How Useful are the Concepts of Egoism and Altruism for Thinking About Human Nature?

[JackDaydream]

The relationship between self and others is central to human life and involves social learning. Ideas about egoism and altruism are aspects of understanding how human beings negotiate their own needs, in relation to those of others.

Ben Dupre (2009) discusses altruism in '50 Big Ideas You Really Need to Know'. He points to the way in which that the idea of altruism has been important but puzzling since ancient times. He quotes Hobbes, 'Of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself'. Dupre defines egoism 'as the view that people are as a matter of fact motivated by self-interest(psychological egoism or that they should be so motivated). He points to the contrasting idea of altruism as 'a willingness to set the interests and welfare of others above his own, quoting David Hume, 'Men often act against their interest.' He points to the way in which part of the caring for others, which is not exclusive to humans, is connected to looking after people closest to oneself.

The tension between self interest and that of others has been connected to the Christian idea of loving your neighbour as yourself' and the golden rule. Societies develop rules based on how others are to be treated and ideas of a social contract are a way of endorsing this.

In connection with thinking about human nature and the conflicts about self and others' needs it is worth considering what human needs are. Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins from the lower physiological needs, such as shelter and safety, up to the social needs, and self-actualization at the top. Within this framework it can be asked does one have to fulfill all the needs to begin thinking of others' needs, or should the focus be on concern for the most basic needs be more important. This is an aspect which each person may have to think about in priorities for concern.

There are various understandings of human motivation and human nature. Any particular one may be essential as a starting point for thinking about self and others. Some writers, such as John Locke and Steven Pinker see the mind as 'a blank slate'. There is the question of to what extent is human nature fixed or dependent on social and cultural factors, especially related to socialisation, with the internalisation of social norms for behaviour. It is against this background of querying human nature, that I ask the question, are human beings predisposed to egoism or altruism and what factors come into play in the balance between the two?

[JackDaydream]

Extra: One aspect relating to the interplay between human beings is the nature of interdependence, with the need for others. This has been explored by Yuval Noah Harari, in, 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind' (2001). He states that, 'Human babies are helpless, dependent for many years on their elders for sustenance, protection and education.' Also, he suggests that, 'They can be spun, stretched and shaped with a surprising degree of freedom'. Here, he is pointing to the importance of socialisation in groups. Attachment bonds form with other human beings. The emotional aspects of attachment to other humans is an aspect of development and human cognitive developments. So, it may be asked to what extent is the person able to exist separately from others? Is this the starting point for bridging the gap between self interest and thinking of others needs?

[BrianKingofTrolls]

This has a simple answer: the human being is an animal, with animal needs: safety/shelter, pleasure/reproduction, and dominance/success. These are important to fulfill, they ensure our survival and contentment. Of course, just like animals in the wilderness, we often fulfill these needs at the expense of others, and thus our animal body is the source of our selfishness.

However, human beings also have a soul, and this soul is a spiritual thing, the complete opposite of the animal: loving, generous, compassionate, creative, forgiving, heroic. The human soul is the most loving, selfless, giving being in existence, but its expression its limited by the opposing, antithetical influence of the animal body.

The interplay between Egoism and Altruism is the interplay between the animal body and the soul within; one is selfish out of necessity, the other selfless by nature.

The answer to the meta-question -- how does one live as a human being? -- is now easy to see: one is to fulfill BOTH natures, but when push comes to shove, the soul and its inherent virtue must take primacy. This will lead to true happiness for both you and your people.

[Samana Johann]

What ever reasoning for actions based on both, unless free of all craving, are always simple selfish, objected to what's regard as own, as refuge. So it would be better to ask in what way does one act wisely for one's own long term happiness, or the best benefit for others, sson then seeing that working for the end of one's craving, wise selfish, wise alturistic, serves both the best, good householder.

But because of being to weak to go after the root cause, people take on views to defend their habits and inclinations.

Looking after oneself one protects all other, looking after all others, one protects oneself. The middle path.

[stevie]

For some such concepts are useful and for others such concepts are not useful. If you want to follow a religion it certainly isn't useful to reject concepts that are of importance in that religion.

[Pattern-chaser]

This has a simple answer: the human being is an animal, with animal needs: safety/shelter, pleasure/reproduction, and dominance/success.

