Talk:Altruism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Altruism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Tags

I've added the two tags for passages such as the following:

Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place.

- FrancisTyers · 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] altruism is neither sufficient nor necessary for desirable social outcomes

Someone should summarise and include Joel Sobel's argument (made in http://www.econ.ucsd.edu/~jsobel/Papers/Rachlin.pdf) that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.


Putting Altruism in Context

Joel Sobel

September 11, 2002 Abstract I argue that Rachlin’s notion of self control is imprecise and not well suited to the discussion of altruism. Rachlin’s broader agenda, to improve collective welfare by identifying behavioral mechanisms that increase altruism, neglects the fact that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for desirable social outcomes.

Crasshopper 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altruism: Selfishness

No mention?? C'mon!? Resaebiunne 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should include some criticism of altruism by egoists such as Ayn Rand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.234.109.208 (talk • contribs).

David Kelley's criticism is cited in the section Altruism and Politics. He is an Objectivist, meaning a follower of Ayn Rand. The passage quoted is illogical. Ayn Rand is not considered to be a serious philosopher and is therefore largely ignored by philosophers. There are good reasons for this. She also has a political agenda and is a cult leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.46.161.165 (talk • contribs).

I hate to be nit-picky, but technically, at least from within the mental universe of bona fide Objectivism, there was only one Objectivist---Ayn Rand herself. The most that anyone else can aspire to be is a "Student of Objectivism", in good standing with Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz, et. al. Personally, I prefer just to use the more generic term "objectivist", to refer to everyone who basically agrees with Ayn Rand, including David Kelley (who I personally now prefer over most others in the "Randian" fold), but to call him a "follower" of Ayn Rand surely does a disservice to both Rand and Kelley, not to mention infuriate the purist Students of Objectivism. Shanoman

I don't understand why there isn't any comprehensive criticism section. Ayn Rand had thoroughly criticised altruism, take her "Psychology of Altruism" panel discussion for example, its recording is available on ARI website. Also, since altruism is primarily an ethical system, why not start critism section with arguents against its basic moral statement, rather than spray the effort on its implications? 87.103.217.109 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are invited in writing a criticism section, with the appropriate sources ofcourse. Teardrop onthefire 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Altruism's Existence

So is it actually agreed that altruism does not fully exist? It's noted in Psychology/Sociology. I'm thinking that altruism presents an illusion of non-egocentric goodwill, when in the end all good acts are actually for the betterment of one's self, because they make one feel better about oneself, or have that distinct ring in the head resultant of helping others out - therefore, altruism is yet another selfish thing. It is only incidental that this selfish thing has an output that proves beneficial to others. Externally it may seem selfless, but in actuality it ain't.

  • The internal feeling argument, typically along the lines : "because they make one feel better about oneself" strikes me as circular. Why does doing something nice make a person feel good? Because they are altruistic. All you've done is identify the mechanism by which altruism occurs.

Of course, that doesn't precisely explain why people sacrifice their lives to save others. A desire to go to heaven, maybe? This could get somewhere. Thing Christianity. As human beings, it is conceptually impossible to do good deeds out of love for God, because time and time again the statement is that you go to heaven if you love God. All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell.

  • I disagree at some point. This is not a discussion board about views however. Just to briefly explain my objectoin however.

1. Just becasue one receives benefits from such actions does not mean that is why one does such actions. 2. "All in all, the final goal is not to go to hell"-It's true Christians preach condemnation to the unbelievers, but that doesn't change the fact that whats far more exciting is a personal relationship with God, not escaping Hell. It is very possible to do such actions out of love. 3. I'm getting a little long so back on topic, while it is true it easy to desire the gain from such actions that initeself is not selfishness if one's primary reasoning is for the good of others, or because one's love for God. 74.137.230.39 01:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


My understanding of pure altruism is that although one gives of themself simply because it is good, one must not feel an emotion of having done a good thing, such as happiness. Then again I, as an Objectivist am evaluating it is evil and probably shouldn't be trusted by the altruists reading this page.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

