer to lend him some money, hoping that you will eventually receive something in return when you need it. It is actually ensuring your own survival, by helping another individual to survive. In other words: it is not a necessity to immediately get something in return for what you gave, it is investing in a relationship, so you can rely on the friends you've collected, when things go bad for you. Those favors they owe you might even save your life one day (or at least increase your biological fitness) and thus it will be good for you as well to give things away.
|
Ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Altruism
« Reply #3 on: 2005-10-26 09:37:26 » |
|
Quote from: Jorrit on 2005-10-13 10:53:57
I would like to add that it is scientifically commonly accepted that human society is based on reciprocal altruism, which actually comes down to hoping that someone will return the favor if you give them something.
|
Interesting point. Would you leave a tip in a restaurant you are unlikely to revisit? Most people would but that can't be explained by reciprocal altruism since there is no expectation the favour will be returned. I vaguely recall reading about a theory that generalizes the concept of reciprocal altruism to this situation but can't find the source now. Anyone else know of it?
|
|
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.03
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Altruism
« Reply #4 on: 2005-10-26 16:00:13 » |
|
An individual concept, wrapped in a general view.
The details of the psychological system that regulates this altruism can be explained.
A complex regulating system
The system subserving reciprocal altruism would be sensitive and unstable because it will often pay to cheat. For reciprocal altruism to function, therefore, "natural selection will rapidly favour a complex psychological mechanism in each individual regulating both his own altruistic and cheating tendencies and his responses to these tendencies in others".
Friendship and the emotions of liking and disliking
The immediate emotional rewards motivating altruistic behaviour and partnerships will be the tendency to like others, to form friendships, and to act altruistically towards friends and likeable acquaintances. "Selection will favour liking those who are themselves altruistic".
Moralistic aggression
As cheaters will take advantage of any positive emotions motivating altruistic behaviour there will be selection for a protective mechanism. Moralistic aggression will "counteract the tendency of the altruist, in the absence of any reciprocity, to continue to perform altruistic acts for his own emotional rewards". It will also educate the unreciprocating individual, and in extreme cases "select directly against the unreciprocating individual by injuring… killing, or exiling him".
Gratitude, sympathy, and the cost/benefit ratio of an altruistic act
Gratitude regulates the "human response to altruistic acts" and is sensitive to the cost/benefit ratio of such acts. In addition, sympathy "has been selected to motivate altruistic behaviour as a function of the plight of the recipient".
Guilt and reparative altruism
If cheating is detected then reciprocity will end, at considerable cost to the cheater, therefore "the cheater should be selected to make up for his misdeed and to show convincing evidence that he does not plan to continue his cheating sometime in the future". In order to motivate a reparative gesture "guilt has been selected for in humans partly in order to motivate the cheater to compensate his misdeed and to behave reciprocally in the future, and thus to prevent the rupture of reciprocal relationships".
Subtle cheating: the evolution of mimics
Selection will favour the mimicking of all traits subserving reciprocal altruism "in order to influence the behaviour of others to one's own advantage". Subtle cheating may involve sham moralistic aggression, sham guilt, sham sympathy, and "the hypocrisy of pretending one is in dire circumstances in order to induce sympathy-motivated altruistic behavior". Controversially, the resulting possibility of a stable evolutionary equilibrium with a low percentage of mimics is used to argue for the adaptivity of sociopathy.
Detection of the subtle cheater: trust-worthiness, trust, and suspicion
Selection will favour the detection of moralistic aggression and "distrusting those who perform altruistic acts without the emotional basis of generosity or guilt because the altruistic tendencies of such individuals may be less reliable in the future".
Setting up altruistic partnerships
Because "humans respond to acts of altruism with feelings of friendship that lead to reciprocity" selection will favour the strategy "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Altruistic acts towards strangers and enemies may induce friendship.
Multiparty interactions
Particularly in ancestral times humans would have lived in small, close-knit, groups where "selection may favour learning from the altruistic and cheating experiences of others, helping others coerce cheaters, forming multiparty exchange systems, and formulating rules for regulated exchanges in such multiparty systems".
Developmental plasticity
As the conditions under which reciprocal altruism can operate will vary widely according to ecological and social conditions, and will vary through time for the same population "one would expect selection to favour developmental plasticity of those traits regulating altruistic and cheating tendencies and responses to these tendencies in others". No simple develop-mental system would be expected to meet the requirements to be adaptive because "altruistic behaviour must be dispensed with regard to many characteristics of the recipient (including his degree of relationship, emotional makeup, past behaviour, friendships, and kin relations) of other members of the group, of the situation in which the altruistic behaviour takes place, and of many other parameters". Such a system could only function effectively through the developmental plasticity that would accommodate education about the appropriate response, especially from kin. For example, education of the sense of guilt could permit "those forms of cheating that local conditions make adaptive and to discourage those with more dangerous consequences".
Another interesting view into the nature of Reciprocal altruism, by comparison would be Symbiosis, an interaction between two organisms living together in more or less intimate association or even the merging of two dissimilar organisms.
I say that in respect to the philosophical field of ethics, the theorys of Reciprocal altruism make an interesting point, with both great, and variable applicabilty unto us all, as races and individuals; and therefore one which cannot be easily disregarded.
Fox
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
|
Logged
