Is There Altruism? Part One -- The Psychological Egoist Perspective

This question of whether or not altruism exist has come up several times in my posts and in my comments.  A wide range of people have weighed in this debate, hailing from fields as diverse as philosophy, biology, and psychology.  I’ll break it up my discussion of this topic into at least a few different posts. This one will focus on psychological egoism.

I mentioned in my introductory post that psychological egoism posits that there is no such thing as altruism.  There are some different variations of this theory.  One major branch of psychological egoism is the theory of psychological hedonism, whose proponents maintain that humans invariably seek to avoid pain and to gain pleasure.  It is important to note that these theories are not normative; that is, they do not hold that the selfish underpinnings of our behavior is good or bad, but rather, that the reason for performing that act of good is to satisfy the good-doer’s own desires.  

Well, before we start deciding whether or not altruism exists, let’s figure out what it is.  If we set the bar low for what makes an action altruistic – if we define it simply as when someone takes an action at their own expense -- it becomes incredibly easy to disprove psychological egoism.  People jump in front of buses to save others, people martyr themselves.  The debate would be over in two seconds with that definition.

One more suitable definition of altruism, proposed by Professor C. Daniel Baston at the University of Kansas, is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare.”  This definition certainly levels the playing field for the competition between those who believe in altruism and those who believe in psychological egoism.  So another way of thinking about psychological egoism is that all our actions are motivated by our desire to strengthen our own welfare. 

But a problem arises with this definition, as well, because it is inherently difficult to determine what someone’s motivation is.  It is far easier to observe and gather evidence about behavior than cognitive processes.  This was a major topic of debate when psychology was first established.

For those who are bold enough to presume that they can understand the motivations of human behavior, there are both proponents and critics of the theory of psychological egoism.  The philosopher Joel Feinberg, was among the most prominent critics of psychological egoism.   One of his more interesting arguments against psychological egoism was that it is infinitely regressive:

“‘All men desire only satisfaction.’

‘Satisfaction of what?’

‘Satisfaction of their desires.’

‘Their desires for what?’

‘Their desires for satisfaction.’

‘Satisfaction of what?’

‘Their desires.’

‘For what?’

‘For satisfaction’—etc., ad infinitum.”

To me, empathy seems to be the obvious answer to psychological egoism.  It is often the reason why we choose to act altruistically.  But if there is some provable biological reason for empathy – some reason why it helps us survive – then that would suggest the opposite: that even empathy is self-serving. 

In my mind, there are two possible alternatives to psychological egoism.  The first is that altruism absolutely exists, and the second is that there is no contradiction between them.  To be continued...

Image from: http://coe.lehigh.edu/academics/disciplines/cp