RoR: Forum

This needs a lot of explanation. Suppose you observe a person accidentally fall off a bridge into a raging river below. Assuming that you have perfect knowledge of your abilities, the conditions of the river, etc. under what scenario, if any, would you take the risk of saving the other person? Assume that you and the person in trouble are about the same age and sex but you know nothing about their politics or socioeconomic status.

CHANCE OF YOU DYING OR CHANCE OF BEING ABLE TO SAVE ALTRUISM SCALE (VOTE)

OTHER SERIOUS INJURY THE PERSON FROM DROWNING

0% 100% 0%

5% 95% 10%

10% 90% 20%

15% 85% 30%

20% 80% 40%

25% 75% 50%

30% 70% 60%

35% 65% 70%

40% 60% 80%

45% 55% 90%

Of course there can be many other variables and suppositions, but let�s keep it as simple as possible. I assume that no one on this forum is going to take a 50% chance of drowning for a 50% chance of saving someone, i.e. participate in a zero sum game.

Post 1

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 3:14am

I agree that this is complicated. Do we mean commonly-understood benevolence as "altruism" like tossing a dollar in the Red Kettle. Or are we keeping to the actual definition of self-sacrifice, denial and self-destruction?

And do we mean just the overt acts or the sins of omission as when you put up with idiocy at work because the potential gain is not worth the cost of the argument?

Long since having accepted Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness" I gave myself a 10% for those latter cases. I do not jump into the raging river, but I do accept a certain level of pain as a cost of doing business in society. I am getting too old for the Francon quarry. You want me to send the train into the tunnel, into the tunnel she goes. I won't even say "I told you so." ... about 10% of the time...

Post 2

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 6:38am

I said 0%, I'm not ready to die yet and anything above 0% is far too risky for me.

Post 3

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 7:56am

Due to the factors outlined by Mike and Sam, I put myself down for a 10% level of altruism. My scientist side makes me averse to extremes (e.g., 0%, 100%). Most things aren't perfect, even if they are 99.9% perfect.

I found it amusing that there is no option for 100% altruism, obviously because that option doesn't support human life for any length of time beyond the immediate moment. In Sam's "lifeboat scenario" chart, you can alter underlying assumptions and make the rows indicate selfishness instead of altruism. For instance, if you save someone's life, then that person may do a lot for you later on (e.g., give you money, help you succeed, defend you in some kind of arena, etc.).

Here is a concrete example:
You're a bum and a billionaire is drowning. There's a 5% chance you'll die in saving him, but a 95% chance you'll save him. It's 19 times more likely that you'll save him than that you'll die and, if you do both (save him and not die in the process), you will be richly rewarded. Now, before this episode, your long-term life-outlook was bleak. You had almost nothing to look forward to. You make this action a defining point of your life and it all works out.

Also, a really tricky aspect of this is brought out in the book: Pathological Altruism. We all have needs. Some of them are physical, some of them are non-physical (e.g., mental). One of the non-physical needs we have got to meet (for full-satisfaction with our lives) is a sense of accomplishment. One of the ways that you can arrive at a sense of accomplishment is to save a human life. Ideally, you would want to have already met your need for a sense of accomplishment by performing other tasks that are less risky or that spring up from your nascent intentions or desires.

But if you haven't been meeting this need before you get presented with such a "lifeboat scenario" ...

:-)

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 10:40am

But due to the criteria you have no way of knowing whether the man you save is a billionaire. I might toss him a lifeline but im not jumping into a raging river to save someone I dont love or even know.

Post 5

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 11:16am

Forgive me for being too literal and overlooking Sam's advice to keep this thing as simple as possible ... but another issue is an epistemological one.

