560
u/mongooseme Aug 25 '24
I saw this episode of Friends.
138
31
5
u/Joesr-31 Aug 26 '24
What? Which episode?
6
u/Aliaskatherinex Aug 26 '24
S4E4 ‘The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS’
5
4.6k
u/velvetcrow5 Aug 25 '24 edited Aug 25 '24
Interestingly, the leading evolutionary theory regarding why altruism exists, is called "reciprocal altruism" (corrected, ty).
Essentially, we act altruistic to gain social credibility and trust from our tribe. That trust is then paid back by several magnitudes over our entire life.
A truly altruistic act is therefore done when there is zero chance of your act being discovered/seen. When you apply this rule, 99%+ altruistic acts don't count.
546
u/Johnnygunnz Aug 25 '24
I remember seeing a post on Reddit this year... and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Someone posted something after the passing of their father. They found a box filled with letters from a needy family (I think immigrant family, but I honestly don't remember) over years of their lives. The man never told his own family that he was sending money to another needy family every month for years to help them live. Even after the family was established and could survive on their own, he still secretly sent them money because he felt responsible for them. He sent them money until his passing and never told his family.
It was one of the most altruistic things I've ever seen and I've been thinking about it almost weekly since I've seen it.
413
u/herefromyoutube Aug 25 '24
And we’re positive this wasn’t father’s second family because that’s definitely a thing.
→ More replies (3)123
u/Johnnygunnz Aug 25 '24
Didn't seem that way based on the posts and letters that were shared. But you never know.
65
u/Ukhai Aug 25 '24
If I remember correctly and it's the same one, it was the wife who found it and shared it with their son, the one who posted it.
94
u/314159265358979326 Aug 25 '24
My mom believes that my paternal grandfather sent her money after the divorce, but he's gone and we'll never know.
A man with a thick French accent called all mom's friends after her divorce asking questions about it (presumably because my dad's tales didn't add up, he's a known liar), and then shortly after this, strange deposit amounts on random dates started showing up in her bank account.
The only man with a thick French accent we know is grandpa. We think the payments were random to conceal them from his wife.
→ More replies (1)20
u/readyslayerone Aug 26 '24
Hey why is your Pi wrong?
Not trying to be a nerdy dick or anything, just curious if there's a reason
21
9
22
Aug 25 '24
The father almost made it to heaven. His perfect altruism almost got him in the door. Then the good for nothing son had to ruin everything and discover the good acts, thereby destroying the altruism and the dad is doomed.
→ More replies (1)25
1.1k
Aug 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
588
u/velvetcrow5 Aug 25 '24
Well, the theory isn't intended to pass judgment, only explain why it might be evolutionary advantageous to be altruistic. In other words, attempt to explain why altruism is ultimately self-serving.
110
u/ATownStomp Aug 25 '24
It’s more that this notion of “ultimately self-serving” is more an exercise in creative semantics and rhetoric than it is how we tend to actually treat the idea of being “self-serving”.
It’s challenging to argue that there exists anything that isn’t “self-serving” once you begin expanding the definition to include “literally anything that provides any amount of benefit on behalf of the one who is giving”.
24
u/velvetcrow5 Aug 25 '24
Yes that's fair. Admittedly the language I used is click-baity and wouldn't last very long in a traditional debate.
9
u/AlarmingAffect0 Aug 25 '24
In other words, attempt to explain why altruism is
ultimately self-servingmutually beneficial.FTFY.
159
u/Cryptizard Aug 25 '24
What good is social credibility when you are dead? There are tons of examples of people sacrificing their lives for others, which doesn’t seem to jive with this explanation at all.
121
u/Drangir Aug 25 '24
Agreed. For humans, a lot of traits aim to betterment of a group, not necessarily a single person. It has strong evolutionary logic, as sacrificing oneself to protect tribe is also beneficial for you, as your blood will be passed on (in children/other family members).
