CC BY
91
Section 10. Social Psychology
Section 10. Social Psychology
Phogat Siddharth, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Production & Industrial Engineering, Final Year B.tech E-mail: sidd.phogat@gmail.com;
Altruism in practise, a subtle form of psychological egoism
Abstract: The paper studies the concept of Altruism and Psychological Egoism in depth. The concept of altruism is explored, which along with itself brings up the debates on altruism. The paper addresses two such critical debates, first being 'Does Altruism exist?’ and second, if it exists, then 'Can Altruism Survive?’. The paper explores the psychological realm of altruism along with laying out the notable difference, wherever required, between psychological altruism and biological altruism and their characteristics. Later desires have been studied and classified into altruistic and egoistic. Answering various examples, exploring psychological egoism and studying the classification of desires, the paper shows that altruism is, but a subtle form of Psychological Egoism [1]. The question of Survival of Psychological Altruism though of no importance now, has still been answered towards the end with an assumption of existence of altruism.
Keywords: Altruism; Apparent altruism; Altruistic Desires; Egoistic Desires; Psychological Egoism.
1. Introduction: What is Altruism?
The dictionary meaning of the term “Altruism” means unselfish concern for other people’s happiness and welfare [2]. Altruism in more rigid sense emphasises on scarifying time, energy or possessions for someone other than the self, with no expectations of return of favour, either direct, or indirect.
Often altruism is considered to be synonymous with selflessness. On thoroughly examining the meaning of selflessness one can very easily distinguish between the two phrases “being selfless” and “performing actions for benefit of someone other than self (that is being selfless)” [3]. One can be selfless if he/she is completely altruistic but it is not necessary that one will be altruistic if he/she is selfless. Selflessness is also preached by saints, but they may not be performing altruistic actions, in fact they may be performing no action at all. As is generally the case, these people give up worldly pleasures and actions and thus the meaning of happiness or benefit of other as well as of self, is of no value to them. Thus they are 'completely’ selfless but still not altruistic.
In many cultures altruism is related to religion and considered as a teaching of that religion. It is
a traditional virtue in these cultures. Once again, on invoking the meaning of “pure altruism” and carefully examining its possible relation with religion one can safely infer that the moment altruism is related to a religion or thought of as a teaching, at that very moment it loses its base premise. The virtues of religion are something which are taught to people and upheld by the society as a whole, often not out of their innateness but more because of it being a binding compulsion of that religion or because otherwise would be considered sin or mistake. Altruism on other hand has to be something which is innate to the person since the moment it is attached with words like practice or virtue then no action any longer done would be considered altruistic as it will bring out a personal gain, which of course may be in-direct (like desire to gain respect or reputation, or expectation of a reward in a putative afterlife.)
Altruism when considered in the field of biology has a very different meaning and approach to be understood [4]. Biological altruism means doing actions for improving the fitness of others on the cost of fitness of self. Here fitness is defined as the reproductive capabilities, the number of possible
70
Altruism in practise, a subtle form of psychological egoism
offspring [4]. So by behaving biologically altruistically one might reduce its own chance of survival and creation of prodigy, increasing these statistics for other organisms at the same time. The common problem with biological altruism lies in explaining its origin in the very first place if it does not support evolution at all [4]. Why didn’t the group practicing altruism, if any, was wiped off completely, as it should have been according to the very famous and accepted theory of “Survival of the fittest” by Darwin. Kin theory solves this ambiguity by introducing the concept of ‘selfish genes’. According to the kin theory organisms tend to behave altruistically towards their own kin (organisms related genetically) thus doing actions which would in principle qualify as altruistic but in the long run prove beneficial for that very groups’ survival [4]. As is very evidently clear biological altruism is very different from ‘real’ altruism. An action done with conscious intention of benefitting others (‘pure’ altruism) may not in any way improve others biological fitness, thus not being qualified to be termed as altruism in realms of evolutionary biology [4].
Thus ‘Pure Altruism’ can be defined as principle of sacrificing something (in form of time, energy or possessions) without any expectation of returns, direct or indirect.
