Is There Altruism? Part Two -- Alternatives to Psychological Egoism

In an earlier post, I explained the theory of psychological egoism (all actions are self-interested) and explained some of the arguments against it. So what is the alternative?

Judith Lichtenberg, a philosophy professor at Georgetown University, writes in a New York Times op-ed that true altruism does exist.  She makes the claim that psychological egoism is non-falsifiable, and is therefore not to be trusted.  She also makes this critical argument:

“When our desires are satisfied we normally experience satisfaction; we feel good when we do good. But that doesn’t mean we do good only in order to get that “warm glow” . . . . Indeed, as de Waal argues, if we didn’t desire the good of others for its own sake, then attaining it wouldn’t produce the warm glow.”

It seems to me, virtually everyone who writes about this topic agrees that engaging in an altruistic action does, to a degree have its advantages.  Thus, the whole debate comes down to the threshold of what altruism is.  

In the most pure, most perfect sense of the word, altruism is impossible!  That being said, I don’t think that makes altruism a worthless idea.  Psychological egoism certainly has some element of truth in it, but taken as a whole, it frustrates me endlessly. 

It is self-evident that the man who dives in front of a bus to save a total stranger even though he will die certainly is not equal in selfishness to the bystander simply because the man who jumped could not live with himself if he didn’t sacrifice his life.  There is virtue in selfless action, and it deserves a name: altruism.  Assuming otherwise is reductionist.

Neel Burton, a British author and psychiatrist, articulates the idea of an imperfect form of altruism.  He writes, “There can be no such thing as an ‘altruistic’ act that does not involve . . . to some degree, no matter how small, . . . pride or satisfaction. Therefore, an act should not be written off as selfish or self-motivated simply because it includes some inevitable element of self-interest. The act can still be counted as altruistic if the ‘selfish’ element is accidental; or, if not accidental, then secondary; or, if neither accidental nor secondary, then undetermining.”

Burton may be advantageously stretching the definition of altruism a little bit, but it is by far the most logical middle ground to this debate and, really, the only perspective that I don’t find obnoxious. 

Image from: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-altruism-possible/?_r=0

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

A Reflection on Blogging

I’m now four months into this blog, and I really am enjoying the blogging experience.  It’s been more challenging than I thought it would be to adapt to the blog forum -- to strike the balance between writing intellectually and writing casually.

Originally I was skeptical about using a concept as a “lens” for all my blog posts.  I thought it would be constraining, and that good blogs always need to revolve around some sort of a project.  However, it has actually made it easier to brainstorm ideas and has caused me to problem-solve.  According to some, we actually do our most creative work when we are forced to thinkinside the box.

Having blogged now for an entire semester, I feel like it’s time to take stock of my strengths and weaknesses. My post entitled “Mukesh Kapila” captures both some of the best and worst parts of my blog-writing process.

In that post, I certainly had an interesting topic to work with, and it was relevant to my life, as well.  I was able apply Dr. Kapila’s ideas about the UN’s policy during the Rwandan genocide and relate it to altruism. There was a situation in which the UN had promised shelter for a crowd of Tutsis, but were then not able to keep their promise; all the Tutsis were killed.  “The UN’s half-baked altruism actually created a concentration camp – it concentrated a group of people which facilitated their efficient murder, en masse (albeit unintentionally).” 

I was then able to insert my own analysis by applying his idea to another area of foreign policy “[O]ne really has to wonder what 100 peacekeepers will do more: stop the LRA or discredit the arguments of human rights activists.”  Though I was proud of what I had written, the post still had its problems.  It was just a block of text without any external links or graphics to make it more readable. 

Since then, I have made a more concerted effort to include graphics and links to external sources in every single blog post.  I believe this has made my blog a better experience for the readers, and it has also allowed me to go to a new depth of thinking.  Including links to other sources facilitates connection-making and ...  Sometimes, the images are simply for aesthetic purposes (as in the case of the Museum post).  Other times, the images are an integral part of the point I am trying to make (as in the case of the post on women and Islam.

One of the more memorable moments in my blogging thus far was when a reader posted a full-blown critique to my very first post. This critique, however, was not any ordinary critique; rather, it was written in a comedic form of Early Modern English peppered with words like “prithee,” “methinks,” and “betwixt.”  I decided to reply with a full rebuttal, which was as long as the blog post itself, concluding with, “I would most appreciate it if thou would refrain from use of Middle English and Latin, ad nauseam, whilst submitting your acerbic commentary on this blog.” 

The reader’s nom de plume was Zeno of Ela, but it didn’t take much guesswork to uncover his real identity.  He was a peer who had also commented on a classmate’s blog, which examines issues through the lens of Zeno’s Fallacy. (And hence the name, Zeno of Ela.) 

Derek’s Zeno’s Fallacy blog is phenomenal.  His layout is aesthetically pleasing and his lens is timely.  His writing style is eloquent without floweriness, intellectual without artifice, and above all, incredibly clear. 

Another one of my favorite blogs written by my classmates is The Cult of JLev.  He does a great job of incorporating current happenings into his blog in a way that makes a point, but is always sure to get a laugh, as well.

Overall, I think this blog hasn’t reached its full potential yet.  My blog could certainly incorporate some more personal elements, and I know there’s a lot out there about altruism and self-interest that is yet to be explored. I’m better-equipped to tackle these topics now that I have some practice with blogging under my belt.

Word Count: 701
Image from: http://blogs.worldbank.org/category/tags/blogging