Well yes, but I can't help noticing that you're mixing primary and secondary 'needs' here. Shelter and reproduction seem more significant than the rest, which might contribute to primary needs, but are secondary in themselves. "Dominance/success" seem obvious examples.

These are important to fulfill, they ensure our survival and contentment. Of course, just like animals in the wilderness, we often fulfill these needs at the expense of others, and thus our animal body is the source of our selfishness.

However, human beings also have a soul, and this soul is a spiritual thing, the complete opposite of the animal: loving, generous, compassionate, creative, forgiving, heroic. The human soul is the most loving, selfless, giving being in existence, but its expression its limited by the opposing, antithetical influence of the animal body.

Wow! So the evil animal body is tamed by the 'angelic' soul? I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said up to now, or that anyone else has said. Is this a religious assertion — a statement of belief — or something else?

[JackDaydream]

This has a simple answer: the human being is an animal, with animal needs: safety/shelter, pleasure/reproduction, and dominance/success. These are important to fulfill, they ensure our survival and contentment. Of course, just like animals in the wilderness, we often fulfill these needs at the expense of others, and thus our animal body is the source of our selfishness.

However, human beings also have a soul, and this soul is a spiritual thing, the complete opposite of the animal: loving, generous, compassionate, creative, forgiving, heroic. The human soul is the most loving, selfless, giving being in existence, but its expression its limited by the opposing, antithetical influence of the animal body.

The interplay between Egoism and Altruism is the interplay between the animal body and the soul within; one is selfish out of necessity, the other selfless by nature.

The answer to the meta-question -- how does one live as a human being? -- is now easy to see: one is to fulfill BOTH natures, but when push comes to shove, the soul and its inherent virtue must take primacy. This will lead to true happiness for both you and your people.

The idea of the 'soul' seems to have been pushed and shoved out of philosophy. It may have been replaced, to a large extent, by the idea of the self. Many only believe in the animal body. I am not convinced that this is all there is, but I find my own thoughts on this do fluctuate. I am definitely aware of an inner world but I find that so many dismiss it. I sometimes feel beaten up by such approaches because they feel like an assault on all that is spiritual.

In terms of living, I find that altruism is important but it is much harder if one spends so much time alone. It can make one become very insular and preoccupied with the self. Also, there is such an ethos of individualism and break down of communities that I find that it often feels like a battle of self against the world.

[JackDaydream]

What ever reasoning for actions based on both, unless free of all craving, are always simple selfish, objected to what's regard as own, as refuge. So it would be better to ask in what way does one act wisely for one's own long term happiness, or the best benefit for others, sson then seeing that working for the end of one's craving, wise selfish, wise alturistic, serves both the best, good householder.

But because of being to weak to go after the root cause, people take on views to defend their habits and inclinations.

Looking after oneself one protects all other, looking after all others, one protects oneself. The middle path.

Ì do find the Buddhist concept of the 'middle way' as useful, especially in relation to the highest and lowest possibilities of behaviour and standards. However, it is hard not to go to some extremes at times. Thinking about happiness of self and others is important but that is difficult as well because certain things may be wished for but not necessarily easy to achieve. For example, I would like to work, and be of service to others, but putting this into practice involves many obstacles. I am aware that I often see obstacles, and it is hard to know to what extent these are real or illusory. However, even if some of the obstacles are 'out there' realities, it may be that working on these on an inner level is important, that is if one is able to prevent the inner demons devouring the angels of greater perception and insight.

[GE Morton]

Ben Dupre (2009) discusses altruism in '50 Big Ideas You Really Need to Know'. He points to the way in which that the idea of altruism has been important but puzzling since ancient times. He quotes Hobbes, 'Of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself'. Dupre defines egoism 'as the view that people are as a matter of fact motivated by self-interest(psychological egoism or that they should be so motivated). He points to the contrasting idea of altruism as 'a willingness to set the interests and welfare of others above his own, quoting David Hume, 'Men often act against their interest.' He points to the way in which part of the caring for others, which is not exclusive to humans, is connected to looking after people closest to oneself.

The tension between self interest and that of others has been connected to the Christian idea of loving your neighbour as yourself' and the golden rule. Societies develop rules based on how others are to be treated and ideas of a social contract are a way of endorsing this.