2. Current debates on Altruism
After gaining the knowledge of what is altruism in true sense, the very first and innate thought which comes is that concept of altruism is very much practical and almost all parts of world clearly witness altruistic actions in everyday life. In fact thinking of human race to have been in a stable existence like it is in now seems impossible without altruism and altruistic actions. Secondly most of us would believe that being altruistic is favourable and for the good of the society as a whole. Survival chances would increase many fold if every lot in the society is altruistic. The same has also been proven by kin theory of evolutionary biology.
The above stated two thoughts are actually questionable and are the two topics of debate on altruism. Both the above thoughts have shortcomings and thus have been debated upon by numerous philosophers over the years, since August Comte a philosopher of science, in 19th century, coined the term.
The first question is whether Altruism actually exist, existence of altruism means whether any action can be ever called truly altruistic, or altruism is just like any other ideal notion which exist in theories but not practically possible.
The second question is that if altruism exist, then is it beneficial as it is considered to be. Is altruism, if at all in existence, favourable to be practiced? Is Altruism capable of existing?
2.1 Does Altruism Exist?
Before answering the question the definition of ‘Altruism’ is revisited to highlight the base points: It is the principle of scarifying time, energy or possessions for someone other than the self, with no expectations of return of favour, either direct, or indirect.
Now according to this definition it becomes quite evident that altruism or altruistic actions can never exist. Any and all actions done by self, do, in one way or the other, benefit the self, either directly or indirectly. Most actions which are perceived to be altruistic also are not as they in return give self an intrinsic gratification of having done that action [6]. Actions like donating food and clothes to a poor, or helping a disabled person accomplish some task, or helping a colleague with his/her work which may not prove to be of self benefit, all this actions seem to be for the benefit of solely the receiver and not the actor, but in all these actions the actor does gain personal benefits. In helping a poor the actor might be gaining intrinsic gratification in form of happiness or satisfaction, if not this then actor might have performed the action simply to gain respect in society or the stature of being a benevolent person and being compared to a hero. This way all the actions which at first may seem to be highly altruistic turn out to be non-altruistic.
The major reason for this apparent ambiguity of nothing being altruistic (apparent because in actuality nothing or no action is altruistic but this notion seems ambiguous given examples of apparent altruistic actions from our daily life), is due to the fact that most of the times the actors themselves do not know what is the “real reason” behind their action. As pointed out by Kant and Freud people’s true motives may be hidden, even from themselves. This is the reason why most people confuse their actions to be altruistic.
71
Section 10. Social Psychology
Some may now question about the actions which involve high levels of sacrifice for someone other than the self, for example Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu blocking the door of the classroom to protect the people inside from the bullets of Seung-Hui Cho, who was on a rampage, and in all this he gave away his own life. Or the action of Wisely Autrey, jumping down the tracks of New York City subway to save the man who had fallen due to a seizure, on the railway track. These action in no way seem to be of personal benefit. Especially in the case of professor Liviu Librescu who lost his life, how could that man have had a motive of gaining personal gratification, or become a hero in the society, if the ultimate result was his death. To this, reply would be that in first place the satisfaction of having done an act leaves that act non-altruistic. Professor had a desire to save his students and the accomplishment of that gave him satisfaction. Further, satisfaction does not emphasis on mental state or well being of the receiver of this satisfaction. These two are completely different realms. It is not important for a person to remain fit after an act, for receiving satisfaction out of that act. Another argument is, that in both the situations could the actors have seen the happenings and still remain composed. The sight of the happening in both cases would have disturbed the actors (if they had not performed) and would have laden heavy on their conscience, giving them pain of guilt for the rest of their life. Thus the actions performed by them in the end do prove to be beneficial to them by saving them from pain. A very supporting theory is of Psychological Egoism. It is the view that all actions done by humans are performed out of self-interest, and can never be altruistic.
2.1.1 Psychological Egoism
Psychological egoism is the view that no action, be it of sacrifice or sharing is done without a selfish motive [1; 5]. This is descriptive, rather than normative, as it does not says about how things should be, but tells how they actually are. Psychological egoism in no way tries to challenge what is good or bad what is moral or immoral it simply states the behaviour of things and actions already existing [7].
Psychological egoism directly confronts and nullify the idea of altruism. As seen in all the above
examples every action may have been for benefit of others but did include self interest and this is what exactly psychological egoism means.