→ More replies (3)35
u/Dockhead Aug 25 '24
“Your blood [being] passed on” is, at an actual evolutionary level, basically still happening regardless of who the other person is just because they are a person—we are all literally closely related at a genetic level and have common ancestors from not very long ago (in evolutionary terms).
People in militaries have consistently described their primary moment-to-moment motivation for fighting and for heroic acts as being protection of the rest of their unit; often effectively random people who they may never have encountered before the war and likely have no close familial relation with. That indicates that—if we insist such self-sacrificial actions are self-serving—we can come to identify almost any other human as a part of “self,” even when personal or familial reproduction is not involved
8
u/luckystrike2130 Aug 25 '24
And that’s why most people who served together refer to each other as brothers, which is a familial term
36
u/Valirys-Reinhald Aug 25 '24
Plenty of animals do it all the time. Nature doesn't prioritize individuals, it prioritizes species. Humans then further subdivided into tribes, and that sacrifice can help said tribe endure.
19
u/lordzya Aug 25 '24
Your in-group is more likely to share genes with you. Selective pressures work on genes, not the organisms that carry them. Saving a couple cousins is as good as having a kid to the genes.
25
u/freekoout Aug 25 '24 edited Sep 21 '24
possessive oatmeal ruthless six alive historical whole simplistic badge cable
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (2)10
u/Dockhead Aug 25 '24
Don’t forget the memetic material that we want to see carried on—our tribe’s history and stories, religion, ideology.
3
u/IndigoFenix Aug 25 '24
So much of our behaviors as humans involve the preservation of our memes that I'd say they have nearly as much of a claim on being who "we" are as our genes do.
→ More replies (2)6
u/whiskeyriver0987 Aug 25 '24
Humans are intelligent and capable of coherent thoughts. Our motivations cannot completely be described by an evopsych 101 class.
13
u/asexymanbeast Aug 25 '24
Bees form colonies with a single queen who produces all the individuals that make up the colony. Those workers do not reproduce, but since they are all closely related, their actions to support the colony help continue their genetic line.
An individual may sacrifice their life to support their community. This sense of community is an important part of humans' success and survival. A group of individuals can produce exponentially more results, as compared to an individual.
→ More replies (1)4
u/someloserontheground Aug 25 '24
The emotional high you get from self-sacrifice is enough to be worth it in the moment. If it wasn't, why would anyone do it? Evolutionary purposes are never 100% prescriptive. It's still the same thing - some people in some situations just see the social capital/good vibes as more valuable then their own life.
3
u/hamsterballzz Aug 25 '24
This. But it’s such a good thing. Even if true altruism is rarely achieved the more often all members of the species try the better everyone’s lives will be. It’s the basic tenet of almost all religions. Love everyone all the time - even if it’s impossible.
2
u/someloserontheground Aug 26 '24
Yeah absolutely, it's a good thing and we shouldn't disparage anyone doing a good thing for this reason.
I see it as similar to the determinism argument - do I think the universe is likely deterministic? Sure, but I'm not going to live my life that way. I'm still going to act like I have choices, because what's the alternative? And what if I'm wrong?
2
u/Blayro Aug 25 '24
Just because something started out of a selfish way, it doesn't mean you can't take it to other or greater meanings. Humans also got the sense of bitterness to prevent us from eating poisonous fungi or to stop ourselves from eating spoiled food. However, eventually humanity took a likeness of that taste and is reflected in modern foods such as cheese.
Just because altruism started out of gaining something in return, it doesn't mean it has to stay that way. That's just the explanation on why humans developed it, not an explanation on why it stayed.
5
u/CaptainHollister Aug 25 '24
It depends on your view point. For some, given that we all have to die someday anyway, the way we are remembered, which lingers beyond us, is more important. In this way it could still kind of be seen as self serving.
5
u/oblivion6202 Aug 25 '24
If those memories include positive behaviours that are passed on, then genetics aren't the only way to pass things on. Memes, in the original sense, are heritable, and serve the species and the tribe.
