Altruism, Empathy... Selfishness?

[Der Übermensch]

So I got into a little debate with my parents, the basis of which was they were appaled by the difference in public reaction towards VTech and the daily violence in Iraq. I told them that they were being silly...
Obviously on the first count there is the difference of expectations. In a warzone, people die - thats to be assumed, and its easier to accept, even if they are civilians - while you don't expect your college student to come home in a bodybag...
But really, the main point of my arguement was that people can identity with VTech, while they can't with Iraq. It's easy to imagine oneself there, because many people have kids at school, and almost everyone went to school themselves. A school shooting inspires fear and worry, not because of the severity, but because it's something we can imagine ourselves in.
Iraq on the other hand, we can't, or at least not as easily. A very small portion of the population are veterans - let alone combat veterans... the same can be said for refugees of a war-torn area. It's only a small amount of people who can easily identify with the horror of what happens there.

So what this all comes around to, is what are feelings of alutrism, empathy, compassion, but for veiled selfishness? We don't feel bad about things because we honestly feel bad, but because we can place ourself into them, or maybe merely because we feel it is expected of us by society?
Do you give change to a bum on the street because you genuinely want to assist, or is it because you can imagine being homeless, or maybe just because you want to appear superiour to the other people around - show them that you 'care'?
Now, I'm not saying every person always acts out of selfish interests, but call me cynical, I do feel that Moral Egoism holds sway much of the time.
Thoughts?
(Rep++ to anyone who tries to refute using Hume)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I'm of the belief that pretty much anything anybody ever does consciously is done because they think it's in their self-interest to do so. If you donate time to the poor, it's because you'll feel better at the end of the day, much in the same way you might eat a fast-food burger today because you think the pleasure you get from it now outweighs not-so-real thought of triple bypass surgery. It's not a new way of thinking, and I didn't invent it, but that's what I think.

What you're talking about is different though, because it's a subconscious reaction. People aren't looking at footage of VT and deciding to feel bad, or reading Iraq headlines and deciding to ignore them, it's just how the events are portrayed to us. Everybody is or was a student, and everybody knows lots of them, so to suddenly doubt how safe your own school is really affects you personally, whereas people feel a lot of detachment from Iraq because they know nothing about the country and have been reading the same headlines for 4 years now.

In other words, I think you're half right :p. I agree with your assessment of why people reacted more to VT than they do to death squads patrolling the streets of Baghdad (which, when you think about it, is infinitely scarier than the occasional psycho with a handgun shooting up a university), but I don't think it has to do with selfishness or altruism.

[Der Übermensch]

What you're talking about is different though, because it's a subconscious reaction
I didn't mean to imply it wasn't necessarily. Sometimes it is, but usually we don't really think of it for those reasons.
It's definitly process that is for the most part not even realized by the people.

[AmericanWeiner]

-Why is the distinction between a person's children and others important?

-Is wanting the best for your child any different than wanting the best for another?

I think this is the most primary example because there is no ulterior motive. A person simply wants the best and wants their children to have the best.

How can we back up a statement like all people are selfish? What method are we using to determine that? Introspection? That only reveals your own mindset. Observation? It's impossible to tell motivation by observation alone.

A critical flaw in reason is that it can be wrong. You may reason that because your motivations are selfish, that such motivations are common to all humanity, when that isn't necessarily the case.

We do have primary motivations, but in general, we satisfy those with ease. Such motivators as love can't be prescribed to selfishness. Or rather, they could be, but it would be an asinine semantic debate over what selfishness is. Do we help those we love out of desire to not experience pain, or do we experience pain because we failed to help those we love?

I personally believe in altruism. I don't think that humans, along with many other animals act solely on what we call survival instinct. There are simply too many other societal motivators.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think this is the most primary example because there is no ulterior motive. A person simply wants the best and wants their children to have the best.

Except for the fact that people have a natural obligation to their children.

[AmericanWeiner]

like i said it's the other side of the same coin. You say that we help because otherwise we would feel guilty for not helping. I say that we want to help and feel guilty for not.

The motivator isn't always the expectation of guilt. Is the desire to make someone happy a selfish motivator? If it is, you're bogging down in asinine semantics.

[PerpetualBurn]

Erm...no. My point was that one's children are different because you have a natural obligation to pass on your genes. Protecting your children's interests is protecting your own.

[AmericanWeiner]

motivators don't work like that though

what you describe is the feeling of love we get; at least, that's my understanding of it. The evolutionary need to pass on genes causes a will to support offspring.

What are these interests? Do parents have the train of thought that they must provide for their children so that their genes are passed along?

[PerpetualBurn]

No.

I'm saying that there's a biological imperative to protect the gene pool which means that a person's children are different than anyone else.

[AmericanWeiner]

oh ok. Is it impossible for those same motivations to occur for different reasons, though?