Another form of psychological egoism is psychological hedonism, but this form constricts the personal motives to only pleasure and happiness [7]. The two are different, an action may necessarily not give any feeling of happiness or pleasure or avoid pain but still may seem to be of personal interest and thus egoistic. Thus we can say hedonism to be another type of egoism.
Many may feel that egoism makes false claims and the theory is wrong and inconsistent with everyday actions. As David Hume once wrote, “What interest can a fond mother have in view, who loses her health by assiduous attendance on her sick child, and afterwards languishes and dies of grief, when freed, by its death [the child’s], from the slavery of that attendance?” [8]. It seems incorrect to describe such a mother’s goal as self-interested. Close observation reveals that these actions too are motivated. Non-sensory satisfaction which the mother gets and expectation of reciprocation are the two motives behind these actions. The end result may not have been according to which the actions are performed but the concern here is on actions and their motives not on question of validity of these actions or whether they successfully achieved the motive or not. The helpful action is merely instrumental to these ultimately selfish goals.
Critics say that psychological egoism often confuse the satisfaction of own desires with the satisfaction of self-regarding desires. For example a person calling ambulance for another person who has suffered an accident. The caller has a desire to help the victim, it is the desire of the caller but it is in benefit of the victim and not the caller. Thus egoism by including such desires in its realms provides false claims of calling these actions non-altruistic. To this, many like German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche have asserted that all these actions too are actually out of personal interest. Nietzsche argued, in his “The Dawn”, that in such cases compassionate impulses arise out of the projection of our identity unto the object of our feeling [9]. For example a person, feeling horrified after witnessing a personal feud, coughing blood, or that of the impulse felt to
72
Altruism in practise, a subtle form of psychological egoism
save a person who drowns in the water. In such cases, according to Nietzsche, there comes into play unconscious fears regarding our own safety [9]. The suffering of another person is felt as a threat to our own happiness and sense of safety, because it reveals our own vulnerability to misfortunes, and thus, by relieving it, one could also ameliorate those personal sentiments. Thus all actions are motivated, and hence this is how psychological egoism attacks the concept of altruism at the basic level.
2.1.2 Classifying Desires
As we have already established solid lines of understanding proper definitions and meaning of altruism and egoism and what is meant by self-concerning motives and keeping in view the point raised by Kant that “real reason” of action may not be known to the actor itself and looking at how Nietzsche supports as well as compliments it in his “The Dawn” [9], we can now simply define two kinds of desires, altruistic and egoistic [5].
Altruistic desires: a desire is altruistic if it concerns the benefit of someone other than the self.
Egoistic Desire: a desire is egoistic if it concerns with the benefit of oneself.
As is clearly evident from the above definition altruistic desires are strictly those which benefit others while egoistic desires are those which benefits self although its side effects may be in some way beneficial for someone other than self but the “real reason” of the desire i. e. the ultimate desire is welfare of self.
One important point to be raised here is that it is not necessary for all desires to fall in either of the two. Some actions may neither be altruistic nor egoistic. Taking an example from Bernard Williams, a “madman” might have an ultimate desire for “a chimpanzees” tea party to be held in the cathedral”. Now this desire of the madman is neither altruistic, what benefit will a “tea party” be for a chimpanzee in a “cathedral”, and what possible gain could the madman take out of this desire.
The converse ofthis is not true. It cannot be that a desire is altruistic as well as egoistic at the same time. This is due to the definition of the two desires. Altruistic desire strictly limits to concerning for non-self whereas egoistic desire has everything to do with self.
Definitions of egoistic desires also gives a clear demarcation between selfishness and egoism. Egoism is
not concerned with the implications of the act on someone other than self. Whereas selfishness implies working towards your goals using, if need be, other’s resources. Egoism in no way promotes acting for selfbenefit on the cost of others benefits, and that is what differentiates egoism from selfishness. Egoism promotes individualism which emphasis on the view of acting for good of self and expects this from everyone, thus resulting in an overall growth but individually.
2.1.3 Concept of "Apparent Altruism”.
Altruism thus is actually just a definition defining the ideal case which perhaps may be the order but is not. As soon as put in practice altruism fails. No action is altruistic. Every action does have extrinsic or intrinsic desire which benefits the self. Thus tending towards egoism.