[edit] Neitzsche and Altruism

I'm interested in the statement "Nietzsche asserts that altruism is predicated on the assumption that others are more important than one's self and that such a position is degrading and demeaning. He also claims that it was very uncommon for people in Europe to consider the sacrifice of one's own interests for others as virtuous until after the advent of Christianity." While he may have said these things (can we have a reference to where he said it please?), the passage does not really represent Nietzsches values, which I would argue were very much in favour of behaviour not entirely dissimilar to altruism. In "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Nietzsche clearly celebrates the person who "goes-under" for the sake of the Ubermensch, who is the higher-being, mankind's evolutionary successor. To paraphrase, he argues mankind should make Ubermensch as the purpose of our lives and the goal of our succession (while not denying our current existence). bc42 10:13, 24 November 2006 (GMT)

I removed the passage. It is unsourced and biased reading of Nietzsche, who, as you say, wrote positively in Also Sprach Zarathustra about love as the virtue that gives. Nietzsche is, as often, ambivalent, and holds different perspectives on the same object (it is one of the main point of his philosophy). Lapaz (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Altruism - Part of english culture?

And I thought that it was not altruism, but greed, camouflaged as success...Ko Soi IX 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Note on altruism in evolutionary biology

I'm removing the idea that group selection caused the evolution of altruism. One must focus on the gain to the individual performing the altruistic act (short run=loss, long run=gain in darwinian fitness). I'm quite surprised there no explanation of the evolutionary models of altruism (such as [reciprocal altruism] model or [indirect reciprocity] model). 24.250.22.58 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence seems unconnected.

It mentions the connection between the Golden rule of reciprocity, and altruism; however, altruism involves unselfishness, while the other expects you to treat others as you'd like to be treated. There are a lot of ethical "rules" or guidelines; why make the connection between these two? Is the english version of altruism really the same as reciprocity? They just don't seem to match each other as much as the sentence indicates, which makes the sentence seem out of place.

[edit] The Problem of Love

It appears that the article for The problem of love redirects here, while Problem of love does not, and has its own article. Which is more correct? BTW, the love table template points to the separate article. --Bennybp 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a merger. Let me know what you think. It would probably go into a separate section with the header "Problem of Love" --Bennybp 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is a reasonable suggestion. However, altruism is a very general term and does not necessarily imply love or charity. In other words, there are certain scholars who hold that altruistic behavior and the emotion of love should not be intermingled or confused at all! I believe there should be a link to the problem of love to the more general subject of love with the problem of love. This is a very specific philosophical problem and is hotly debated among Thomists and certain Christian virtue ethicists.Frjlove 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I performed the merger. Feel free to edit the new section to help it fit in. --Bennybp 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help you guys but in the Cybernetics due to Gordon Pask we define love as "availability for interaction", the term Amity can also be used. It doesn't necessarily imply that lovers like each other. It implies tribal, flocking, shoaling and microbial coalescence can be seen as examples of Amity or love in nature.--Nick Green 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tit for Tat

I removed the section about "tit for tat," because its definition of altruism is both illogical and incompatible with the article's definition. The article defines altruism as "selfless concern for the welfare of others" (unconditional love), whereas the "tit for tat" section defines altruism as "unconditional cooperation." Obviously the two definitions are incompatible. Unconditional love is incompatible with unconditional cooperation. To define altruism as unconditional cooperation would mean that giving a serial killer a gun upon request is "altruistic." Such a definition also presumes the impossibility of altruism, by suggesting that all social realtions must be "tit for tit," since placing any conditions (even altruistic conditions) upon cooperation is "tit for tat" and hence not altruistic, under this definition. It is thus a circular argument against altruism, very similar to the argument, "you do everything you do because you enjoy it, therefore you do everything you do because you enjoy it." Of course we do. But this doesn't mean that nobody enjoys acting selflessly out of concern for the broader social well-being. History has proven quite the contrary.

71.220.226.58 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] society failing because of altruism

When considering the concept of altruism, however, it is important to articulate the altruistic paradox. In that, if the central value of a society is that of perfect altruism, the society will fail. This is due to the fact the primary desire of an altruist is to help others achieve their desires. However, if everyone's primary desire is to help others achieve their primary desire, then nothing will be achieve because nobody is able to accept any help.