"Loving your neighbor as yourself" and "looking after people closest to oneself" are two different things. A neighbor is someone who happens to live nearby; someone "close to oneself" usually means someone to whom one has an emotional attachment or a personal relationship. Egoism is pursuit of one's own interests. But for most people their interests will include the welfare of certain others --- parents, children, lovers, close friends, etc. Looking after someone in the latter category is thus egoistic, not altruistic. Altruism is looking out for others with whom one has no emotional attachment and in whose welfare one has no interests.

In connection with thinking about human nature and the conflicts about self and others' needs it is worth considering what human needs are. Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins from the lower physiological needs, such as shelter and safety, up to the social needs, and self-actualization at the top. Within this framework it can be asked does one have to fulfill all the needs to begin thinking of others' needs, or should the focus be on concern for the most basic needs be more important. This is an aspect which each person may have to think about in priorities for concern.

Same issue. The needs of which others? Does an individual's "social needs" extend only to rewarding relationships with a few specific others, or also to the millions of strangers who might also occupy one's country or continent or city?

[Ecurb]

"Loving your neighbor as yourself" and "looking after people closest to oneself" are two different things. A neighbor is someone who happens to live nearby; someone "close to oneself" usually means someone to whom one has an emotional attachment or a personal relationship. Egoism is pursuit of one's own interests. But for most people their interests will include the welfare of certain others --- parents, children, lovers, close friends, etc. Looking after someone in the latter category is thus egoistic, not altruistic. Altruism is looking out for others with whom one has no emotional attachment and in whose welfare one has no interests.


Same issue. The needs of which others? Does an individual's "social needs" extend only to rewarding relationships with a few specific others, or also to the millions of strangers who might also occupy one's country or continent or city?

It's difficult to tell which deeds that help others benefit those doing those deeds. How can we know? When a mother nurses her baby (as all mammalian mothers do) she is giving scarce resources she could use for herself to another. Does she get some satisfaction from it? Probably. But so what? Why does that make it less "altruistic"?

If a Christian gives food to hungry strangers, he may remember that verse from Matthew, in which the Lord tells the lambs to enter the Kingdom because, "In so much as you have done so to these, the least of may brethren, so you have done to me," Does that make the act selfish instead of altruistic? I don't think so. Obviously, people voluntarily do things because they want to do them. Anything else would be a contradiction. If we say that whatever a person wants to do "benefits him" and is thus not altruistic, the meaning of the word is lost.

Suppose a man drives carefully, under the speed limit, in residential areas because he doesn't want to injure any children. Are we to claim that because he might feel guilty if he injured a child, his driving is not altruistic, but selfish? That's nonsense, and destrouys the normal meaning of the words.

[JackDaydream]

Ben Dupre (2009) discusses altruism in '50 Big Ideas You Really Need to Know'. He points to the way in which that the idea of altruism has been important but puzzling since ancient times. He quotes Hobbes, 'Of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself'. Dupre defines egoism 'as the view that people are as a matter of fact motivated by self-interest(psychological egoism or that they should be so motivated). He points to the contrasting idea of altruism as 'a willingness to set the interests and welfare of others above his own, quoting David Hume, 'Men often act against their interest.' He points to the way in which part of the caring for others, which is not exclusive to humans, is connected to looking after people closest to oneself.

The tension between self interest and that of others has been connected to the Christian idea of loving your neighbour as yourself' and the golden rule. Societies develop rules based on how others are to be treated and ideas of a social contract are a way of endorsing this.

"Loving your neighbor as yourself" and "looking after people closest to oneself" are two different things. A neighbor is someone who happens to live nearby; someone "close to oneself" usually means someone to whom one has an emotional attachment or a personal relationship. Egoism is pursuit of one's own interests. But for most people their interests will include the welfare of certain others --- parents, children, lovers, close friends, etc. Looking after someone in the latter category is thus egoistic, not altruistic. Altruism is looking out for others with whom one has no emotional attachment and in whose welfare one has no interests.

In connection with thinking about human nature and the conflicts about self and others' needs it is worth considering what human needs are. Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins from the lower physiological needs, such as shelter and safety, up to the social needs, and self-actualization at the top. Within this framework it can be asked does one have to fulfill all the needs to begin thinking of others' needs, or should the focus be on concern for the most basic needs be more important. This is an aspect which each person may have to think about in priorities for concern.

Same issue. The needs of which others? Does an individual's "social needs" extend only to rewarding relationships with a few specific others, or also to the millions of strangers who might also occupy one's country or continent or city?