In fact altruism can be thought of as, if it really has to be given a practical significance, as a subtle form of egoism [1]. All the actions which appear to be altruistic are actually egoistic actions with consciously maximising the benefits to someone other than self, but not blocking the rewards, or thought of them, of that action for the self. This is termed as apparent altruism.
Mohammed Ibn Al-Jahm Al-Barmaki has been quoted:
“No one deserves thanks from another about something he has done for him or goodness he has done, he is either willing to get a reward from God, therefore he wanted to serve himself, or he wanted to get a reward from people, therefore, he has done that to get profit for himself, or to be mentioned and praised by people, therefore, to it is also for himself, or due to his mercy and tenderheartedness, so he has simply done that goodness to pacify these feelings and treat himself.”
This in itself is sufficient reason for having a term like apparent altruism in existence, because no action at all can be altruistic.
2.2 Can Altruism survive?
Having said that altruism does not exist, and that there is a notion of only apparent altruism in practical life, asking this question of whether it can survive is baseless, as something has to be in existence for qualifying for the question of whether it can survive. Yet arguing on this debate does help us in understanding altruism in a better way.
73
Section 10. Social Psychology
This question usually evokes the biological concept of altruism, which, as already stated is very much diverging from the real life altruism which we intend to understand. In evolutionary biology, altruism seems to be a negative agent. It reduces survival chances. To oppose this idea “kin theory” was proposed which says that people when perform altruistic actions for their own species or community increase the chances of these genes transmission to the next prodigy. This way an altruistic population will only survive [4]. The critics say that level of altruism in a group is always equal to the level in the person least altruistic that is if even a single person is less altruistic then it will bring down the level of altruism of the whole group. This way, given that there is a higher possibility of finding at least one such person, it is very difficult for altruism to have survived the evolution.
Moving out of the realm of biology and bringing back the focus on “real” altruism, concept of reciprocation of altruism has been used by advocators of altruism to prove that it can stably sustain [10]. The argument is that if you are being altruistic to someone then later he/she will at some point of time be altruistic towards you. This way the whole population will become altruistic.
This concept of reciprocation has the biggest defect in its very name “reciprocation”. If actions are be-
ing performed in knowledge of the fact that it will be reciprocated then that action no longer remains altruistic as the ultimate desire of the action becomes self-beneficial.
3. Conclusion
Thus when talking about “real” or “pure” altruism, we can safely say that no action can be put under this heading. Thus altruism can be safely concluded to be just a concept which can never have a practical existence. The paper puts forth the two concepts i. e. of Psychological Altruism and Psychological Egoism, later desires are studied and classified into these two realms. Using the fundamental definition of altruism and the construct of desire classification, it can be evidently concluded that no action is truly ‘altruistic’ in nature. If at all altruism exists then it is nothing but a subtle form of psychological egoism. Difference between psychological egoism and selfishness has also been clearly stated, thus further elaborating on the fact that altruism in practice is actually psychological egoism. Although the question of survival of altruism doesn’t arise, but taking the assumption of existence of altruism, the question has been answered. The concept of reciprocation, which has been used for proving sustainability of altruism itself is flawed, as it itself contradicts the very basic premise for any action to be altruistic i. e. of being void of self-benefit.
References:
1. Altruism and Egoism: A False Dichotomy? Krebs, Dennis L. Psychological Inquiry 2.2 (1991): 137-39
2. Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research Jane Allyn Piliavin and Hong-Wen Charng.
3. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16 (1990). P. 27-65.
4. Hopkins’s Selfless Self Of Self. Nathan, N. m.l. Literature Theology Literature and Theology 7.4 (1993): 397-402.
5. Biological Altruism Okasha, Samir, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
6. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. P. Kyle, Elliott Sober, and David Sloan Wilson. The Journal of Philosophy 98.1 (2001).
7. Does True Altruism Exist? Eisenberg, Nancy. PsycCRITIQUES 38.4 (1993).
8. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N. P., n. d. Web. 2 July 2015
9. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Hume, David.The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David Hume: An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
10. Dawn Young, Julian Friedrich Nietzsche A Philosophical Biography (2009): 296-315.
11. Personal Control, Social Control, and Altruism: Can Society Survive the Age of Individualism? Kanfer, Frederick H. American Psychologist 34.3 (1979): 231-39.
74