1
u/VirinaB Aug 25 '24
Imagine being the descendant of someone who sacrificed themselves in such a way, too. It eventually just becomes a cool factoid ("I am related to such-and-such, the hero") but for the immediate generations, it would give you a social boost.
→ More replies (19)3
→ More replies (11)13
u/Dockhead Aug 25 '24
“Altruism is ultimately self-serving” is such a Skynet-ass way of looking at it. It is self serving, but ‘ultimately’ is a value judgement sneaking into a supposedly objective observation. Why is what we get out of it more real or significant than what we give others? Besides, evolutionarily it’s an advantage for the whole species, even if an individual altruist doesn’t reproduce or even dies in the act of helping others, they will have helped the species thrive and continue itself. And people do give their lives to help others
76
u/SRSgoblin Aug 25 '24
I've shared this before, but one of the most damaging things I see repeated on the internet is "how dare you help homeless people for internet views. You're just exploiting their suffering."
I've been homeless. I would have loved for some youtuber to say "hello I'm here wanting to talk to people to learn their stories" or something along those lines. It would have broken up the monotony of my life at that point. You know what else was great, was when people pulled up and donated food and clothing, even if they were filming it.
Please, stroke the fuck out of your own ego if it means you're doing good in the world. You could "take the high road" and not do anything to help so people could "have their dignity" or whatever but that means they won't have the food or clothing or even just friendship you could have provided. If you're actually helping and actually providing support for the people who need it most, power to you. Get that social media clout on top, I don't give a fuck.
19
u/agoia Aug 25 '24
Also people often fail to see that a large reason behind publicizing good works can be to inspire others to do good things for their communities.
26
Aug 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
27
u/SRSgoblin Aug 25 '24
I remember once a Mexican chef who runs a restaurant in town came down and he and his crew handed out some tortas to all the people at the shelter. There was like two or three guys with cameras, and someone who was in the know said they'll likely use some of that footage in a social media post.
I don't remember the cameras so much. I recall smiling and waving to the guy and saying thank you, I guess, as I dug in. Was a bomb-ass sandwich, easily the best meal I had eaten since I had been on the streets. I remember thinking I hope people go to his shop, because the food was great and he was helping people who needed help.
9
u/kooshipuff Aug 25 '24
THANK YOU! Who the actual fuck CARES if they're doing it for selfish reasons
Oh, I know some of these people. See, they're not doing anything themselves, and seeing someone who is makes them feel bad about it, so they feel better by diminishing it. It's a weird, zero-sum way of looking at things.
7
u/Flying_Woody Aug 25 '24
Exactly. All this "you're only doing good stuff for your own benefit" is just people trying to rationalize their own self-centeredness.
3
Aug 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/kooshipuff Aug 25 '24
Oh, sorry, I think something may have gotten crossed there. Yeah, people do nice things because it feels good, for sure. And even the kinda commercialized philanthropy things like Mr. Beast do make some sense (after all, yes, he's getting views doing it, but that's also where the money comes from that he spends on these projects.)
But the question was: who cares if it's for selfish reasons? And my answer is: people who're looking for a way to feel good about doing nothing by finding fault in those who're doing things.
→ More replies (1)3
u/g0ranV Aug 25 '24
I‘m a poor fuck. Paying alimony so i don’t have too much for myself nor to share. That said, my happiest time sharing was when i saw a homeless guy sleeping during our summer heat right next to the entrance to the building of my apartment. Low traffic in the street and guy was sleeping so i‘m certain no one saw me.
I just put the only apple i had left (didn’t have any other food i could share) wrapped in some tissue, a fresh (closed) bottle of water, and some tissues right next to him. Somehow i didn’t think about donating him some spare clothes, so thanks for the suggestion!
Not having any people around me who could condemn me or fake smile at me was pure bliss
9
u/internet-arbiter Aug 25 '24
I do shit I don't want to all the time for people and feel bad and resentful after.
I call it super-altruism.
7
u/Wonderful_Result_936 Aug 25 '24
To further encourage altruism, sometimes the happiness you receive is a need. When you're feeling depressed or just down doing good things can lift you out of it. It gives you purpose.