I have always seen the concept of one's neighbour as a little vague and abstract, because I have so many neighbours, literally. I have neighbours who I barely know by name, as well as so many significant others, like people who I have got to know from the past. I grew up with the principle of caring for 'neighbours' but it became an immense task, because I knew so many people with problems. Even now, it is the same, because I have friends with such difficulties, and I have some of my own too, that I it becomes so difficult to juggle my own needs and those of significant others.

As well as this, there are many others who I am aware of who have great needs when I read the news. These are people who I have never met. One philosophy which I have read which is read is that of Edward O Wilson, a sociobiologist. He looks at the idea of an increasing sphere of concern, beginning from those people one knows immediately and those of further distance in gradations of concerns

This may be a starting point, but it is not a simple matter, especially in relation to the many larger needs of the human race and the undefined needs of one's own, materially, psychologically and socially. It is difficult to put it together in thought, because it is an area which is hard to define, given the nature of human desires in understanding one's own and those of other individuals, especially those which are shared or unique to individuals.

[GE Morton]

It's difficult to tell which deeds that help others benefit those doing those deeds. How can we know? When a mother nurses her baby (as all mammalian mothers do) she is giving scarce resources she could use for herself to another. Does she get some satisfaction from it? Probably. But so what? Why does that make it less "altruistic"?

If a Christian gives food to hungry strangers, he may remember that verse from Matthew, in which the Lord tells the lambs to enter the Kingdom because, "In so much as you have done so to these, the least of may brethren, so you have done to me," Does that make the act selfish instead of altruistic? I don't think so. Obviously, people voluntarily do things because they want to do them. Anything else would be a contradiction. If we say that whatever a person wants to do "benefits him" and is thus not altruistic, the meaning of the word is lost.

That is the objection (often raised) against "psychological egoism," the thesis that all voluntary acts are done in pursuit of some personal interest. And that thesis is probably true. But it doesn't vitiate the distinction between egoism and altruism as moral principles. If you act for another's benefit because that person and his/her welfare is personally important to you, because you have a relationship with them that brings you contentment, joy, or other emotional rewards, then your beneficence is egoistic. According to Kant and others you can only be considered "altruistic" when your beneficent act is motivated by a moral principle, a belief on your part that you have a duty to so act --- rather than a desire to preserve or enhance a relationship you find pleasant or satisfying.

Suppose a man drives carefully, under the speed limit, in residential areas because he doesn't want to injure any children. Are we to claim that because he might feel guilty if he injured a child, his driving is not altruistic, but selfish? That's nonsense, and destrouys the normal meaning of the words.

That sort of restraint is not usually considered altruistic, which contemplates bestowing positive benefits on others, rather than merely avoiding harming others. The "do no harm" principle is a different principle from one commanding that one act to benefit others.

[Samana Johann]

What ever reasoning for actions based on both, unless free of all craving, are always simple selfish, objected to what's regard as own, as refuge. So it would be better to ask in what way does one act wisely for one's own long term happiness, or the best benefit for others, sson then seeing that working for the end of one's craving, wise selfish, wise alturistic, serves both the best, good householder.

But because of being to weak to go after the root cause, people take on views to defend their habits and inclinations.

Looking after oneself one protects all other, looking after all others, one protects oneself. The middle path.

Ì do find the Buddhist concept of the 'middle way' as useful, especially in relation to the highest and lowest possibilities of behaviour and standards. However, it is hard not to go to some extremes at times. Thinking about happiness of self and others is important but that is difficult as well because certain things may be wished for but not necessarily easy to achieve. For example, I would like to work, and be of service to others, but putting this into practice involves many obstacles. I am aware that I often see obstacles, and it is hard to know to what extent these are real or illusory. However, even if some of the obstacles are 'out there' realities, it may be that working on these on an inner level is important, that is if one is able to prevent the inner demons devouring the angels of greater perception and insight.

May good householder go for what makes benefit for all, beginning by getting ride of the 5 evil friends, outwardly and inwardly. The four frames of mindfulness is the key to it. The way to liberation.

[Ecurb]

That is the objection (often raised) against "psychological egoism," the thesis that all voluntary acts are done in pursuit of some personal interest. And that thesis is probably true. But it doesn't vitiate the distinction between egoism and altruism as moral principles. If you act for another's benefit because that person and his/her welfare is personally important to you, because you have a relationship with them that brings you contentment, joy, or other emotional rewards, then your beneficence is egoistic. According to Kant and others you can only be considered "altruistic" when your beneficent act is motivated by a moral principle, a belief on your part that you have a duty to so act --- rather than a desire to preserve or enhance a relationship you find pleasant or satisfying.