Altruism is not the impulse of wanting to fullfil the others desire but to selflessly help with eachothers (primary) needs. If I take care of my fellow (wo)mans needs (food, drink, shelter, love) in a way that is sustainable and possible for me and my fellow (wo)man aka society does this for me, society will not fail, but bloom. Teardrop onthefire 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A perfect altruist's aim is to fulfill the primary desires of other people. 60.229.65.93 06:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Peter

I think you are mixing up desire and need. If we look at the definintion of altruism on the article page it says: "Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others."
If we look at what wellfare is we see the keywords : freedom, happiness, art, environmental. All these keywords are needs, every human even an altruist has needs. It is not because you are an altruist that you no longer require food, shelter, hapiness, freedom. A desire is not a need by definition. A desire can also be to have a large home, a bigscreen tv... An altruist would not want to buy this for his neighbour just because it is his desire. This in view to altruism as a whole.
You say "the perfect altruist" we could say buddha or christ where perfect altruist. Did they provide to every desire of their fellow man? No they tried to make them conscious that we have to help our fellow man, they cured, provided food and teached the wisdom of being moderately. They did not have the uncontrolable urge to fullfil everybody's desires, so neither would a "perfect altruistic society". A "perfect altruistic society" would be a selfless society where the needs of people are looked after, a simple and moderate society.
Teardrop onthefire 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the teachings of religious figures always takes the tone of 'teach a man how to fish' over the liberal-welfare view of: 'give a man fish'. This perfectly hypothetical society mentioned above is only focusing on a few points of altruism and thereby cannot be an accurate prediction of the 'perfect altruistic society'. Put your hypotheticals aside and realize if even 20% of the world was mostly altruistic, we would be in much better shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.179.98 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't getting confused between two simple concepts, I was debating the definition of the word itself. ... 129.180.1.224 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This link

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/29/1754236--18jahremädchen 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Well than please place a new definition here, with a reference that this is issued by others also Teardrop onthefire 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The page says Nothing for you to see here. Please move along, please don't use my signature if I didn't sign please. Teardrop onthefire 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html did you means this, got it via slashdot Teardrop onthefire 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the deletion

Why the deletion of the analysis of the difference between altruism and duty? If no reason is given I will reverse the deletion. Regards John D. Croft 12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversed as promised John D. Croft 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altruism as fundamental human nature

In fact this view was recently argued by the Dalai Lama in Perth recently. He demonstrated that selfless compassion is the source of altruism and that this is a property of the human condition, independent of one's faith or belief. John D. Croft 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


But how can human nature be altruistic if to be an Altruist is to be selfless. Taken literally the altruist has no self and therfore cannot be human and have a nature.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Abiter099

You are just having a play of words with the word self, this has nothing to do with altruism. Selfless in this context means egoless, not being without a self. Not having an ego is perfect for altruism. Btw according to buddhist philosophy the self is the non-self an vice versa. Teardrop onthefire (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Altruism and ethology

This part is not well explained and, for lack of development, is really obscure. Beside, I do not understand why the handicap principle is called forth here, in so far as Amotz Zahavi explicitly rejected the altruist interpretation of such behaviour, claiming such behaviours were in fact ways to increase prestige. Here's the passage (Lapaz (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)):

"Recent developments in game theory (look into ultimatum game) have provided some explanations for apparent altruism, as have traditional evolutionary analyses. Among the proposed mechanisms are:

   * Behavioural manipulation (for example, by certain parasites that can alter the behavior of the host)
   * Bounded rationality (for example, Herbert Simon)
   * Conscience
   * Kin selection including eusociality (see also "selfish gene")
   * Memes (by influencing behavior to favour their own spread, for example, religion)
   * Reciprocal altruism, mutual aid
   * Sexual selection, in particular, the Handicap principle
   * Reciprocity (social psychology)
         o Indirect reciprocity (for example, reputation)
         o Strong reciprocity[5]
   * Pseudo-reciprocity

"

[[What is unselfishness]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i love

Bold text ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.116.62 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)