RoR: Forum

Note:
One reason I'm such a downer on this pathological book, without ever even having looked at the thing -- is because I've been reading a book called: You Decide! Current Debates in Ethics ... and there is not one logical philosophical argument in the whole g-damned book. I feel so embarrassed for my generation, regarding the state of our most popular professional philosophers. It is so disheartening to see a profession in such a bankrupted state of affairs.

I'm pissed off.

Ed

p.s. I even have a problem with 8 of the 16 Amazon "reviews" posted at the link -- which happen to come from only 4 people (Sharon Begley, Paul Zak, Elkhonon Goldberg, and Oren Harman). In a book asking whether too much of a good thing can be bad, it seems ironic that they would portray reviews in such as way as to make the book seem more popular or lauded than it really is (by doubling-up on entries from people). A book with 16 reviews seems more important than a book with just 12 of them. And, if you don't have 16 people to count on, then just double-up on some of the 12 people that you do have (making it seem like you had 16 people).

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/28, 3:06pm)

Post 21

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - 5:54pm

"some" assistance to others is a good thing and that -- at some undetermined/undisclosed point along a spectrum of giving -- the assistance you give to others becomes a bad thing.

That could be taken as kind of similar to Aristotle's version of charity

Post 22

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - 10:08pm

Michael,

That could be taken as kind of similar to Aristotle's version of charity

Yes and no.

Aristotle presented his virtues not as dictums (such as "some assistance to others is, or would always be, good"), but as qualified, contextual guidelines. For Aristotle, it's not necessarily good to practice a virtue. Instead, you have to practice it only at the right times (and not at other times), only in the right amount, only in the right mindset, etc.

For him, there isn't a static spectrum where some determinate amount of charity is, or would always be, good. In other words, charity (even moderated) isn't necessarily a good thing.

Ed

p.s. I just finished reading the section on Aristotle in the book: Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy. Here is an outline of the author's outline of Aristotle's moral calculus (given on p. 50):

1) acquire the knowledge that the human good is composed of many goods -- chief of which are your own moral and intellectual capacities (the only tools that work to build happiness)

2) ascertain each situation or life circumstance and determine which virtue (which mean or middle between 2 extremes; or between 2 vices) is appropriate

3) calculate approximately what the mean or middle would actually be -- in this particular life circumstance

4) arriving at that mean or middle as the end at which your action will be aimed, deliberate as to what means or methods will be appropriate in obtaining that end

5) motivated by the right desire, make your choice to perform those means or methods

Post 23

Thursday, December 29, 2011 - 7:42pm

By an act that borders on being altruistic, I have obtained an electronic copy of this book (thank you, Barbara Oakley!).

:-)

There are 31 chapters from authors who don't all agree with one another, even on the basic terminology (the book is not written in one voice). There are benefits and drawbacks to that kind of an eclectic/holistic approach. Many of the chapters are strictly scientific. I will focus on one of the few chapters that is strictly philosophical. It's Chapter 20 (p. 262-), written by the philosopher, Bernard Berofsky. I'd like to start with the quote that Steve originally posted in this thread, which is actually from this chapter:

So we may include altruism in the same group of virtues as compassion and generosity. (Aristotle called this group the "moral virtues" in contrast with the "intellectual virtues" such as practical reason and intuitive wisdom.) So, the positions that altruism is a virtue is better presented as the more general doctrine that what we normally call virtues (compassion, generosity) are not genuine virtues. It is one way in which to reject conventional morality. This is the view associated with Ayn Rand and her followers (1964). ...

There appears to be a "typo" in the second sentence of this quote. I believe it should read:

So, the position that altruism is [not] a virtue is better presented as the more general doctrine that what we normally call virtues (compassion, generosity) are not genuine virtues.

That would imply that Berofsky is saying that ethical egoists not only deny that altruism is a virtue, but also deny that compassion and generosity are virtues. In the spirit of Aristotle, I'd like to say that that depends upon the context. What I would stick my neck out and say is that I agree with David Kelley (see Unrugged Individualism ) that benevolence is indeed an Objectivist-commensurate virtue. That it can be selfish or performed selfishly, and that that can be a good thing.

