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