RoR: Forum

Steve Wolfer wrote:

You appear to be creating a definition of altruism that is based upon one dimension of acts that have no reference to the actor other than to say that the actor intended the results achieved.

Wrong. Self = actor. I thought that was obvious.

Your somewhat sarcastic and condescending tone makes it clear that you don't appreciate the starring role that motivation has in ethics.

I didn't intend it to be "sarcastic and condescending." In any case, Ayn Rand wrote, "Philosophy is concerned with man as a conscious being; it is for conscious beings that it prescribes certain principles of action, i.e., a moral code" (my bold). She gave action the starring role, too, not motivation.

disembodied actions

Nonsense. For example in post 19 I referred to parents working in part to provide for their children and a wife going grocery shopping for the family. Does that sound like "disembodied action"? Indeed, both are instances of bts and bta, simultaneously, an idea you tried to deny, except as incidental.

I suggest going back to the basic facts of choice and values.

I will file that as an exemplar of sarcastic and condescending.

You are saying Altruism is an act.

Nonsense. I referred to selfishly motivated actions and altruistically motivated actions by value-seeking human beings, e.g. the wife going grocery shopping.

I'm going to abandon this discussion

That's fine with me.

Post 41

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:34pm

Merlin,

I also didn't intend that to be sarcastic or condescending.

Action is important... Obviously. But without the motivation, you can't understand it fully enough to do what you are trying to do. Your quote of Rand's discusses "principles of action" - which is not the same as a specific action. And when Rand discusses "conscious beings" and "moral codes" she is talking about choice and that means motivation. One uses a principle to make a choice as to which action to take. And the motivation and the choice are the immediate preconditions of that action.

Take your example of the wife going grocery shopping for the family. Is she doing it out of a sense of duty because she has been told that a woman must sacrifice her own wants and serve her family, or is it because she is someone who likes to cook and shop and enjoys a division of labor where the rest of the family does other chores? Do you see why motivation MUST be there? That very same act could be selfless or selfish.

Contrary to what you said, I have never denied that an action can benefit the person making the action and at the same time benefit another. I have said that one has to know why the person took that action in order to associate it with altruism or egoism.

Post 42

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 5:19am

Steve Wolfer wrote:

I'm going to abandon this discussion

When? :-) It's now clear you did not mean immediately.

Contrary to what you said, I have never denied that an action can benefit the person making the action and at the same time benefit another.

Au contraire. What I said was that plus 'without the latter being incidental'. Your paraphrase omits that very important qualifier.

I think it best at this time to cease my part in this dialogue. It seems I can't describe something as mundane as a wife grocery shopping for her family as being both egoistic and altruistic without unintentionally "lighting somebody else's short fuse." It seems I can't use such neutral-sounding terms as benefit-to-self and benefit-to-another without unintentionally "lighting somebody else's short fuse."

I tried to challenge a false dichotomy. I think I have strong grounds for the challenge. However, the challenge seems to require some concrete examples and Venn diagrams to make the nature of the challenge clear. It has become evident some neutral-sounding terms are also required. But so far my concrete examples, Venn diagrams, and neutral-sounding terms have succeeded mostly in only unintentionally "lighting somebody else's short fuse." So I am putting away my matches.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/14, 9:04pm)

Post 43

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:18am

Merlin,

You are to be commended for working at a new theory, and for the imaginative venn diagram and symbol approach. It wasn't my intention to shut you down or rain on your parade, but rather to get you to change enough of your parameters to fall in line with the identity of the objects of interest.

I think that there could be a venn diagram of overlapping circles if it reflects the decreasing impact of the ethical nature of the actions in question. If I hold a door open for a woman, it isn't a sacrifice because it's cost is too tiny to measure on my day-to-day scale of things. In that area there are many items that, technically might be altruistic or egoistic, but are too small to register on a practical scale.

Having said that, I still think all my objections were reasonable and warranted the 'short fuse' - that's what you get for playing with matches :-)

Post 44

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 6:33am

Steve,

I think that there could be a venn diagram of overlapping circles if it reflects the decreasing impact of the ethical nature of the actions in question.

