Altruism, morality and selfishness

@Deepeco,

Deepeco;112357 wrote:

Looking at mt conscious reflections, I do those things because I want to help others, and the good feeling is a kind of epiphenomenon, a nice side effect.
But unconsiously I might have other motives.
Anyway, I admit that my altruism also involves some egoism, but it might be more altruism than egoism because I think that I do it not for the good feeling, but for the duty to help others.
But... I tried to imagine an altruistic deed that would really make me feel bad on all levels. Would I still be doing that? It's hard to imagine such thing, but here the answer might be "no, I would not do it". However, I think that such an altruistic act doesn't exist. I do a lot of things that I don't really like (that give me feelings of frustration, fear, pain,...), but I see it as my duty to do so. And although the act itself often gives me a bad feeling, the thought that I do my duty always gives me a very good feeling. So everything I do, it always gives me at least some good feelings. And I don't think it's possible to do a good thing as a duty, while the idea of doing that duty gives you a bad feeling.

Yes you might have a different motive (although I wonder whether you have any reason to think you do) but even if you might, that is not relevant (I do not think) to the distinction I was making between helping others in order to get the good feeling, and just helping others and getting a good feeling. It seems to me that only if you do the first is it a case of egotism. Your altruism might have some elements of egotism; and then again, it might not. I suppose it would need closer examination to tell which it was, if then.

I am sure you see that even if it is true that you would do nothing altruistic you thought would cause you pain, that does not mean that you do what is altruistic because it causes you pleasure. The first does not imply the second.

People often, I think, do what they think they ought to do even if they don't want to do it, and even if they find it very unpleasant. Many people who go to a dreary job every morning are in that position.

@raidon04,

Deepeco wrote:

But unconsiously I might have other motives.

Do you always contrast your conscious motives with your, supposed, unconscious motives?

For instance, say your motive in going to the grocery store was to get an icecream cone. Would you reconsider your conscious motive for going to the store, by asking yourself if there may be another motive responsible for you going to the store? Usually, at least from what I see, people do not do such a thing. People focus on their conscious motives (if there's even such a thing as an unconscious motive, I do not know).

My motive for tracking down the person that just killed my wife was revenge. Perhaps my unconscious motive was that I just wanted to hang out with the guy, but this is unlikely. I think I will trust my conscious motive, and I think the court will also trust my conscious motive when they put me in jail after I kill the guy.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112364 wrote:

Do you always question your conscious motives with your, supposed, unconscious motives?

For instance, say your motive in going to the grocery store was to get an icecream cone. Would you reconsider your conscious motive for going to the store, by asking yourself if there may be another motive responsible for you going to the store? Usually, at least from what I see, people do not do such a thing. People focus on their conscious motives (if there's even such a thing as an unconscious motive, I do not know).

My motive for tracking down the person that just killed my wife was revenge. Perhaps my unconscious motive was that I just wanted to hang out with the guy, but this is unlikely. I think I will trust my conscious motive, and I think the court will also trust my conscious motive when they put me in jail after I kill the guy.

I agree. But Kant wrote that altruism is often eogotism's mask, and pointed out that it is often difficult or impossible to tell what motive is operating. But, still, that does not obviate the distinction. Just because someone might be kidding himself doesn't mean that he is doing so.

@raidon04,

kennethamy wrote:

I agree. But Kant wrote that altruism is often eogotism's mask, and pointed out that it is often difficult or impossible to tell what motive is operating. But, still, that does not obviate the distinction. Just because someone might be kidding himself doesn't mean that he is doing so.

It seems as though we can eliminate possible motives after the action, or goal of the motive, takes place. For instance, if I track a guy down and kill him, I think we can begin to safely eliminate possible motives for me tracking down the guy. We could eliminate, for instance, that I just wanted to hang out with the guy. For if my motive was really just to hang with the guy, why would I kill him?