You cannot ever be in the position of knowing that you have a 5% chance of dying, and a 95% chance of rescuing someone -- not unless you are involved in pre-planned Game Theory research (as one of the participants). Everything that happens in real-time will be by reaction to rough estimations. You will roughly estimate the rage in the raging river. You will roughly estimate your ability to navigate those waters below. You will roughly estimate the amount of water that the victim has already taken in, and the size and strength of the victim (who may pull you under).

The "lifeboat scenario" can give rise to some entertaining debate around a coffee table, but it isn't good for estimating someone's level of altruism. Everyday issues are better for that kind of a thing.

Ed

Post 6

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 3:21pm

It might be interesting to see if there would be any major differences in self rating by liberals vs. objectivists.

Post 7

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 3:38pm

I put my altruism level down at 0%. I was musing to make that 10% because perhaps I engage in altruistic behavior that I fail to recognize as altruism, but decided to go with what percentage of my behavior I engage in that I consciously recognize as altruistic.

Re: Sam's Post #0 -- this introduces some conflicts with the concept of whether the behavior is altruistic: "Assume that you and the person in trouble are about the same age and sex but you know nothing about their politics or socioeconomic status."

I can see a young man jumping into said raging river to rescue a good-looking young woman, knowing nothing about her politics or socioeconomic status (other what can be ascertained by the social signals sent by the clothing she is wearing), for obvious non-altruistic reasons.

But, no, I'm not going to risk any statistical portion of my life diving into a raging river for the benefit of a complete stranger unless I see some possible benefit to me deriving from that act that compensates me for the risk taken.

Post 8

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 6:12pm

If I were to jump into that river it would be with the attitude of "I can do that!" not with any idea that I would be sacrificing something or that I might get repaid in some fashion or get acclaim. I'm not a person who is a thrill seeker by any stretch of the imagination but I can take calculated risks, in the stock market for instance. I've sailed across the Atlantic in a small boat and been shipwrecked (but that doesn't mean that we were reckless) for the adventure of it. And there are those who climb 1,000 foot vertical cliffs with overhangs, solo, with no equipment at all except a bag of chalk for their hands because they think they can do it. That's an extreme that I don't fully understand but I don't think that they're mentally ill and secretly have a death wish.

Post 9

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 6:26pm

Perhaps it depends on the circumstance. I am not a great swimmer, if for example that raging river were replaced by an innocent bystander being beat on by 4 thugs I would be inclined to "wade in there" and save that individual as an act of benevolence. I have in fact done exactly that because the risk to myself in my eyes was minimal. I saw an injustice and acted on it with no thought for reward. Altruistic? Possibly but the risk of doing nothing would have weighed heavily on my conscience if I had done nothing. So I would still consider it an act that is not altruistic. All in context context context. I am trained for that. A lifeguard is not. A lifeguard might jump into the river to save that drowning person because he is trained for it and may in his mind be of the same thought, very little risk because he is trained for it.
I guess it all depends on circumstance.

Post 10

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 10:09pm

Jules,

There is research that, in the case of human transgressors, we will often take more risks in order to stomp them out. There is an evolutionary explanation for that. Let's say you lived in a band of 50 people and it was discovered that a guy raped and killed a girl. A good thing to do in such a case is to kill the guy (even if it involves potential harm to yourself), because the next time he rapes and kills someone -- it could be your wife. There are some instances of behavior that are not just unacceptable, but intolerable -- things that need to be stomped out pretty quickly (by someone).

Scientists call it "altruistic spite" because the harm that you do to the original transgressor can come at great cost or risk to yourself -- yet it is still routinely performed, both in the jungle and in the laboratory. There is an evolutionary advantage to having vigilantes around. Sometimes, there is even an evolutionary advantage to being one, yourself.