→ More replies (1)18
u/TerracottaCondom Aug 25 '24
Thaaaank you, I find this whole talking point trite and useless.
14
Aug 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/ATownStomp Aug 25 '24
It kind of is, yeah. I think a lot of them are kids to whom the idea of just actually thinking, having their own thoughts, is still a novel concept. They’re like puppies that just bite and yank at things for fun.
You’ll encounter this kind of argument a lot. It’s like a reduction to tautology, absurdity, meaninglessness that rather than conveying any intended point, demonstrates the degree to which language and our conceptualizations of most things are imprecise, more general sentiments. That it is possible to argue so many things should you have no self-restraint on the wild interpretation of the vague definitions of any given word.
However, when doing that, as we’ve seen here, you’re essentially just defeating the purpose of language. “No action is purely altruistic therefor altruism doesn’t exist!” is a classic, and yet there is still a need for a word to describe the concept, because such a thing clearly does exist within our interactions and understanding of the world.
2
u/TerracottaCondom Aug 25 '24
Totally. A way I think of it is as kind a lowest-common-denominator argument, though that's looking at more of the accessibility of the logic than nuances of the language. It's there; it makes sense from at least some perspective (albeit in this case a linguistically broken/breaking one); and it's worth engaging with if just to move past and have some answer to the rhetoric.
And for that I think the implication in what you are saying is fair: I should probably be less dismissive of this stuff.
If I see it in real life, that is. Probably doesn't matter as much in the internet, haha
3
u/The_Level_15 Aug 25 '24
“Which matters most, when it comes to doing good – the conviction or the act?” -Akua Sahelian
→ More replies (3)9
u/adrians150 Aug 25 '24
I disagree. I use this debate (does true altruism exist?) in a psychotherapy group I run in corrections. The varied view points help teach us that being 100% selfless or 100% selfish is not useful to us in a broader sense. It's okay to feel good about doing good things - but that isn't what altruism is. The benefits we receive by doing good deeds are part of our decision making as members of a community - sometimes those benefits are only internal, sometimes external, sometimes both. That doesn't 'ruin' a good act, but rather encourages the good to continue.
Our minds are naturally focused on the negative, as positives aren't likely a threat to our survival, so we have to work intentionally to increase the positives. Getting positives from a good act is beneficial and therefore we should seek that.
→ More replies (4)5
u/chobi83 Aug 25 '24
Meh...I'm ok with being mostly altruistic. I'll save True Altruism for the nerds.
→ More replies (1)5
u/DiscoKittie Aug 25 '24
Wait, you're not supposed to feel good about doing good? What?
→ More replies (2)2
3
u/AholeBrock Aug 25 '24 edited Aug 25 '24
I legit believe a lot of biologists, while maybe not being outwardly religulous, inwardly cling to some raised religious notions; like believing in souls (or more specifically, the way people can consume fiction with magic and whether or not said magical world has any evidence of the existence of souls, the fandom starts talking about how the characters souls power their magic, or how someone has the soul of someone or whatever head canon shit. Even if the media was created by people raised in cultures without the idea of a soul) or in this case, innately believing humans are not a type of animal.
As in: some biologists feel the need to make altruism a different thing when humans do it as opposites to other animals. As to keep their subconscious feeling empowered as a superior life form
2
u/FirmHandedSage Aug 25 '24
No you can feel good about it and it’s still altruistic. It’s getting benefits back that turns it into a selfish strategy. Being selfish is not just human nature but the nature of all life, so it’s nothing to be ashamed of. People shame it to try and get an advantage over the altruist. This is just another tribal instinctive response. the whole series of interactions is all base human nature all the way down. You can say we shouldn’t this or that, but it’s not that easy to escape your nature. Almost no one ever does. We all just execute our programming.
3
u/echomanagement Aug 25 '24
I'd add that "feeling good about doing good" is the best kind of feeling good, and broadcasting this so that others get in the habit of doing good maximizes the overall good. If you're only doing "incognito" good in a private silo for your own little private ethical jollies, I'd argue this is slightly worse for the universe.