That is, the desire to help someone for a reason (whether it be biological or psychological) other than to preserve the bloodline.

[Der Übermensch]

-Why is the distinction between a person's children and others important?
-Is wanting the best for your child any different than wanting the best for another?
But usually, when adults are clamouring about the education system, it's adults with children.
You don't see childless couples begging for more of their tax dollars to be going to the schools.

I think this is the most primary example because there is no ulterior motive. A person simply wants the best and wants their children to have the best.
There is though an ulterior motive. As I pointed out, there mere fact they have kids is what makes it selfish. They aren't trying to improve the schools for the kids next door, thats just a byproduct.

How can we back up a statement like all people are selfish?
Because we have survival instinct. I wish selfish wasn't the word here, but there really isn't a better one. In no way is it to imply that it is a willing selfishness. Like I said before, its about being able to transport ones self into the situation, and then empthising with that imagined self superimposed with the real person.

What method are we using to determine that? Introspection? That only reveals your own mindset.
I'll admit I'm cynical about human nature usually.
Observation? It's impossible to tell motivation by observation alone.
Partially... I've read about studies done with busking and begging, and people are more inclined to give a busker or a begger money if they see someone else do it (a primary reason that such people will put seed money into their container). They may feel they are doing it out of compassion, but deep down, is it not really just trying not to be shown up?

A critical flaw in reason is that it can be wrong. You may reason that because your motivations are selfish, that such motivations are common to all humanity, when that isn't necessarily the case.
I'm not saying my motives are selfish, at least not intentionally of even consciously.
I'm saying we do things that make us feel good because they make us feel good, rather then for the externalities of them

Do we help those we love out of desire to not experience pain, or do we experience pain because we failed to help those we love?
We do it because it makes us feel good, even if we don't admit that reason to ourselves consciously.

[AmericanWeiner]

and how is something that is mutually beneficial selfish or any sort of problem to begin with?

Where is the real world application of this idea? Why does the fact that we do things that make others happy BECAUSE it makes us happy change the fact that we are doing things to help people?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

When I go to grab a slice of bread, I reach into the middle to get the really good bread. I say let my family take the outer rotten bread, I'm looking out for numero uno.

[Der Übermensch]

and how is something that is mutually beneficial selfish or any sort of problem to begin with?
It's not a problem... Its just that we do it for the self-benefit more than the mutual benefit.


Where is the real world application of this idea? Why does the fact that we do things that make others happy BECAUSE it makes us happy change the fact that we are doing things to help people?
Again, it doesn't. It's merely a matter of Ethics.

[RockAndRoll]

It's not a problem... Its just that we do it for the self-benefit more than the mutual benefit.
What this whole thing ends up doing though is simply pointing out that we help other people because we want to help other people... which isn't exactly a terribly exciting conclusion.

[Der Übermensch]

No, it point out we help other people because helping other people makes us feel good.
It's an important issue in Ethics, and Hume spent a lot of his writings trying to disprove it...

[RockAndRoll]

No, it point out we help other people because helping other people makes us feel good.
It's an important issue in Ethics, and Hume spent a lot of his writings trying to disprove it...
"it makes us feel good" aka "we want to". Actually both of those are oversimplifying the matter. Helping people isn't something that always makes us feel good, nor is it something that we really want to do. But on some level we do decide that it is our best option for whatever reason. That is the nature of decisions, and the decision to help other people is just like any other.

[AmericanWeiner]

this is what I've been trying to say all along.

It's just rewording the same idea ala if you said instead of calling it "red" we should call it "the other primary color instead of yellow and blue"

[pedro durruti]

Morals are so complex and there are so many people, with their own beliefs, politics, and experiences, it's impossible to really assess how prominently egoist ethics figures into people's moral decisions, or reactions. That's not to say that empathetic thoughts and an obligated altruism don't contribute to a moral decision. It's kind of interesting reading the zoological definition of altruism on dictionary.com, " Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives." Giving to the bum because you "feel bad" is like saving your fellow raccoon in a modern jungle (but less effective, which I think I can safely point to capitalism... hehe, see, politics?). But morality isn't inanimate rationality, the body reacts according to its own morality as well.

[Reaganista]

here's the thing

people die and risk death to help others sometimes

[AmericanWeiner]

nah they just have an obligation to humanity it's really pretty selfish

[A Spoonful Supreme]

here's the thing

people die and risk death to help others sometimes

ptsh to save their conscience, self bastards

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

nah they just have an obligation to humanity it's really pretty selfish

Who says I have an obligation to humanity?

I don't owe anybody anything

[AmericanWeiner]

Who says I have an obligation to humanity?