Ed

Post 11

Monday, March 12, 2012 - 10:29pm

Irony, the police were driving by and stopped as this happened when I asked them why they did not intervene they replied they saw the whole thing but it was over before they coulddd do anything. ( not only was I not charged but they said I should have recieved a medal, the 4 perps were all charged with assault.). The irony is that the four individuals attempted to have me charged with excessive force and that is why the police being there was a good thing and they testified on my behalf. Lol I only hit them once! This was years ago I was 19 at the time. Who knows how the laws are now in a similar situation. Canada can be stupid, I've seen cases were homeowners have defended their property and lives against burglars and been charged for beating the perps within an inch of their lives...
(Edited by Jules Troy on 3/12, 10:36pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 12:11am

Jules, we're hijacking the thread, so let's hope there aren't any vigilantes ready to put us in our place (a good verbal smack-down can be just as damaging as a physical one).

:-)

Anyway, to continue the thread hijack, I used to work at a health food store on the weekends. An ex-professional wrestler came in and started to covertly place vitamin bottles into his coat (from off of the shelves). I could see him on our store video camera. Boy, was my heart ever racing! I mean, this guy wasn't really a big threat. Sure, he once held a job where you throw 300-lb men around the ring like they were rag dolls, but he wasn't a very big guy himself. And besides, he was old and retired. I was young and had been working out a lot -- and I had trained as a boxer for 4 months in a tough, inner-city gym (Anthony "The Untouchable" Stevens came up out of this gym).

Anyway, as he started to head for the door, my adrenaline surged. I wasn't really in the thinking stage, just the physical reaction stage. Before I knew it, I had leapt over the 3-foot counter and spun around, blocking the exit. I called out to the professional wrestler by his first name:

[Insert name], I'm going to need those bottles in your coat before you leave the store.

At this point, I was trembling on the inside. What did I just do? What position did I just put myself into? Waiting for his near-immediate response seemed like an eternity. Finally, after probably more than 3 quarters of a second wait, he cracked a smile, said:

Good eye, kid!

... and threw me the bottles from his inside coat pockets. It was probably safer for us both that he didn't approach me to hand me the bottles at close range. I stepped aside and let him leave. I do not remember calling the police but I remember the police being in the store shortly after this occurred. I asked the cop about what kinds of physical things that I could do to individuals who attempt to leave the store with stolen property. The case of the wrestler came up and I asked the cop:

What if it had gotten physical, would I have to go to jail?

The cop smiled and said:

Not if I am the one who responds. Just between you and me, if you use physical force to subdue an eyewitnessed criminal, I won't include that in the police report.

Hot Tamalies! I've got a license to "take 'em down"! [I thought to myself]. Though I never cashed-in on that offer for me to be able to man-handle criminals with impunity.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/13, 12:17am)

Post 13

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 12:48am

Ducks incoming anti hijacking shrapnel!
BAck to the raging river I go before getting asswupped by Tess!

It is a fine line between when does benevolent action become altruism as objectivists understand the meaning.
To me a 25 year old lifeguard who has a high probability of success with little danger of failure would be performing a benevolent action.
A 70 year old with heart/lung disease diving into a raging river would be altruistic, and very self sacrificial in a veryyyy real sense of the word.

Post 14

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 9:02am

Sam -- re post 8 -- if you were to dive into that river for the adventure of it, then you would be getting repaid, not with currency, but with the psychic satisfaction of satisfying your need for an adventurous, non-boring life.

So, I would not call that an altruistic sacrifice on your part, because the alternative is to live a life that chafes at your personality.

Same with the daredevils climbing overhanging cliffs with nothing but a bag of chalk. Such individuals probably have the genes that have been recently discovered that incline individuals to be more adventurous. For them, sitting in a quiet house avoiding such risks would be a hellish existence -- and thus a sacrifice.

Post 15

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 9:58am

Jim:

I agree.

Sam

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 5:00pm

Only because I think Sam is innocently mistaken in his use of the concept, I checked 50%, because that's what they take, and I get much less in return.

Post 17

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 6:59pm

Teresa:

I don't get it. No matter what level you vote, you don't get anything in return.

Sam

Post 18

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 7:24pm

Damn altruism!

Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 7:54am