Rationale of Altruism

[Paul91]

Hi all,

This is my first post on this forum.

I would like to write about a rationale behind altruist behavior that came to me recently:

As a preface, our development in the womb seems to represent a gratuitous "gift" to our infant selves, despite being strongly dependent on the mother after birth.

Self-interested behavior out of self-preservation does seem to oppose an altruistic mode of giving SINCE one has been "blessed" with the capacity to do things beyond themselves and enable others in their pursuits as well.

If we seek to exist for ourselves, in an anthropomorphic sense, we take on the position of an empty glass on a shelf, or maybe a car just sitting in a garage.

If self-centered goals are to preserve/protect our selfhood in the face of threats, we not only live below our capacity, but perhaps create alienation or power struggles in the process. It does not seem optimal if we concurrently avoid threats to our own survival and pursue what is "good" for merely our own sake.

However, if we take what is actually in our self-interest, which is basically replenishment of energy, as something that is freely given in an altruistic model (i.e. without conscious struggle or contractual debt) we become free to participate in an interconnected experience with less suffering. Even a narcissist would see the advantage of existing beyond potential biological form and actually playing a part that is maximally productive (as opposed to controlling others for one's own esteem).

Finally, the driver keeps the car refueled to the carry driver in its full capacity beyond the secluded garage.

I would love to read any questions, criticisms, or opinions on this.

Cheers,

Paul Ivanoff

[stevie]

Behavioural reasearch has clearly shown that self-preserving behaviour is ubiquitously dominating while altruistic behaviour is secondary and optional. "Rational" considerations don't make a difference.

[Paul91]

Hi Stevie,

Even more reason for change.

Altruistic behavior is a choice. The opposite is the illusion of choice. I want food now, because I know from experience that the food will make me temporarily satisfied AND I escape the current cause of my pain (hunger, obviously).

Now, if all regeneration occurred WHEN asleep (or even whilst awake), and all wakeful experiences only brought joy, then clearly something changed.

We don't work to live... we live to work. But this work does not need to be for self-preservation when that has already been taken care of. Your body actually has an amazing ability to adapt to the environment, if allowed. We just have to have more trust in the process. The ultimate expression of trust is compassion, in my view.

When we are rational, we choose the option that maximizes our total pleasure. If this includes both self and other, then there is no conflict or guilt. If we felt compelled to choose an option that avoided our present pain for a future benefit, it's trial and error, not rationality.

We were gifted with a mind and body since birth (+1). We give to others, as they do the same, etc. (-1). But, we are regenerated in the process (+1).

What if I had to borrow oxygen from a bank, or worked hard labor for hours just to "earn it" in return. It's already given, for free (at least for now). So, what do you do with all that oxygen?

Thank you Stevie for your response.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is my first post on this forum.

Welcome!!

However, if we take what is actually in our self-interest, which is basically replenishment of energy, as something that is freely given in an altruistic model (i.e. without conscious struggle or contractual debt) we become free to participate in an interconnected experience with less suffering.

This looks to me like the start of a co-operative and social view of human life. Politically, it leads toward socialism. In real life, as opposed to politics , I think it is the foundation of our species' success: social co-operation. We achieve so much more together than we can or do as solitary individuals.

I think it is a valuable insight to remind ourselves that a core aspect of life is "interconnected experience." I think it's valuable because we tend to forget how interconnected everything — absolutely everything — is in the real world/universe.

Just my two pennyworth.

[Paul91]

Hello Mr Pattern-chaser!

I think it is a valuable insight to remind ourselves that a core aspect of life is "interconnected experience." I think it's valuable because we tend to forget how interconnected everything — absolutely everything — is in the real world/universe.

In Buddhist philosophy, there is nothing intrinsically self-existent and all things exist in relation to other things (an obvious example would be how a left-side cannot exist without a right-side, and vice versa). In Hinduism, there is an idea that your innermost awareness is universal (Atman). So the only stand-alone, unchanging substance is pure consciousness itself. This cannot be a form, but rather an ineffable oneness found in all experience (so I've read).

[Sy Borg]

I think it comes down to disposition rather than a rationale or strategy. Collectively, those with somewhat altruistic dispositions have survived better than those purely out for themselves, because societies require cooperation to be cohesive.

However, very self-interested people keep popping up as a variant, so presumably they have a role to play in societal progress, perhaps presenting challenges to a society that ultimately strengthens it.

[Paul91]

Hello Sy Borg,

My motive is to actually provide "food for thought" to people with selfish/narcissistic tendencies. I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people. It's definitely a collective effort. I suppose sociopaths in society set examples of what is generally considered toxic behavior. Perhaps that is why the "good guy" usually wins in most stories told. If there is a logical basis behind the ethos, then "evil" tendencies will eventually be defeated.

Phobias, which are mostly irrational, are considered to be "curable". If self-centered behavior is also considered irrational, then why can't that be overcome also?

[LuckyR]

Real societies, just like most individuals, possess a desire to belong to a group (typically through either cooperation or leadership) as well as a desire to be a winner (typically through competition). It's a balance. A balance that has been shifted heavily towards competition since the advent of mass media, this has accelerated rapidly since social media.

[Paul91]

Real societies, just like most individuals, possess a desire to belong to a group (typically through either cooperation or leadership) as well as a desire to be a winner (typically through competition). It's a balance. A balance that has been shifted heavily towards competition since the advent of mass media, this has accelerated rapidly since social media.