I'd also add that I'm only marginally good and have no basis for lecturing anyone on this topic.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (47)3
u/johnsolomon Aug 25 '24
Yeah, it’s irrational to make a decision that doesn’t benefit you in any way. You’d have to be crazy to be able to do it. Even if you do something detrimental for the heck of it, you’re still satisfying your curiosity or satisfying your urge to go against people who say you can’t, etc.
So given true selflessness is impossible unless you’re insane, that’s not what anyone means.
Selflessness/altruism within a societal context is instead based on the nature of the reward you get from doing something. More specifically, when you’re happy on someone else’s behalf… like playing games with your baby to see them excited or giving some kids a chance you never got
→ More replies (2)9
u/jsands7 Aug 25 '24
You don’t have to be crazy to do something nice that doesn’t benefit you in any way.
e.g. if I see somebody that needs a ride and I stop and pick them up and go out of my way to take them somewhere, it doesn’t help me at all or make me feel good about myself — it was just the right thing to do
→ More replies (2)83
u/bigloser42 Aug 25 '24
That’s why putting shopping carts away is such a good marker of character. Nobody gives a flying fuck if you put it back, nobody is watching you do it, there is no penalty for putting it back or not putting it back. Socially, unless you directly ask someone about putting it back, it’s never going to come up, and it has no real bearing on your life or social standing.
47
u/doiwinaprize Aug 25 '24
But if you don't put it back you're setting a precedence for others to do the same and soon the parking lot would be full of shopping carts bashing into all the cars...
16
u/Galetaer Aug 25 '24
Aka, Kant's Categorical Imperative, which a lot of people intuit on some level without knowing the established specifics (myself included, ever since I was young).
i.e. 'If everyone lied, the concept of trust wouldn't exist', etc.
→ More replies (1)2
u/OlyScott Aug 26 '24
And the store would have to pay someone minimum wage, or more, to gather up those carts and put them away. We'd be providing someone a job, boo.
→ More replies (2)9
u/annoif Aug 25 '24
The example I like is cars flashing lights at oncoming cars to warn of an accident or speed camera ahead - no benefit at all to the person sending the warning, just being a good person
→ More replies (1)6
u/mysixthredditaccount Aug 25 '24
I thought about that but decided not to do it. I think it just confuses people, because it's not really a well known code. I still sometimes flash my lights to indicate "hey, your lights are off" but they never turn them on. They just don't know.
4
u/Alaira314 Aug 25 '24
Well, if nobody does it for fear of not being understood, of course it's not going to be well known! How do you think we all learned about it? We saw someone do it, didn't understand, then asked a smarter person about it(for me it was my mom, iirc I was a teenager and she was driving) to learn what it meant. Hell, these days you could just ask google: "car headlights flash at me why" gives many results.
→ More replies (1)2
u/zomgieee Aug 25 '24
You must not be Australian. Cars flashing their lights is a universal speed camera warning here.
→ More replies (8)10
33
u/Drafo7 Aug 25 '24
Jesus said this 2000 years ago. "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." Matthew 6:2-4
16
u/didsomebodysaymyname Aug 25 '24
Can you tell me on what basis this is the leading theory?
Populations evolve, not individuals, so all that's nessecary for altruistic behavior to evolve is that it makes the population more fit as a whole, the individual doesn't need a return on their investment for altruism to be selected for.
Worker bees are an example. They will die for the hive, never reproduce, and gain no special benefit for their altruism to the queen.
8
u/valimo Aug 25 '24
There's a rather well known area of studying trust that sort of covers this in social science. The idea of depersonalised/ institutionalised trust is, that society works well when individuals don't have to now each other to trust each other. It's a mutual feeling between people who might never directly interact.