That sort of restraint is not usually considered altruistic, which contemplates bestowing positive benefits on others, rather than merely avoiding harming others. The "do no harm" principle is a different principle from one commanding that one act to benefit others.

As enamored as you generally are with definitions, GE, you appear less strict in adherence to them when they do not suit your rhetorical goals. Even if we use the definition of "ethical altruism" (instead of the normal dictionary definition), you are treading difficult and dangerous philosophical ground.

Altruism (or Ethical Altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit others.

Parents (like those female mammals I mentioned earlier) may love their children and enjoy being parents. Nonetheless all but a few of them think they have a "moral obligation to help, serve and benefit" them. So their altruism is perhaps based in part on the joy the relationship brings them, but it is also almost certainly based on the moral principle that they have a duty to support their children.

(By the way, I got the car-driving example from the Stanford Encycolopedia of Philosophy article on altruism. Here is that paragraph):

Altruistic acts include not only those undertaken in order to do good to others, but also those undertaken in order to avoid or prevent harm to them. Suppose, for example, someone drives her car extra cautiously because she sees that she is in an area where children are playing, and she wants to insure that she injures no one. It would be appropriate to say that her caution is altruistically motivated.

[GE Morton]

That is the objection (often raised) against "psychological egoism," the thesis that all voluntary acts are done in pursuit of some personal interest. And that thesis is probably true. But it doesn't vitiate the distinction between egoism and altruism as moral principles. If you act for another's benefit because that person and his/her welfare is personally important to you, because you have a relationship with them that brings you contentment, joy, or other emotional rewards, then your beneficence is egoistic. According to Kant and others you can only be considered "altruistic" when your beneficent act is motivated by a moral principle, a belief on your part that you have a duty to so act --- rather than a desire to preserve or enhance a relationship you find pleasant or satisfying.

That sort of restraint is not usually considered altruistic, which contemplates bestowing positive benefits on others, rather than merely avoiding harming others. The "do no harm" principle is a different principle from one commanding that one act to benefit others.

As enamored as you generally are with definitions, GE, you appear less strict in adherence to them when they do not suit your rhetorical goals. Even if we use the definition of "ethical altruism" (instead of the normal dictionary definition), you are treading difficult and dangerous philosophical ground.

Oh? What ground?

Altruism (or Ethical Altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit others.

Parents (like those female mammals I mentioned earlier) may love their children and enjoy being parents. Nonetheless all but a few of them think they have a "moral obligation to help, serve and benefit" them. So their altruism is perhaps based in part on the joy the relationship brings them, but it is also almost certainly based on the moral principle that they have a duty to support their children.

They do have such a moral obligation. But that is not what, for most parents, motivates their benevolence toward their children, as your own statement above implies --- non-human female mammals exhibit similar caring for their offspring, but not being moral agents, are surely not motivated to do so by any moral principle they understand and accept. (On the other hand, some parents, typically non-custodial fathers, contribute to their child's welfare needs even though they have no personal relationships with the child, just because they believe they have a moral obligation to do so).

(By the way, I got the car-driving example from the Stanford Encycolopedia of Philosophy article on altruism. Here is that paragraph):

Altruistic acts include not only those undertaken in order to do good to others, but also those undertaken in order to avoid or prevent harm to them. Suppose, for example, someone drives her car extra cautiously because she sees that she is in an area where children are playing, and she wants to insure that she injures no one. It would be appropriate to say that her caution is altruistically motivated.

That author goes on to state, " An act is altruistic in the strong sense if is undertaken in spite of the perception that it involves some loss of one’s well-being. An act is altruistic in the weak sense if it is motivated, at least in part, by the fact that it benefits someone else or the fact that it will not injure anyone else."

That "weak" sense may be embraced by the popular understanding of that term, but not by most philosophers. The "do no harm" principle is a negative constraint on behavior, the duty of charity a positive duty. The arguments for the former are quite different from those for the latter. Construing "altruism" to include avoiding inflicting harms stretches the term ridiculously --- do I act altruistically if I refrain from libeling you, robbing you, or murdering you?