Earlier in this thread, I posited that the book may contain fuzzy thinking. I cannot fault Berofsky directly with fuzzy thinking, but he does -- inadvertently, no doubt -- make reference to it. While explaining what it could possibly mean to be an "ethical altruist," Berofsky cautions that there is intellectual discordance as to its boundaries, or boundary conditions:

But even ethical altruists will usually draw some line between acts we have a duty to perform for others and genuinely heroic acts. The latter--for example, surrendering one's life for another--are normally deemed praiseworthy or noble, but are not morally required.

He goes on to say:

On the former definition, the ethical altruist must draw a line between obligation and heroism (sometimes called supererogation), and many moral philosophers do not accept conventional views as to the location of the line.

Now, Berofsky doesn't make it clear that he is okay with this actuality (i.e., that he thinks it doesn't do damage to the concept, or moral functionality, of ethical altruism), but it is -- as I earlier feared -- an instance of fuzzy thinking. If you say that altruism is good, then you are on the hook regarding also being able to say when enough is enough -- and when more altruism than this becomes a bad thing (or, at least, becomes no longer "morally required").

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/29, 7:44pm)

Post 24

Friday, December 30, 2011 - 1:25am

So we may include altruism in the same group of virtues as civility or not eating babies for breakfast. ... So, the position that altruism is not a virtue is better presented as the more general doctrine that what we normally call virtues (civility, refraining from eating babies for breakfast) are not genuine virtues.

Post 25

Friday, December 30, 2011 - 5:21am

So we may include altruism in the same group of virtues as civility or not eating babies for breakfast.

Not all flavors -- not pathological or predatory altruism.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 12/30, 5:22am)

Post 26

Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 2:06pm

Spoiler Alert

Chapter 30 of this book, written by Joachim Krueger, is my favorite chapter so far. But remember, I'm jumping around, rather than reading the chapters in order.

His chapter is, in my mind, already worth the $50 "price-of-admission" (the price I paid for the book). Though he comes off as being a bit of a Nietzschean, his writing is careful and light-heartedly thoughtful enough where you are lead to continue reading him, even if you don't fully agree with the man. That takes good writing skill (and good thinking skill). In this chapter, Krueger presents perhaps the most intellectually-available account of Game Theory that I have ever seen. He presents the 4 possible strategies that people can take in their interactions with others (Individualist, Prosocial, Competitor, Altruist), and the 16 possible outcomes of those one-on-one interactions that we will obtain when we relate to others.

If you want to know about Game Theory, don't buy an official book on Game Theory. Instead, buy this book on Pathological Altruism, and flip forward to chapter 30.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/07, 2:09pm)

Post 27

Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 7:27pm

very interesting Ed. I don't know much about Game theory but it seems it can help us with explanations for egoistic actions it seems

Post 28

Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 9:30pm

Michael,

Game Theory is really cool, but you have to mentally juggle/juxtapose the terminology in order to keep your sanity. Game Theory researchers, not having the right philosophy in the first place, do not have to do this extra mental work. For them, the terms are just fine -- even though, for me, they are philosophically counterfeit (when you take them literally). For example, with regard to a common game called Prisoner's Dilemma, a quote of how Krueger explains the 4 interaction strategies of human beings is below, followed by my philosophical corrections (in order to make the terms fit with reality, by removing definitional contradictions). I also explain what the acronym TRPS stands for, as it relates to the outcomes of the Prisoner's Dilemma game:

Pathological Altruism, Chapter 30, p 400

Individualists defect unless they believe their own behavior is diagnostic of the behavior of others. Otherwise, whatever the other person does, defection yields a better deal (T > R and P > S). ... Whereas individualists overriding motive is to maximize their own payoffs, prosocials want to maximize joint payoffs. They most prefer mutual cooperation, with the chain of inequalities being R > T > P > S. They cooperate if the other person cooperates, otherwise they defect (assuming they know the other person's choice). Competitors want to minimize the other person's payoff (T > P > R > S). Finally and crucially, altruists want to maximize the other person's payoff (S > R > P > T), and hence they cooperate.

Individualists
Here, Krueger defines someone who defects as a default (unless circumstances prevent him from doing so) as an "Individualist" -- but a proper conception of an individualist would involve buying into the "live-and-let-live" concept of individualism, shared throughout the centuries by early folks (e.g., John Locke and the Founding Fathers) and by contemporary folks (e.g., Ayn Rand). A more proper conception of someone who will slit your very throat for their own short-term, narrow-range gain, is: Machiavello-Nietzschean Predator, or, perhaps more simply: politician.

