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

"Enlightened Self-Interest": Different Contexts

A couple of weeks ago, a made a blog post Paul Collier’s book, The Bottom Billion, and how foreign aid requires both “compassion and enlightened-self interest.”  This is somewhat of a sequel to that post.

Well, as it turns out, enlightened self-interest is actually a term prevalent in philosophy and in psychology. In both these fields, the term is used to describe an action which helps others, but is also designed to benefit the self.

In philosophy, including political philosophy, the term is used to explain why we should allow the system of capitalism to work for itself.  Think Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” If everyone acted with enlightened self-interest in mind, proponents of enlightened self-interest argue that this ensures the health of a system that best serves everyone.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that it’s somewhat of an esoteric understanding of how a society or an economy should function.  If a government trusts people to act with enlightened self-interest, then that begs the question of what to do about those people who act with un-enlightened self-interest for their own personal exploits?

I came across one blogger, who made the interesting argument that it is a libertarian argument. As such, it is subject to the run of the mill critiques of libertarianism, which this blogger characterizes as: “How can the poor/environment/elderly survive without the government to protect it against the ravages of capitalism?"  Additionally, he points out that it is subject to the Tragedy of the Commons. and that it is a rhetorically weak argument as “you will usually get much farther by appealing to man's virtues than by excusing his vices.”

To design a large economic or political system based on enlightened self-interest certainly seems to have its problems, but for a specific policy, like foreign aid, I think it fares better.  In fact, it seems to be quite ideal. Aiding poor countries is, after all, in the long term economic interests of the entire world.  But if, in a purely capitalist sense, it was a good investment to give huge amounts of foreign aid as a percent of GDP, then the United States would have already done it. Simply put, it would cost money which politicians are unwilling to spend.

Therefore, donor countries need to design foreign aid in such a way that it is sufficiently "self-interested" to get enough votes to past, but "enlightened" in such a way that it is a good policy.

So in political philosophy, enlightened self-interest applies to a government – to a very large group.  To Collier, in the context of foreign aid, it applies to one specific policy.  In psychology, the term is applied even more specifically: to a couple or to an individual.  I'll save that for a future post.

Women & Islam: The Veil

It is with some degree of hesitation that I publically express my views about an issue as delicate as this. I know that I risk being profane to some and cowardly to others, yet I believe the veil worn by many Muslim women around the world is a topic worthy of discussion and it is germane to this blog’s theme of altruism and self-interest. 

I will be the first to admit that I have not studied this issue to any great extent.  I am not a Muslim； I am not a woman.  In light of these actualities, I welcome and encourage critiques, especially if you come from a background that is different from mine.  I’m willing to clarify my position, but I trust you will find it tactful.

Let us begin!

John L. Esposito’s What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam presents the verses from the Qur’an which are the basis of the hijab dress code.  According to him, one of the verses at the heart of this practice is:

“And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts.” (33:53, http://quran.com/33/53).

Esposito also points out that in recent years, scholars have called attention to the idea that these verses in Surah 33 do not apply to all women, but rather, only to the wives of Muhammad, while more conservative Muslim scholars have maintained that this verse should be binding to all women because women are a source of fitnah, or temptation, for men.

Two things to note here:

(1) “For their hearts” -- In a sense, this verse suggests an altruistic attempt to maintain the modesty of women.  This would be in line with the overarching message of Islam on women. Esposito states that “Islam raised the status of women by prohibiting female infanticide, abolishing women’s status as property, establishing women’s legal capacity . . . .” and the list goes on and on.

(2) “For your hearts” -- On the other hand, the notion of fintah suggests a deeply self-interested – selfish – attempt by men to compensate for the fact that many of them are too lazy or too unwilling to control their own sinful desires.

The movie Persepolis, which was adapted from the French graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi contains  one scene in which some male police officers in Iran (post-Revolution) yell at a woman for running down the street, saying that her butt movement is “obscene,” to which she retorts:

“Well then stop looking at my ass!”

(Si vous parlez français: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKw6CkkGtY)

To me, both these justifications for the hijab are problematic.  The first seems to suggest by its very nature of an ugly paternalism more than a legitimate altruistic concern for women.   The second is blatantly sexist because men are not subjected to a congruent standard of modesty in dress.  In short, the hijab is a tool promoted by men at the expense of women.