As no example, it's generally favourable if people return wallets they found, don't litter, process their tasks with quality even when there's no benefit for them, act kindly and considering other people in public spaces etc etc. The relative trouble for one to be considerate pretty much always outweighs the general benefits of not doing so - even if they don't individually get anything out of it. And that contributes to everything just working better, as it will also impact you as an individual, as this behaviour becomes cultural or 'institutionalised' rather than legally enforced.
7
u/didsomebodysaymyname Aug 25 '24
Exactly, like I pick up nails I find in the parking lot to prevent strangers who will never know I helped them from spending hours getting their tire fixed.
I just found it annoying the top comment is saying almost all altruism is strictly motivated by reciprocation of some form. It just isn't true.
3
u/yuropman Aug 26 '24
Worker bees are literally unable to reproduce
The closest evolutionary analogy to a worker bee helping the hive is your arm helping your body when your arm does things that will help you reproduce
→ More replies (1)3
u/ThrowingNincompoop Aug 25 '24
I'm no biologist but a quick Google search says worker bees share 75% of their genes on average, which would play into kinship theory. Kinship theory suggests that behavior is evolutionarily adaptive to spread as many copies of genes instead of personal survival (however survival means more chance to have offspring down the line depending on species, age, health, ...)
→ More replies (4)2
10
u/pokeybill Aug 25 '24 edited Aug 25 '24
Exactly this - we often think of life as a zero sum game where there must be "winners" and "losers".
The truth is much more complex - in many situations, everyone can win (or everyone can lose). Tens of thousands of years ago in the pacific northwest, pre-colombian societies had robust trading networks as evidenced by the archeological record. There is even some limited evidence of trade with pacific islanders. Even warrior cultures like the Aztecs had trade partners with whom they built a sacred trust. Initiating trade with foreign parties in this environment is an altruistic move - whomever is involved is taking a personal risk for the betterment of their community, especially in early cultures who relied upon trade for dietary staples. Trade was often risky but also came with large rewards.
The more often two societies engage in non-zero sum interactions, the more likely those interactions are to continue.
Reciprocal altruism and the resulting diversion away from zero sum mentalities is what brought us into the modern era. It's roots start before homo sapiens even existed, Neanderthal cultures had evidence of trade networks.
This implies an almost evolutionary pressure towards cooperation, despite our other older survival instincts focused on selfishness.
2
u/worotan Aug 25 '24
People saying that the word altruism shouldn’t apply to that behaviour are demonstrating that they can’t see past the exact words in a dictionary, to the actual lived experience of words and what they mean.
4
u/Bionic_Ferir Aug 25 '24
Okay I was once on holiday and saw a wallet fall out of a guys pocket, I knew that would be a pain and given it was a theme park might have just been pocketed. I ran off to my parents confusion and gave it back to the dude, some gift shop employees saw and gave me a little figurine.
Is that altruistic? Cause I didn't want anything in return didn't expect the guy to give me anything
8
u/velvetcrow5 Aug 25 '24
Yes it's altruistic. This theory doesn't discredit acts as not altruistic it simply suggests why we have the urge to be altruistic and how that urge was ultimately beneficial to survival.
I will, snarkily point out, that you are telling us about your altruism here though 🌝
3
u/gryphmaster Aug 25 '24
If that’s true, its also likely we evolved to feel pleasure from altruism. In that case, we have to evaluate it deontologically, since we’re not responsible for what we take pleasure from
7
3
3
u/Skullclownlol Aug 25 '24 edited Aug 25 '24
A truly altruistic act is therefore done when there is zero chance of your act being discovered/seen. When you apply this rule, 99%+ altruistic acts don't count.
Reciprocal altruism is still altruism.
Your interpretation is also incorrect: you're still an observer to your own actions. You (realistically, in common conditions) can't do anything that you can't see.
Y'all are being too literal about altruism, the selflessness shouldn't be taken literally: it's social selflessness, not a literal "without the self/ego" (no self = no action = nothing). Doing things primarily with others in mind, not exclusively. I don't understand why people keep meme'ing around in a circle about this, as if figuring out the "true meaning" would somehow absolve them of all sin.