Prosocials
Also, Krueger defines someone who is primarily interested in trade-to-mutual-benefit, and in using defection as a last-resort, stop-gap, damage control, wild-card to play (the "tit-for-tat" strategy) as "Prosocial" -- but this is actually the proper conception of an individualist. Under Krueger's terms, it'd be more correct to substitute Individualist in place of Prosocial, in order to make the terms fit with, or correspond to, reality.

Competitors
Krueger also brings up the idea of someone with the sadist, existentialist notion of 'schadenfraude' -- someone who wants to see others lose or suffer. The concept is hard to believe in or take seriously, but I recently heard Wafa Sultan verify the existence of these people while explaining on a radio show to westerners about how Islamofascists don't care if they personally win -- as long as they live to see the "infidels" lose (or die). People never fail to surprise. Anyway, the term Competitor is poor, because it can be taken to imply how folks compete in a free market. A more proper term might be Sado-Existentialist, or Envy-Existentialist, or more simply: Wall Street Occupier. This position is where a disgruntled altruist ends up in after becoming disgruntled (an altruist who has been "mugged by reality"). It may turn out to be a pretty good characterization of a NeoCon.

Altruists
Altruistic behavior, under the Krueger outline, seems to be well characterized.

TRPS
In Prisoner's Dilemma, 2 suspects are captured and separated and given plea deals where they have the option to rat the other guy out. T is for temptation, and it is when you defect, but the other guy doesn't. You get the least jail time in this scenario. R is for reward and is when both suspects refrain from throwing the other guy under the bus. You get the second least jail time in this scenario. P is for penalty, and occurs when you both point fingers at each other, and S is for sucker, which occurs when you stay tight-lipped but your cohort rats you out. You get the most jail time under this scenario.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/07, 9:49pm)

Post 29

Monday, February 20, 2012 - 4:58am

Hey Ed,

Just wanted to draw your attention to this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Altruism-Equation-Scientists-Origins-Goodness/dp/0691125902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329738770&sr=1-1
(Edited by Michael Philip on 2/20, 4:58am)

Post 30

Monday, February 20, 2012 - 7:41pm

Thanks, Michael.

From just the Amazon reviews and synopsis, it seems to be a book primarily about kin selection. It's admittedly a guess, but I'm willing to bet that the author thinks that kin selection is altruism. Even the very title of the book hints at that. But altruism is a moral code whereby you sacrifice yourself for others simply because they are others (i.e., because they are not yourself) -- not because they are relatives. The root of the word translates roughly to "other-ism."

Because of the fuzzy thinking of several, lauded, pragmatist-scientists -- there are 3 concepts are worth mentioning:

1) kin selection -- e.g., dying in order to save 2 brothers or 8 cousins (because that ensures that all of your DNA will live on)
2) reciprocal altruism -- e.g., treating others as they treat you
3) altruism -- e.g., jumping into a cannibal's boiling pot

These are 3 different things. It is not correct, on a conceptual level, to treat them as if they were the same thing. It is not even correct to treat them as being even roughly the same thing.

Ed

Post 31

Monday, February 20, 2012 - 8:26pm

... which brings to my mind a joke:

An altruist, a kin selector, and a reciprocal altruist were driving and they all went down the same street at different times on the same day. On the side of the road was a raggedy man holding up a sign that said:

Homeless ... Anything Would Help

The reciprocal altruist slows down and opens his window to proposition the man:

"Hey Mister, if you wash my windshield, I'll give you $5."

The man washes the windshield and takes the payment and goes back to his post and picks up his sign again.

Later on that day, the altruist sees the man and pulls over and gets out of the car with his keys and a piece of paper and says to the man:

"You don't have a home? Well, here are the keys to my car and here is the title. You can have it and use it as your home. Don't worry about me, I'll just walk home."

The raggedy man takes the keys and pulls the car off of the road and returns to his post thinking to himself: "Oh boy, is this ever great!"

A little later, the kin selector sees the man and slows down and opens his window to speak to him. At this point, the raggedy man is thinking to himself: "Wow, I am on a real hot-streak today. I wonder what I am going to get next!"

And then the kin selector says:

"Are we related?"