I don't feel it necessary to go through a process of doubting my "true motive". I think it's reasonable to think that if I want to help someone, and I do help them, that my motive was that I wanted to help them. Sure, it's possible that I could have had another motive, but I really have no reason to doubt myself.

This is not to say that I don't sometimes question my motives. Because I do. But I try to always have a good reason for doing so. For instance, sometimes when I'm drunk, and I don't have clarity of thought, I don't realize why I'm doing the things I do, and so, later, I question why I did the things I did.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112364 wrote:

Do you always contrast your conscious motives with your, supposed, unconscious motives?

For instance, say your motive in going to the grocery store was to get an icecream cone. Would you reconsider your conscious motive for going to the store, by asking yourself if there may be another motive responsible for you going to the store? Usually, at least from what I see, people do not do such a thing. People focus on their conscious motives (if there's even such a thing as an unconscious motive, I do not know).

My motive for tracking down the person that just killed my wife was revenge. Perhaps my unconscious motive was that I just wanted to hang out with the guy, but this is unlikely. I think I will trust my conscious motive, and I think the court will also trust my conscious motive when they put me in jail after I kill the guy.

I was refering to unconsious motives because e.g. evolutionary psychologists claim that we do altruistic deeds because of kin selection, social or sexual status,... But you are right, we should not bother those probable unconscious motives.

@Deepeco,

Deepeco;112370 wrote:

I was refering to unconsious motives because e.g. evolutionary psychologists claim that we do altruistic deeds because of kin selection, social or sexual status,... .

But are those motives for doing an action?

---------- Post added 12-18-2009 at 10:36 AM ----------

Zetherin;112369 wrote:

It seems as though we can eliminate possible motives after the action, or goal of the motive, takes place. For instance, if I track a guy down and kill him, I think we can begin to safely eliminate possible motives for me tracking down the guy. We could eliminate, for instance, that I just wanted to hang out with the guy. For if my motive was really just to hang with the guy, why would I kill him?

I don't feel it necessary to go through a process of doubting my "true motive". I think it's reasonable to think that if I want to help someone, and I do help them, that my motive was that I wanted to help them. Sure, it's possible that I could have had another motive, but I really have no reason to doubt myself.

This is not to say that I don't sometimes question my motives. Because I do. But I try to always have a good reason for doing so. For instance, sometimes when I'm drunk, and I don't have clarity of thought, I don't realize why I'm doing the things I do, and so, later, I question why I did the things I did.

Sometimes we can shrewdly guess at the motives of others (conscious or not) it is harder, I think, to delve into our own motives. But whether we can know motives is quite a different issue from what they are.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112371 wrote:

But are those motives for doing an action?

why not? It could be possible that the motive for my altruistic behavior is to increase sexual status, like the peakock's tail. Women just might love a helping person, so...
But indeed, as this explanation is unconsious (as far as I'm aware, I really don't care about that sexual status), it's not a conscious motive, and hence not a 'real' motive.

@Deepeco,

Deepeco;112373 wrote:

why not? It could be possible that the motive for my altruistic behavior is to increase sexual status, like the peakock's tail. Women just might love a helping person, so...
But indeed, as this explanation is unconsious (as far as I'm aware, I really don't care about that sexual status), it's not a conscious motive, and hence not a 'real' motive.

Aren't motives explanations for particular actions, like jealousy or curiosity, and not such general explanations for human behavior as those you mention? But, in any case, I don't see why an unconscious motive may not be a motive; that is what we might say is the "real reason" someone acted in a particular way, but not the stated reason, or the reason he believes caused him to do what he did? That is to say, the person would not have done what he did if it had not been for his unconscious motive, e.g. he was jealous.