Therein seems to be a big part of our differences. I put cases such as a wife buying groceries to feed her children or her husband in the overlapping area of the intersecting circles. To the extent she buys groceries to feed herself, that is for herself, i.e. selfish. To the extent she buys groceries to feed her children or husband, that is not for herself, but for them, i.e. not selfish. You may say her motivation could still be selfish, but that doesn't change who eats the food. Most people would accept calling that altruistic, without calling it self-sacrificial. But people like you, so engrained in Rand's word meanings, don't accept calling it altruistic, because to you and Rand altruism is self-sacrifice.

I am as against self-sacrificing altruism as much as you, but unlike you I am comfortable with the idea of non-self-sacrificing altruism. Indeed, that explains my comfort with egoistic actions and altruistic actions represented in a Venn diagram as intersecting circles. Also, it seems that explains why your "fuse is lit" by intersecting circles. You want completely separate circles (a dichotomy), because you believe that egoism and altruism are completely opposed.

The phrase "decreasing impact of the ethical nature" in your sentence above really puzzles me. Do you believe it is less ethical for a wife to buy groceries to feed her children or husband than to buy groceries to feed herself? If so, why?

P.S. If altruism is self-sacrifice, then what do you call Obama's idea of spreading the wealth? Is it egoism or altruism? To call it self-sacrifice strikes me as bizarre. He wants to sacrifice others.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/15, 6:43am)

Post 45

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 6:44am

It is called 'theft'...

Post 46

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 6:51am

It is called 'theft'...

Fine. But the choices were egoism and altruism. :-)

Post 47

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 7:19am

For the one who steals, it would be 'egoism' as there is a personal power of so doing, an entailment, where he stands to gain in favors and so forth...

Post 48

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 7:57am

Reply to post 47. On the other hand, it could be called 'altruism' in that he wants other people to self-sacrifice or be sacrificed.

Egoism or altruism? It's a tricky question with tricky words.

Post 49

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 9:15am

No - because the altruism involved, if any were, would have to come from those who are sacrificing...

Post 50

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 9:28am

Merlin, you asked, "The phrase "decreasing impact of the ethical nature" in your sentence above really puzzles me. Do you believe it is less ethical for a wife to buy groceries to feed her children or husband than to buy groceries to feed herself? If so, why?"

It isn't the act - it is the motivation (bet you are tired of reading that :-) If the woman is motivated by a sense of duty, by a belief that women must sacrifice for their family... yes, that is less ethical than if she shopped for her family because she enjoyed doing it.

Much, much less so now, but years ago many woman denied themselves a career and sacrificed their interests to live up to that traditional stereotype of what a 'proper' woman should do. One evil of altruism is that it can live in the mind of the victim and get them to commit the crime of sacrifice out of guilt and shame and fear of being selfish.

As Rand and others have pointed out, it is difficult to enslave people using just overseers with whips. To make it efficient, convince the slaves that this sacrifice is morally required and they begin whipping themselves.

Altruism is also evil because the slave owner and hired thugs use it as moral justification for demanding sacrifice - for forcing others to make sacrifices.

------------

Talking about a woman who bought food that her family ate, you said, "Most people would accept calling that altruistic, without calling it self-sacrificial. But people like you, so engrained in Rand's word meanings, don't accept calling it altruistic, because to you and Rand altruism is self-sacrifice."

- "...people like you, so engrained in Rand's word meanings..." Merlin, did you intend for that to be insulting? I ask, because I think of myself as a thinking person and my own person.

It would be better to say that you believe there can be altruistic acts that do not involve sacrifice and I don't - we disagree on the proper definition or nature of altruism.
------------

Merlin, you asked, "If altruism is self-sacrifice, then what do you call Obama's idea of spreading the wealth? Is it egoism or altruism? To call it self-sacrifice strikes me as bizarre. He wants to sacrifice others."

The moral system that calls sacrifice good is altruism - that remains true if it is a self-sacrifice initiated solely by the individual, or if it is a preacher calling for a voluntary sacrifice to be made by others, or if it is the call by Obama for sacrifice to be forced upon the rich. It is the self who is sacrificed, no matter who was the initiator - no matter who is the recipient. It is altruistic if that is how it was motivated or justified. Obama and Robin Hood are thieves who justify justify their spread the wealth schemes using altruism.

