Quality of Life

By admin 　http://www.2-progress.com/motivation-definition-webster/

Is there such a thing as “true” altruism?

First a quote from http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/altruism
“Altruism, in practice, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one’s efforts. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form of gratitude or remuneration then it is not an altruistic act. It is in fact a selfish act because the principal motivation was to reap some benefit for oneself. The desire of this benefit exists equally whether it is psychological, emotional, intellectual, or material – each form of desirable benefit is philosophically identical as a motivation.”

If I do something to alleviate someone else’s pain (or add to their happiness) — and that’s WHY I do it (as opposed to doing something to get the other person to shut up, or because someone is watching and I want to look good to them — but I do it because suffering sucks, and I simply want to reduce the amount of suckiness in the world), then that is an altruistic act.

That it gives me emotional satisfaction is irrelevant to its altruism.

It wasn’t why I did it, for one.

But more importantly, if it weren’t altruism, I wouldn’t get that very emotional “benefit” from it.

It’s that very capacity, to experience sorrow for another’s suffering, a desire to alleviate it, and a pleasure from doing so that are the proof that there IS a thing such as true altruism.

The quote that says that all benefits are philosophically idenical is just flat-out wrong and missing the point.

By the way, if you poke around in philosophy, you’ll see various forms of your reasoning, often referred to as “the selfish argument” — every one is selfish in everything they do.

The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it distorts the meaning of selfishness, and by making it all encompassing, renders it meaningless.

The whole point of the distinction is that of what is behind the act, what is the nature of the motivation?

So, there are clearly selfish acts, that don’t even pretend to be anything else. Those are easy — they’re just selfish.

Then there are apparently unselfish or altruistic acts, but it turns out the motivation wasn’t altruism, but something else.

Getting the approval of others, getting emotional leverage by playing the self-sacrificing martyr, getting customers by looking like “the good guys” and so on.

These are NOT altruism, though they may actually do some good. But the motivation isn’t the good, but some extraneous thing, such as acclaim.

But then, there are acts that are done for the purpose of lessening suffering, or increasing happiness, and no other reason.

Just because fun is good and suffering sucks — even if they aren’t MY fun or MY suffering on the line.

That, as a side-effect or fringe benefit, I smile to myself over the effects of what I’ve done and feel good to have done it, doesn’t negate the altruism motivating the act.

I didn’t do it for the jolt, but for the effect on the recipient.

In a way, it proves the existence of true altruism, as why else would it please me to increase the happiness or decrease the suckiness in the world?

That motivation IS what makes it altruism.

Suppose I thought I was doing the thing anonymously, but it turns out someone found out, and told everyone.

Just because people now think better of me than they did, doesn’t mean that’s WHY I did it — I thought no one would know.

I saw a headline on New Scientist’s website on that news itme you link to, but didn’t click it and read the article — maybe I’ll go back and do so now.

Edit: I beg to differ with the usually clear-minded Jennifer. “Self-motivated” is not the same thing.

Also, the consequence of feeling good about doing a kind thing isn’t always the MOTIVATION for doing it.

When someone drops their sweater on the bus, and passengers alert the dropper, and a passenger hand them their sweater back, people are being motivated by the knowledge of the unpleasantness of losing one’s sweater.

They don’t do it for the rosy glow that comes from the act.

They may feel good afterward, but that doesn’t mean that’s their reason.

That it was prompted by “self” in the sense of it being internal to them to help is what makes it self-motivated; that doesn’t mean it isn’t also altruistic.

Although the dropper usually thanks people, that’s a consequence, not necessarily the movitivation.