This is not to say that wearing the veil cannot be a beautiful and personal decision.  I once had a teacher who proudly and voluntarily wore it.  She told us on the first day of class: “I want people to see me for who I am and not for what I look like.”  I think the decision by some women to veil themselves voluntarily is, of course, entirely different from women who are mandated by law to, or coerced into, wearing it.

And finally, I think it is always important to remember this:

(Diagram from: http://peacepalacelibrary-weekly.blogspot.com/2010/07/islamic-veil-secularism-and-freedom-of.html, Cartoon from: http://qahiri.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/bikini-vs-burqa/)

Paul Collier: The Bottom Billion & "Englightened Self-Interest"

Right now, I’m reading The Bottom Billion, by Paul Collier, a professor and former research director at the World Bank.  The book focuses on four “poverty traps” that countries have fallen into and ways for these countries to escape them.

To get a flavor for Collier’s arguments about the bottom billion, I recommend watching at least a few minutes of his TED Talk. Towards the beginning of it, he introduces a wise maxim for policymakers as well as for individuals: “What I’m going to offer you is a recipe – or combination – of the two forces that change the world for good, which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest.”

This raises the point that even aid – something we think of as altruistic – is partially self-interested.  Collier pointed to the Marshall Plan as an example of this.  (The Marshall Plan was certainly an act of compassion by the United States for Europe, but it also was designed to help the United States economy.)

Collier handles this seeming contradiction by inserting the idea of enlightened self-interest...  But what does that mean?

If self-interest can be enlightened, then it immediately follows that it was “dark” to begin with.  So then, can self-interest really be enlightened, or does it become something else?  It seems simply to suggest a kind of self-interest that doesn't harm anyone.

But why wouldn’t it be better if aid policy was far more altruistic than self-interested?  He argues that both compassion and enlightened self-interest serve valuable, distinct functions. Collier says we need “compassion to get ourselves started” but we need “enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious” about dealing with poverty.

Even if the primary goal of aid is altruistic, it need not harm the donor.  Rather, striking a balance between true, selfless altruism and absolute greed is likely to produce the best results.

Museums & Their "Sordid Commercial Interests"

I recently discovered that there is an entire subculture of museum workers. An academic circle of writing, debating museum curators actually exists.  What’s less clear is whether or not they actually really have much of a following outside of their own little group.  Kinda weird...

But over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had an opportunity to look in on this world of museums in one of my classes.  I’d like to consider myself one of the curious, privileged few.  Or you can just call me a little obsessive; that works, too.

One eminent topic in “museum literature” is the idea of the business of museums.  In museums, or any private educational institution, for that matter, there is a conflict between trying to make money and trying to educate the public. 

Mary Miley Theobald in her book Museum Store Management writes (link) about the ethical problem of museum gift shops.  She writes, “If the shop’s only reason for being is money, then the museum is operating a gift shop rather than a museum store and it has little justification for existence.”

Aside from gift shops, museums raise revenue by charging for admission, so museums have a huge financial incentive get people in the door.  In order to accomplish this, curators may feel pressure to give the masses what they are looking for rather than creating the most accurate or educationally valuable exhibits.  But then again, as one classmate put it, isn’t an “EPCOT” understanding of the world better than nothing at all?

Other museum-oriented writers are a little more philosophical and focused on language, like Stephen Weil who writes (link) about metaphors we use to think about museums.  He argues that the temple, in its sacredness, describes the museum, and asks do we not imagine museum objects as being “in constant danger of pollution . . . by . . . the spiritual pollution of sordid commercial interests?”

Do the ends justify the means?  Without money, museums would not be able to stay open, and thus, they would be unable to fulfill their purpose of educating the public. But more fundamentally, do museum gift shops actually corrupt the very essence of the museum?  Do they really destroy its educational value? 

Several of these academics who write about museums tend to speak normatively, in imperatives. ("We must...")  I find that a lot of these arguments--Weil’s in particular--tend to come off as somewhat melodramatic.  

The museum is both a business and an educational institution.  It is a great example of self-interest and altruism functioning simultaneously.

(Image from: voices.suntimes.com.)