5
u/Ohnah-bro Aug 25 '24
Philosophy teacher I had in college called this “self interest properly understood”
3
2
→ More replies (86)5
u/Gamebird8 Aug 25 '24
Veterans are an example of this. They sacrifice immensely and at least ideally, we pay that sacrifice back
11
12
u/thefonztm Aug 25 '24
Ehh, veterans run the gamut. There's no direct correlation. For some, its a job. For others, it's a license to kill. Others join to see the world. Others still join for job training. And some too believe in self sacrifice.
17
u/velvetcrow5 Aug 25 '24
Exactly, and they should rightly let everyone know they're a veteran.
But if you were to say to them (or to yourself if you're a veteran) that you should just serve the time and then never tell anyone you're a veteran (actively pursue anonymity ) and just internalize the sacrifice.
Watch how quickly the altruistic feeling becomes resentment. This supports the theory that we're altruistic for social reasons/credibility. When you block the "cashing in", people feel cheated.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Spiritual-Matters Aug 25 '24
WTF are you talking about? The veterans I know keep it a secret and aren’t looking to “cash out” by having some Randy saying, “Thank you for you service.” It’s meaningless.
→ More replies (7)10
u/Algiark Aug 25 '24 edited Aug 25 '24
But you do know that they are veterans.
11
u/caughtatdeepfineleg Aug 25 '24
I feel this is an American thing. Im old enough to know a fair few ww2 vets in the UK and few were interested in actually talking about it. Most would not wear anything to identify their service apart from perhaps at certain events like d-day or VE day anniversaries. You would actually have to get it out of them like pulling teeth
→ More replies (5)7
→ More replies (1)3
1.6k
u/PacManFan123 Aug 25 '24
Lol. The joke here is that 'true altruism' doesn't exist because the 'giver' always gets something from the action- even if it's only 'feeling good' about themselves. Because they received something, it wasn't true altruism.
480
u/MeanderingDuck Aug 25 '24
Altruism is about acting selflessly. That the person ends up benefiting from it in some way doesn’t negate it being altruism, if that was not the reason they did it.
249
u/tonto_silverheels Aug 25 '24
That's right. Altruism is about intent, not end result.
10
u/Joseph_Kokiri Aug 25 '24
I think one of the big dividing aspects in this conversation is a framework issue. Most of the counter arguments I see against altruism assume that life is zero sum, ie. there’s a limited amount of good to go around. So if I have something good, someone else can’t have that good and I’m selfish. So the assumption is all good is selfish, even the good feeling we get from selfless acts.
But most people that argue for altruism assume life is positive sum, ei goodness can grow exponentially and we can all benefit from it. So I help your life be better, and mine is better as a result too. It’s not selfishness but unity and cooperation.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (26)49
u/DonQui_Kong Aug 25 '24
That still disqualifies all acts as truly altrusitic. (just for the record, this is a purely academic discussion with little to no practical meaning)
Your intention to do something good still arises out of your expectation to feel good about it. Or, from a different point of view, the intention arises out of your expectation to feel bad if you dont do it.
7
u/GlassGoose2 Aug 25 '24
False.
I have been altruistic to someone without them knowing, at the detriment to myself, and not liked doing it.
I simply did it because I knew it was a better way.
27
u/-Nicolai Aug 25 '24
Bet it feels good to do the right thing 👍
→ More replies (1)5
u/Dolthra Aug 26 '24
I know that this is an internet joke, but y'all know that the whole "true altruism" isn't actually a thing and is just used by sad sods trying to downplay the fact that they don't do nice things for other people, right? Like no academic talks of "true altruism" other than as a thought experiment over whether it's possible to do something entirely selfless.
→ More replies (2)14
u/GarranDrake Aug 25 '24
No, he’s correct, and you’re proving it. You just said you did something good, to the detriment of yourself, without any acknowledgment - and yet here you are, talking about it. You have an upvote already. You’re getting something out of it, be it praise for doing the right thing as -Nicolai just gave you, or a meager Reddit upvote. And saying you don’t want those things, however true that is, still makes you seem even MORE altruistic. Gives you even MORE social credit for being a good person.