Post 51

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 9:36am

No - because the altruism involved, if any were, would have to come from those who are sacrificing...

I find this very confusing. Who are "those who are sacrificing"? In post 47 you say Obama is practicing egoism. The thieves are sacrificing others, not themselves. The victims of theft are not practicing altruism; they are being sacrificed -- coercively.

Post 52

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 9:53am

I disagree a little bit with Robert's formulation. Altruism will always involve a sacrifice, but it can be called for or demanded or justified by some third party - even if it doesn't come to pass.

It is true that a person could use the theory of altruism to make some selfish gain, like a political parasite who benefits from the sacrifices he calls for others to make. But that doesn't make his call for altruism a shining example of rational egoism. As Obama's calls are turned into law, I, along with others, will be forced to make sacrifices. Obama will be the altruist for making the call - I will be the unwilling victim being sacrificed. But even if the law weren't passed, Obama would still be the altruist for making the attempt. Even if he did it for a secret personal agenda, the theory he used was altruism.

Post 53

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:17am

Steve Wolfer wrote (post 50):

It isn't the act - it is the motivation (bet you are tired of reading that :-) If the woman is motivated by a sense of duty, by a belief that women must sacrifice for their family... yes, that is less ethical than if she shopped for her family because she enjoyed doing it.

Okay, that's clearer. Rather than the Venn diagram by itself, my symbolism can handle that. Denoting the first woman's benefit-to-self bts1 and the second woman's bts2, bts1 < bts2. Maybe even bts1 < 0.

Merlin, did you intend for that to be insulting? I ask, because I think of myself as a thinking person and my own person.

Not at all. I meant that you think like her. To wit:
1. "As I recall Ayn Rand was asked at least once if something she did for her husband was altruistic. Her reply was that it was not, and she did it for her own selfish reasons" (me, post 7).
2. "I do it for the selfish pleasure it provides me. Nothing altruistic there" (you in post 34 regarding doing something for a friend).

It would be better to say that you believe there can be altruistic acts that do not involve sacrifice and I don't - we disagree on the proper definition or nature of altruism.

I thought I did say that. See my first two paragraphs in post 44. I assure you I do have a narrower concept sacrificial altruism that is identical to or synonymous with your concept altruism. And that would be crystal clear if I drew a Venn diagram.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/15, 10:22am)

Post 54

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 11:14am

So our disagreement is about there being a non-sacrificial altruism. I've also heard altruism described as the ethical theory that holds mans life is not an end in itself, that he has a duty to others. What are your thoughts on that?

As to the venn diagrams, if we put acts with their motivations attached into circles - using the motivation to determine which circle, the overlapping area would be acts that appeared the same, but with different motivations. Woman buys family groceries because she enjoys it, and woman buys family groceries out of a sense of duty. But which circle gets Obama's speech?

There will always be problems with discussing acts rather than theories. When Obama makes a speech, we can be like the behaviorist psychologists and just look at his 'act' and ignore any motivation, and any ethical theory that is implied in his demands or exhortations, but from that perspective we will never acquire any meaningful ethical understanding.

Post 55

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:35pm

I've also heard altruism described as the ethical theory that holds mans life is not an end in itself, that he has a duty to others. What are your thoughts on that?

Man's life is an end in itself. A person has a duty (or "obligation") to others in some ways. Parents have an obligation to take care of their children. People have an obligation to live up to commitments they have made to others or compensate for harms inflicted on others. They have an obligation to respect the rights of others. Rand even says this last one in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal (p. 227, pb).

But which circle gets Obama's speech?

That is a bit complicated. I envision a subset of egoistic actions (not in the overlapping area) depicting sacrificing others, e.g. a predator. It is a counterpart of a subset of altruistic actions (not in the overlapping area) depicting self-sacrifice. Obama could fit in either or both subsets.

I actually did make a Venn diagram, but I don't know how to post it on RoR. I will send it to your e-mail address, but not via RoR mail because it doesn't take attachments as best I can tell.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/15, 3:12pm)

Post 56

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 7:29pm

Merlin:

If you want to play word games, John, then try this, from the same dictionary you cited.

selfish - adj.
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

So "unselfish" would mean with concern for others. It does not imply no benefit for you, which is what you claimed.