I don't owe anybody anything

are you fighting and giving your life for others?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Nope, and I pray I never will

[AmericanWeiner]

well the what the hell does what I said have to do with you

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

idk I must have misintrepreted it

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I'm of the belief that pretty much anything anybody ever does consciously is done because they think it's in their self-interest to do so. If you donate time to the poor, it's because you'll feel better at the end of the day, much in the same way you might eat a fast-food burger today because you think the pleasure you get from it now outweighs not-so-real thought of triple bypass surgery. It's not a new way of thinking, and I didn't invent it, but that's what I think.

I agree.

[Iskandar]

Who says I have an obligation to humanity?

I don't owe anybody anythingYeah, other people have never done anything for you.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Yeah, other people have never done anything for you.

How does that mean that he should do something for those people?

[-1up!-]

I'd say it is evident, with careful observation, that most though not all actions are motivated by self-interest, and that the purpose of any action is to get something desirable for oneself. That "something desirable" is anything which triggers passion within an individual, and is subjective to the individual. Though individuals can be motivated to action by other elements - sympathy for others, described as the capacity in humans to communicate and share sentiments. What seems desirable for individual A, and motivates him in his actions, can be communicated and "felt" by individual B - what was subjective becomes intersubjective. Take that to a larger scale, and you've got a rough image of how morality came to exist as a social phenomenon - most forms of behavior we approve of increase public utility. This unconscious habit to judge acts in the light of public utility is how I'd describe morality.

(Do you feel Hume in all this?)

[Der Übermensch]

I don't feel Hume... he hated the idea of Egoism determining ethics... I do see a lot of Benthem/Mill though...

[Iskandar]

How does that mean that he should do something for those people?because reciprocating tends to benefit all parties.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

because reciprocating tends to benefit all parties.

Right, but as I already said, I am under the belief that most if not all acts are caused by self-interest. Why should that person reciprocate for any reason than to benefit himself? Do you really think that person would do it to benefit the other party, or to benefit the other party in a veiled attempt perhaps subconsciously of their true self-interest?

[Iskandar]

Right, but as I already said, I am under the belief that most if not all acts are caused by self-interest. Why should that person reciprocate for any reason than to benefit himself? Do you really think that person would do it to benefit the other party, or to benefit the other party in a veiled attempt perhaps subconsciously of their true self-interest?I said to benefit all parties.

[Reaganista]

How does that mean that he should do something for those people?
the shadow of the future means it's probably irrational to not cooperate

unless you have strong reason to believe you'll never encounter this random benefactor again

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I said to benefit all parties.

Right, but that person is still only acting in their own self-interest, regardless if it happens to benefit all parties or not.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

the shadow of the future means it's probably irrational to not cooperate

unless you have strong reason to believe you'll never encounter this random benefactor again

In reality, people don't need any kind of unexpected altruism to help them get by in life. Some don't need any, even expected, at all.

[Reaganista]

In reality, people don't need any kind of unexpected altruism to help them get by in life. Some don't need any, even expected, at all.
no, going through life defecting on every possible situation is completely irrational

it doesn't matter if you manage to 'get by'
it's irrational because it involves intentionally choosing a less favorable outcome

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

no, going through life defecting on every possible situation is completely irrational

it doesn't matter if you manage to 'get by'
it's irrational because it involves intentionally choosing a less favorable outcome

You can do more than just "get by" without someone's altruism.

[Reaganista]

you've completely failed to address my actual argument

at this point im convinced that you simply have no understanding of the subject

[-1up!-]

I don't feel Hume... he hated the idea of Egoism determining ethics... I do see a lot of Benthem/Mill though...

How about my whole rant about sympathy?

[GreyHam]

although most acts may be motivated by some sort of self motivation, theres a very important difference between material and emotional benefits

[lfantwister]

although most acts may be motivated by some sort of self motivation, theres a very important difference between material and emotional benefits

this was on the english lang ap (in case you were wondering)

if youre a religious person, spiritual benefits outweigh material ones, right? so you give your money to the church to save yourself a spot in heaven. You're looking out for yourself

if you're a kid in high school and you volunteer at the hospital its for your own benefit because it will look good on college transcripts

if you're anyone who gives to charity there's a federal tax break incentive

the emotional benefits and material benefits are comparable when you take individual circumstances into consideration. Everyone is essentailly selfish

[Der Übermensch]

How about my whole rant about sympathy?

"I'd say it is evident, with careful observation, that most though not all actions are motivated by self-interest, and that the purpose of any action is to get something desirable for oneself."
This is exactly what Hume didn't agree with though...

He wrote, "“We frequently bestow praise on virtuous actions, performed in very distant ages and remote countries. [...] It is but a weak subterfuge […] to say, that we transport ourselves […] into distant ages and countries.”

Hume would agree that Moral Egoism can play a part... But overall he didn't believe in it.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

you've completely failed to address my actual argument

at this point im convinced that you simply have no understanding of the subject

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but to have the audacity to tell me that I have no understanding of the subject is insulting.

[italic zero]

yes he was insulting you. he does it frequently.