Altruism?

PrimaFacia said:
Yes but you don’t seem to grasp what I’m referring too. In order to be an ethical egoist, you believe that everyone should always do what is in their own best interests, however if you are always out for yourself, it is not in your best interest to make this known to everyone. It’s called the problem of publicity and a well-known fallacy of ethical egoism.

grahf said:

No, I know what you're talking about, I just disagree. If you don't know what my best interests are, how can you say it's counter to them for me to tell people I'm an ethical egoist? True if a psycho kidnapped me and told me "I'll let you go unless you're an ethical egoist, in which case I'll torture you to death" you'd better believe I'd lie to him, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

pygmy said:
Before you even ask that question, you have to think about the distinction between motives and results, I think. In your example, the result of helping poor people, that is, feeling good about yourself is ultimately a by-product, not necessarily the motivator. To say the fact that you get something out of it makes your motives selfish retroactively is pretty silly & backwards. Of course, of course, I know there's the idea that if you do something multiple times and learn that you consistantly feel better, less guilty, or like it redeems you somehow-- you'll keep doing that action as long as the benefits for you outweigh the negatives. This is what really distinguishes the extreme example of saving someone from jumping off a bridge from the more mundane acts of kindness: One is totally unexpected & you're just reacting, the other (homeless people asking for change, whatever) is recurring. I think there are people in the world that do "altruistic" acts for purely selfish reasons, but I think these people tend to give in more detatched ways-- donating money, going to glamorous fundraiser balls (incidentally, the things that the upper class tend to do).. Buuut, the people that are working with real people, there are mixed results from their actions; that is, not ever project is a sucess, not every act makes them feel great about theirselves. These people often question if what they're doing is really the best possible thing to do, always wonder if they could do more, even feel guilty for not being able to do enough. The very fact that they don't get consistent, reliable "warm fuzzies" everytime they do something leads me to believe that there must be something like true altruism.
Okay, here's a story. My husband and I once came upon a baby pigeon that was hit by a car. It's beak and wings were broken, it couldn't eat or drink even when we tried to feed it with a eyedropper, it could hardly breathe, and it was very clearly suffering a great deal. After we tried to save it, it would have been very easy to just sit by and say "let nature take it's course" but we knew that if we did that it'd be for selfish reasons, because we didn't want to deal with it. Basically we decided to euthanize it, but there was no way of getting to a vet, and I'll spare details, but we had to do it ourselves. It was horrible, and it definitely doesn't give me warm fuzzies to think about it, but we ended his suffering painlessly. Every time I think about it, I wonder "was that the best thing to do?" and there's just no comfort in that.
Do you see what I mean? There are similar dynamics in the more mundane things I do, when I try to help other people. Sometimes if you help people, sometimes they lash out and you get hurt. Sometimes you make a genuine difference.

Do people get personal reward from helping others? Hell yes. It's a good thing, too. Does that mean everyone is selfish? Absolutely not.

heresy200's post brings up an important point: Maybe it'd be more relevant to frame this discussion as: Is true altruism possible in a selfish society?

Also, don't you think that there are degrees of selfishness? Clearly there's a huge difference between murderers and philanthropists. Of course we are rooted within our respective selves, but to say that so resolutely denies the existance of empathy. Within a context of empathy, where boundaries of self and other are more or less blurred, the whole idea of "selfish" is pretty useless, isn't it? Empathy basically means "in suffering" (edited to clarify, I meant it's etymology... em: in, pathos: suffering) but it is a suffering that is collective, and if you can do your part to ease that collective suffering, it should be expected that you yourself should be put at ease, to some degree.



[Edited on Oct 21, 2005 by pygmy]

PrimaFacia said:
And you don’t seem to understand that to be an ethical egoist (which is a very extreme title) you have to believe that everyone must always do what is in his or her best interest, there is no give and take.

Most relationships including ones based on love are centered on a form of limited altruism, and for ethical egoism altruistic acts are a prime sin. So it is not in your best interest at all to tell people that you are an ethical egoist if that’s what you really are, instead of someone just vying for the spotlight.

I don’t doubt your claims, that you are a selfish and self-absorbed person, but to go around announcing it is only going to hurt you

I'd say it's impossible to achieve one's best interest without give and take, except in the very short term. It's not like I've sworn to avoid ever benefitting anyone except myself.