@raidon04,

Ken reminds us that "Socrates suggests that if any of us had the ring of Gyges we would do the same, and that we remain moral only because we cannot get away with being immoral. And then Socrates raises the central question of the Republic, why should we be moral other than we cannot get away with being immoral? He finally argues that we should be moral because, at the end, it is in our own self-interest to be moral even if it does not seem so. Even if this were true, it obviously does not answer the question, why we should be moral even if it is not in our interest to be moral, or even contrary to our interest to be moral."
Many a student at divers Philosophy forums has asked: Do questions like "Why should I be moral?" or "Why shouldn't I be selfish?" have definite answers as do some questions in other areas of knowledge?

Yes, there is a definite answer to the question: "Why should I be moral?" It comes from Formal Axiology.

By the definition of 'should' and by the definition of 'moral' the answer is "Yes, I should be moral." It comes down to : self-interest.

We should do what overlaps with our Self, with our nature -- what is compatible with, advancing and enhancing, our own true self.
To be moral is to intrinsically value a self (including our own), that is, to value it highly by giving it our full attention, by getting involved with it, by loving it............and all the implications that follow, e.g., to have integrity, to express authenticity, to be a sincere person, to be transparent as to your true motives, to be ready to cooperate with other good people, to serve them, to find common ground with those who disagree with us, to be diplomatic, etc.

So the bottom line is: we should be moral if we want to get the most meaning out of life. It is in our self-interest to do so.

[Unfortunately, many people - even today - act in a self-defeating, counter-productive manner. They engage in verbal abuse of others, in violence, in armed combat, etc..] However this sort of behavior is not inevitable: if a leader arose - or if we, on our own - advocating a 'peace race' ( in contra-distinction to an 'arms race' ) s/he would immediately have zillions of enthusiastic followers once they could really believe it is actually happening !! That is to say, it wouldn't take much to crystallize a wholly-new attitude prevalent in world culture. In fact, that's what politics is all about -- getting a following. A leader who would push for peace would indeed get a following and thus be politically smart.

As you see, I get the emphasis off motives -- which are very hard to discern, let alone measure -- and onto our nature as social animals, and the cooperation and altruism which follows from that. It is obvious that it is in our self-interest to enhance the group, of which we are a part. I do not claim lthat we always act out of self-interest, but that if we are enlightened we are aware that "what really helps another also helps me."

What are your view on this? I'd like to know.

What I wrote makes sense to me. Does it to you?

@raidon04,

i am still waiting to see that "leader who would push for peace"...feels like waiting for the messiah. but if i had a vote, i would be there for him/her.

i dont understand why it is so hard for people to see that altruism and good morals or ethics is in their best interest and is not contradictory to self interest. but it obviously is or we would have a lot less unethical people in the world.

truth is no longer an ideal for most people i notice-that is the starting point of morality, i think it is the building block for ethics, and also for the process of rational thinking. integrity should be the first commandment of self actualization. in the light of that, how can one believe it is not in his own self interest to hold the umportance of the group he belongs to in first place?

@salima,

salima;112813 wrote:

in the light of that, how can one believe it is not in his own self interest to hold the umportance of the group he belongs to in first place?

I see your point, but in my environment other humans are the most serious threats to my loved ones. Of course this ties in to your point. If they were nice, I myself could be more generous. Instead we focus our energies on protecting our loved one's (a tighter smaller group), saving our resources for them, not giving them to strangers. I think a person deserves a certain amount of respect just for playing by the rules, not stealing or harming, helping out loved ones.

@deepthot,

deepthot;112804 wrote:

Ken reminds us that "Socrates suggests that if any of us had the ring of Gyges we would do the same, and that we remain moral only because we cannot get away with being immoral. And then Socrates raises the central question of the Republic, why should we be moral other than we cannot get away with being immoral? He finally argues that we should be moral because, at the end, it is in our own self-interest to be moral even if it does not seem so. Even if this were true, it obviously does not answer the question, why we should be moral even if it is not in our interest to be moral, or even contrary to our interest to be moral."
Many a student at divers Philosophy forums has asked: Do questions like "Why should I be moral?" or "Why shouldn't I be selfish?" have definite answers as do some questions in other areas of knowledge?