Hi LuckyR

If there is respect for your opponents, then you can still win a competition without taking all credit. The win is just a natural outcome of (relatively) performing your best.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it is a valuable insight to remind ourselves that a core aspect of life is "interconnected experience." I think it's valuable because we tend to forget how interconnected everything — absolutely everything — is in the real world/universe.

In Buddhist philosophy, there is nothing intrinsically self-existent and all things exist in relation to other things (an obvious example would be how a left-side cannot exist without a right-side, and vice versa). In Hinduism, there is an idea that your innermost awareness is universal (Atman). So the only stand-alone, unchanging substance is pure consciousness itself. This cannot be a form, but rather an ineffable oneness found in all experience (so I've read).

Religions and belief systems apart, simple logic also leads to similar conclusions. There is a universe. There is no logical reason to consider it as a kit of separate/distinct parts, when it is simply a large and complex thing; one thing. And the 'components' of that one thing are interconnected in all kinds of ways: gravity; electromagnetic attraction; simple physical contact, or proximity; and so on.

[Sy Borg]

Hello Sy Borg,

My motive is to actually provide "food for thought" to people with selfish/narcissistic tendencies.

I think the ideal of purely altruistic behavior would be the opposite of fear-based reactions to other people. It's definitely a collective effort. I suppose sociopaths in society set examples of what is generally considered toxic behavior. Perhaps that is why the "good guy" usually wins in most stories told. If there is a logical basis behind the ethos, then "evil" tendencies will eventually be defeated.

Phobias, which are mostly irrational, are considered to be "curable". If self-centered behavior is also considered irrational, then why can't that be overcome also?

Trouble is, a person who does not care about others, who cannot empathise, would not consider their self-centred behaviour to be irrational, quite the contrary. If aware of various taboos, their focus will be on trying to obscure, distract or use fear to avoid damage to their image for selfish behaviour.

As far as they are concerned, there is no problem. In my limited observation, most people seem to value ethics and relationships enough to usually play nicely with others. Of course, three days without food for themselves or their children reduces many to something akin to what we see in wild animals. The upcoming food shortages as a result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine will leave many people without enough food and growing ethical quandaries.

[Paul91]

Trouble is, a person who does not care about others, who cannot empathise, would not consider their self-centred behaviour to be irrational, quite the contrary. If aware of various taboos, their focus will be on trying to obscure, distract or use fear to avoid damage to their image for selfish behaviour.

As far as they are concerned, there is no problem. In my limited observation, most people seem to value ethics and relationships enough to usually play nicely with others. Of course, three days without food for themselves or their children reduces many to something akin to what we see in wild animals. The upcoming food shortages as a result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine will leave many people without enough food and growing ethical quandaries.

It's important to know what drives self-centred behaviour. If people develop what they feel is a "void" within themselves, then all their actions would be targeted to fill that void. Low self-esteem, fear of death or suffering, etc. does incentivise selfish behaviour. However, it involves circular reasoning: If you have to "earn" your safety to begin with, then any perceived threats will only work to perpetuate this inward bias for self-preservation. Then what you have is a sense of self that is dependent on the perceived security of... yourself! Therefore, when the security of yourself is perceived to be low, selfish behaviour will naturally dominate as a compensation.

[LuckyR]

Real societies, just like most individuals, possess a desire to belong to a group (typically through either cooperation or leadership) as well as a desire to be a winner (typically through competition). It's a balance. A balance that has been shifted heavily towards competition since the advent of mass media, this has accelerated rapidly since social media.

Hi LuckyR

If there is respect for your opponents, then you can still win a competition without taking all credit. The win is just a natural outcome of (relatively) performing your best.

Actually winning isn't about performing your best, it's about performing better than your competition. The reality is that if 99 want to cooperate and 1 wants to complete, you'll have a 2 tiered system. In other words the few competitors shape the society.

[Sy Borg]

Trouble is, a person who does not care about others, who cannot empathise, would not consider their self-centred behaviour to be irrational, quite the contrary. If aware of various taboos, their focus will be on trying to obscure, distract or use fear to avoid damage to their image for selfish behaviour.

As far as they are concerned, there is no problem. In my limited observation, most people seem to value ethics and relationships enough to usually play nicely with others. Of course, three days without food for themselves or their children reduces many to something akin to what we see in wild animals. The upcoming food shortages as a result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine will leave many people without enough food and growing ethical quandaries.

It's important to know what drives self-centred behaviour. If people develop what they feel is a "void" within themselves, then all their actions would be targeted to fill that void. Low self-esteem, fear of death or suffering, etc. does incentivise selfish behaviour. However, it involves circular reasoning: If you have to "earn" your safety to begin with, then any perceived threats will only work to perpetuate this inward bias for self-preservation. Then what you have is a sense of self that is dependent on the perceived security of... yourself! Therefore, when the security of yourself is perceived to be low, selfish behaviour will naturally dominate as a compensation.

My understanding is that, to some extent, the tendency towards altruism and selfishness is genetic. Certainly trauma can drive a person to withdraw and focus on number one. Trauma can also drive victims to great altruistic work.

Ideally, a compulsory school subject would be mental resilience, which would reduce trauma and, hopefully, its potentially anti-social aspects.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ideally, a compulsory school subject would be mental resilience, which would reduce trauma and, hopefully, its potentially anti-social aspects.

Do you think that's even possible, in the real world (as opposed to "ideally", as you say)? If it is, would it really work to reduce trauma? I don't oppose your sentiment, but I do wonder if it's real-world practical (no matter how difficult)?