Ok how about this dictionary:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/selfish

self�ish (sel′fis̸h)

adjective

1. too much concerned with one's own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others; self-centered
2. showing or prompted by self-interest

Notice the second definition is "prompted by self-interest". If you go by this definition, taking an action that is unselfish would have to mean one is not acting on their own interests. And it's not word "games". You can't expect to converse with people unless you share a common understanding of the words being used. And the fact is there are multiple definitions to the term selfish, but I've never come across from a dictionary altruism defined in the way you are defining it to be. And if I'm guilty of playing "word games" then what have you been doing for several posts now?

John A.,

I did not begin with the definition you cited and "twist" it. Here is a different definition which I did not invent nor twist.

Altruism (from Latin: alter: the other) is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Well the wikipedia entry definition is not one I've commonly come across. Nor is that particular usage one I've commonly come across in conversations with other people. Most altruists I've come across regard a purely moral act only one where you have no regard for your own self-interests. Most liberals fit that description and think you should only act if you have others in mind and not yourself.

You wrote:

You can take actions that benefit you and others as well, but if you benefit from it, it is a selfish act, not an unselfish one.

Then what do you call an action that benefits you and nobody else?

It would be a selfish act, because again, selfish is acting on your self-interest.

If an action benefits others as well, then it is partly not-for-self, too.

So? It still can't be an unselfish act because you still benefited from it. Unselfish means to not act on your self-interests. So any benefit you derived from an act, whether others benefited as well, is still something that serves your self-interests.

But the important issue really is that altruism is a self-defeating principle anyways. If it's moral to sacrifice your interests to others, it would be immoral for them them to receive any benefit from that action as that would mean they are being selfish.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/15, 7:54pm)

Post 57

Monday, March 16, 2009 - 5:48am

John A. wrote:

So? It still can't be an unselfish act because you still benefited from it. Unselfish means to not act on your self-interests. So any benefit you derived from an act, whether others benefited as well, is still something that serves your self-interests.

As we have shown, it's obvious that there are different definitions of altruism and selfish. We each can pick the one we prefer. No matter which definition is used, a point I've been trying to make is that one action can be both selfish and unselfish, e.g. the woman buying groceries for both herself and the rest of her family. That is exactly what you resisted in the above and other times. You say that if there is any self-interest at all, then the action is selfish and not unselfish.

Even trade has this dual aspect. While one party may not be motivated to benefit the other party, both the first party and the other party benefit.

But the important issue really is that altruism is a self-defeating principle anyways. If it's moral to sacrifice your interests to others, it would be immoral for them them to receive any benefit from that action as that would mean they are being selfish.

I am not denying that, using your preferred definitions of altruism and selfish. However, I don't take altruism or selfish the same way. See the last paragraphs in post 53. I don't believe it is "self-defeating" for a woman to buy groceries for her family as well as herself.

Most altruists I've come across regard a purely moral act only one where you have no regard for your own self-interests. Most liberals fit that description and think you should only act if you have others in mind and not yourself.

So doesn't that imply they are immoral hypocrites any time they do something that benefits themselves, e.g. even eating?

Post 58

Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:29pm

The top diagram is Merlin's.
The lower diagram is mine.

My position is that "altruism" and "Egoism" are ethical theories and that actions carried out by people can often only be categorized when motivation is known. But it is even more complex than that, because someone can propose an action with the proposal being done to aid the person making the proposal, yet the proposed action would be highly altruistic - the focus of the issue would determine how that proposal would be categorized. (example of this might be Obama making a proposal that the wealthy need to make more sacrifices - because he is proposing a sacrifice it makes more sense to call it 'supporting altruism' despite his possible self-serving motives.)

The overlap section of my diagram is for border-line actions where it is difficult to determine the motivation.

The Too-small-to-call area is for those tiny actions that have too little impact to spend time dwelling on (e.f., someone holds the door open for another person who has their hands full).

Post 59

Monday, March 16, 2009 - 10:27pm