Yes, there is a definite answer to the question: "Why should I be moral?" It comes from Formal Axiology.

By the definition of 'should' and by the definition of 'moral' the answer is "Yes, I should be moral." It comes down to : self-interest.

Could the answer to the question, "Why should I be moral, even it is is contrary to my self-interest to be moral?" be, "It is in your self-interest to be moral"?

@salima,

The key in the final sentence of Salima's post is the phrase "the group he belongs to." I believe I am a member of the human family (eve a member of the species mammalia). I have extended my ethical radius to reach out and sweep in a large group with which I identify.

My question to the readers here is: Can you?

What is relevant to your last sentence in your post, Salima, is what I have named: The Principle of Inclusivity. I believe this is a crucial part of Ethics. In a way it is a response to the question, Who am I?

I could say, to answer, I am a free spirit inhabiting a body. I could say: I Am That -- I am.

At the least, in response to the question, Who Am I? my reply is I am a member of the human family.

I'm one of the social animals. See the lrecent post #40 here:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4608-goodness-good-person-true-justice-4.html

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108718 wrote:

Does that mean that it would be moral to be immoral?

I have come across that theory. One's shame at being immoral becomes one shame at being moral. Or morality as immorality, which is actually old-morality as immorality in the eyes of new-morality. Pulp Nietzsche ?

@raidon04,

I agree with Deepthot. The basis of morality is altruism and being part of something larger. I think you can even see proto-morality in non-human creatures based on a similar principle. (NOT that I think Darwinism can be used to explain everything about the human condition.) But it has to arise spontaneously and 'from the heart' to be genuine and meaningful. If it is based on calculations and 'what is in it for me (or mine)' it is not morality, it is a racket.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;113054 wrote:

I agree with Deepthot. The basis of morality is altruism and being part of something larger. I think you can even see proto-morality in non-human creatures based on a similar principle. (NOT that I think Darwinism can be used to explain everything about the human condition.) But it has to arise spontaneously and 'from the heart' to be genuine and meaningful. If it is based on calculations and 'what is in it for me (or mine)' it is not morality, it is a racket.

What, do you think, "basis for morality" means?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;113054 wrote:

But it has to arise spontaneously and 'from the heart' to be genuine and meaningful.

I feel it should be calculated and from the mind, else what is the mind for?

@Camerama,

Camerama;113057 wrote:

I feel it should be calculated and from the mind, else what is the mind for?

Yes. What is spontaneous, and "arises from the heart" may very well be revenge.

@raidon04,

If the heart is purified then the actions that arise from it will be beneficial. (Here 'heart' refers to the instinctive and deepest part of your being.) I say 'from the heart' because it is vital to be able to act spontaneously. If you can't act spontaneously then where is freedom? If everything is the outcome of consious deliberation, you are not able to respond adequately to the challenges of life; life is too fluid to be able to deliberate before every action. Of course, before taking a major decision or in planning something, deliberation is necessary.

As for purification of the heart, this surely is the aim of ethical training. I think something like this was understood by the Greeks. It is the aim of the various religious cultures also, although of course whether individuals achieve it or not is a different matter.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;113067 wrote:

If the heart is purified then the actions that arise from it will be beneficial. (Here 'heart' refers to the instinctive and deepest part of your being.) I say 'from the heart' because it is vital to be able to act spontaneously. If you can't act spontaneously then where is freedom? If everything is the outcome of consious deliberation, you are not able to respond adequately to the challenges of life; life is too fluid to be able to deliberate before every action. Of course, before taking a major decision or in planning something, deliberation is necessary.

As for purification of the heart, this surely is the aim of ethical training. I think something like this was understood by the Greeks. It is the aim of the various religious cultures also, although of course whether individuals achieve it or not is a different matter.

The trouble is that so many things spring from a purified heart. Like suicide-bombing. Some suicide-bombers actually go though a purification ceremony.

Philosophy Forum

Altruism, morality and selfishness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know