:-)

Ed

Post 32

Monday, February 20, 2012 - 9:09pm

... and here is a darker version of a joke, playing on the same theme:

An altruist, a kin selector, and a reciprocal altruist were driving through the middle of South America and they all went down the same dirt road at different times on the same day. On the side of the road was a man in a loin cloth with a slim bone as a nose-piercing, holding up a sign that said:

Hungry Cannibal ... Anything Would Help

The kin selector slows down and opens his window and says:

"Are we related?"

Lo' and behold, they are cousins! So the kin selector proceeds to chop off one-eighth of his body and he gives it to the man. He tells the man:

"You know, if there were 8 of you, I'd give you guys my whole body."

Then, along comes the altruist, who says:

"Listen Mister, I would give you my whole body but I already promised that I would donate my body as a human sacrifice for an Aztec chieftain. I can give you one arm and one leg, but I need the other arm and leg to drive to the new temple for the sacrifice. Please understand."

The cannibal happily takes the arm and the leg off of the altruist thinking to himself: "This is awesome! This is way more than a mere eighth of a human body!"

A little later, the reciprocal altruist drives up. As the reciprocal altruist slows down, the cannibal gets excited thinking: "Wow, I am on a real hot-streak today. I wonder what I am going to get next!"

Then the reciprocal altruist gets out of his car, knocks the cannibal unconscious with a tire iron, and eats him.

:-)

Ed

p.s. Reciprocal altruism, for those who didn't know, isn't always about being nice. It is about responding in kind.

Post 33

Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 6:29pm

Above in post 28, I asserted that individualists are prosocial:

... "Prosocial" -- but this is actually the proper conception of an individualist. Under Krueger's terms, it'd be more correct to substitute Individualist in place of Prosocial, in order to make the terms fit with, or correspond to, reality.

... but I didn't offer empirical evidence that individualists are prosocial, I only relied on first principles (i.e., an understanding what it means to be human, and also individualistic). In a 'fantabulous' study: Quality-of-Life in Individualistic Society, by Ruut Veenhoven, there is corroboration of that point. Here is the excerpt:

Lastly, it is objected that individualism goes with amoral selfishness. Waterman argues that individualistic society encourages the development of identity, self-esteem, and self-actualization. He provides ample evidence that these characteristics foster pro-social behaviors, such as intimacy, helping, social involvement and moral responsibility (Waterman 1984).

Post 34

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 2:37pm

I have read more than half the chapters in the book. The book seems to have been written for psychologists and social workers much more than philosophers. An exception is a chapter on foreign aid.

There is one brief mention of Ayn Rand, on p. 164. See post 0 for the quote.

One chapter says there are a few types of altruism -- empathic, normative, reciprocal, egoistic, situational. See pages 194-5 for more detail, which you can do via the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 5/17, 11:28am)

Post 35

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 3:21pm

Jonah Goldberg's new book takes issue with the neuroscience work mentioned in Pathological Altruism. He said scientists are using science politically, painting individualistic conservatives as mentally defective. There are twice as many studies mentioning conservative thinking and neuroscience as there are mentioning liberal thinking and neuroscience.

Ed

Post 36

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 4:12pm

2 recent examples ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22096486

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222219

Ed

Post 37

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 8:03pm

Merlin,

It looks like you accidentally typed the wrong page numbers. The 5 Types of Altruism are listed on p. 194 (not 264). There is one "true" altruism (empathic) and then there are 4 types of "false" altruisms, or altruisms that aren't really altruisms -- even though we still refer to them with the same name. That's one conceptually-proper term, and 4 (institutionalized?) cases of the fallacy of equivocation. Kin selection would probably qualify as being "normative altruism" -- because it involves an internalized norm (though the internalization process was born out of genetic evolution, rather than out of personal intentions). Reciprocal altruism is already listed, leaving egoistic and situational altruism to be explained.

Egoistic altruism is "fake" altruism that you perform in order to look good or feel good (in a second-hander kind of way), and situational altruism is not a stable behavior or disposition (i.e., it is independent of your character). In that way, it is just a retroactive way to explain how people reacted to certain contingencies, such as an emergency (e.g., giving help during/after hurricanes).

Ed

Post 38

Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 4:23am

It looks like you accidentally typed the wrong page numbers. The 5 Types of Altruism are listed on p. 194 (not 264).

Thanks, Ed. I fixed it. The Ayn Rand mention is on page 264.

Reply to posts 35 & 36: It might be a case of what authors of such studies look for. I wonder if there have been any studies of liberals and political delusion.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 5/17, 11:42am)

Post 39

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 4:34pm