| | Andrew,
There are 3 ways to potentially define altruism. The first is by focus on the giver, the second is by focus on the receiver, and the third is by focus on them both, combined.
With focus only on the giver, altruism has to be defined as self-sacrificing -- in order to effectively differentiate it from actions wherein the acting moral agent benefits from action taken (such as during free trade). Joe Rowlands has a pretty recent article on this focus and how it is superior than other focuses ...
See the 1st page of his article archive at:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Author_0.shtml
... but, in the interest of idea comprehensiveness, I'll address all of the possible ways to humanly define altruism.
With focus only on the receiver, altruism has to be defined as other-"serving" (and not merely other-"regarding") -- in order to effectively differentiate it from free trade (where both parties gain), and from actions wherein the receiving agent is harmed (such as during crime), and from ineffectual actions where the receiving agent remains unaffected (such as when the giving agent fails to positively benefit the receiving agent in any way whatsoever, in spite of the aim to do just that).
And it then follows that with the third way to think about altruism, with focus on both giver and receiver, altruism has to be defined as both self-sacrificial AND other-serving -- in order to effectively differentiate it from free trade as well as from crime (and also from those ineffectual attempts at affecting others, which I mentioned above).
I think that your notion of "dutiful altruism" already exhausts the concept of altruism, per se -- and that your other 2 notions of altruism are actually anti-concepts.
For instance, your second type of 'altruism' was "recipr[o]c[a]l altruism." Of which you admitted:
===============
"Boiled down, this is capitalism." [aka 'free trade']
===============
You went on to say that:
===============
"While Ayn Rand would have never called this "recipr[o]c[a]l altruism", I think she'd agree with the basic premise."
===============
Of course she'd agree with the basic premise of free trade. She was -- and might still be -- the world's foremost moral defender of it. But that fact that you noticed -- i.e., that "... Rand would have never called this 'recipr[o]c[a]l altruism'" -- is not unimportant. There's a good reason not to refer to free trade as any kind of altruism. Whether focus is on the giver, the receiver, or both of them at the same time
Your final notion was: "selfish altruism" -- which is akin to what Aristotle called magnanimity (I forget the Greek word that he used). It's when you have material and/or spiritual abundance, and you get a kick out of spreading it around to others. Maslow -- in his updated Hierarchy of human Needs -- ended up including some kind of sharing after all lower needs had been met.
But, as others in this thread have already suggested, there is a personal and psychological benefit to such benevolence. I get the "warm fuzzies" when I help someone whom I can afford to invest in. I have even gotten warm fuzzies just writing something that will "likely" benefit "some" third-party lurker who merely stumbles on to this site. It's a kind of a love of excellence, per se. I feel more fully and flourishingly human when I'm doing/creating something with a degree of excellence.
Did Michelangelo paint that chapel solely in order to personally gaze upward at his own work until he got a bad kink in his neck? I'll bet that, of those who witnessed that piece of art, that Michelangelo was one of those who viewed it the least often (i.e., one of those who visually benefited from it the least).
Yet his selfish work benefited others immensely. He had an "abundance" (artistic, talent) -- and he "shared" it with the world. In his shoes, I'd do the same thing -- because when in true abundance of something, I get a kick out of sharing it with others whom I value. That's magnanimity, not altruism.
For instance, from the receiver's perspective, these others -- with whom I'd be magnanimoniously[?] sharing -- may not even have a NEED for those things I share with them. Such is not the case with altruism.
And even from the giver's perspective, there needs to be an effective distinction between the concept of magnanimity (which is delineated to those givers harboring an abundance) and the concept of altruism (which is not thusly delineated).
I hope I've brought clarity rather than obfuscation to this point of yours. If affected, just let me know either way.
Key Terms:
Abundance, Altruism, Crime, Dutiful, Free Trade, Giver, Magnanimity, Other-regarding, Other-serving, Receiver, Reciprocal, Sacrifice, Selfish, Sharing, Warm-fuzzies
;-)
Ed
|
|