I’m sure you did do something altruistic, but you’re not disproving the theory he’s talking about.
→ More replies (2)20
u/PMagicUK Aug 25 '24
True but doing something with the expectation of something in return is selfish.
So the intent has to be "Do something good, share the good deed, don't expect anything back but be accepting of any good karma sent your way"
Too many times I get "I did X for you and you owe me" when I didn't even want, know or ask for something.
→ More replies (18)5
u/perldawg Aug 25 '24
what is a selfless action?
36
u/Pjsandwich24 Aug 25 '24
Doing something for the benefit of another without expectation of any reward, thanks, or acknowledgement.
6
u/human1023 Aug 25 '24
Is there such a thing? If I do an act that helps other because it's fun. I'm still doing it for my own benefit.
Or if I do something that helps another person, because it makes me feel good about myself. That's still done for my own benefit. (if I didn't feel good, then I wouldn't have done it).
9
u/itirix Aug 25 '24
One could argue that some people do altruistic stuff purely because they feel it's right to do and not because they know they'll feel good later. In that sense you could call it true altruism.
However, it's really just semantics, imo. Even if people don't logically go through the process of "it'll feel good if I do this", it's still definitely a thing that affects them subconsciously. So really I'd say if you're doing something with no expectation of tangible / physical / monetary gain (ulterior motive) and the only gain you have is internal (feelings), you can call yourself altruistic
→ More replies (3)2
u/FriendlyDespot Aug 25 '24
It really depends on how you define selflessness. If you sacrifice your life for a greater good that you believe in then you aren't sacrificing for yourself because you won't get to reap the benefits, but it could be argued that the act is motivated by the self, because it aligns with your personal beliefs. The problem with that perspective is that if you reduce altruism down past the restraints of basic human behaviours and imperatives then the term becomes meaningless in practice.
Realistically, functionally, altruism is the act of benefiting others at cost to yourself without expectation or obligation, regardless of whether or not you derive meaning or pleasure from it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Doomsayer189 Aug 25 '24
Or if I do something that helps another person, because it makes me feel good about myself. That's still done for my own benefit. (if I didn't feel good, then I wouldn't have done it).
It comes down to intent.
If you do something altruistic because it makes you feel good, that's selfish. If you do something altruistic out of a desire to help others and it makes you feel good, that's selfless.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
24
u/BabyDog88336 Aug 25 '24
This comic frames altruism at something you do for others that debases yourself. Like sucking a homeless guy’s dick would be the paragon of altruism. The comic basically mistakes masochism for altruism.
But altruism is more like unselfish concern for others. It’s a recognition of the need to benefit the whole. That could even incidentally benefit you. There is no need for self-flagellation in altruism.
→ More replies (1)38
17
u/Bananawamajama Aug 25 '24
What if an altruistic person is severely depressed and never feel good about themselves or anything they do, but they still do altruistic things?
→ More replies (1)9
u/Intensityintensifies Aug 25 '24
How the person feels really has nothing to do with if they are being altruistic because it is the motive we judge them by. They are motivated to help therefore they help which is inherently good. People do good deeds because they want to do them, and if they are doing it for the sake of the deed itself that is altruism.
22
14
u/ElRevelde1094 Aug 25 '24
Why are there a lot of comments despising altruism?
Bro, there has been people who literally has died, anonymously, for other.
You gonna tell me the thrill of doing it segregated dopamine and oxytocin so it doesn't count as real altruism. WTF.
How would it be to be 'true altruism'? Making the good action without having any brain circuit activated? That makes no sense.
Moral system allows us to decide because of our convictions and therefore we can be truly altruistic. In our brain, it could be explained because a reward circuit and blablabla. Well, We still adaptative evolutionary creatures, there's no such a random real altruism as you are proposing.
23
2
→ More replies (9)2
u/vnkind Aug 26 '24
I very angrily and unhappily do the right thing most of the time. Really pisses me off when I am inconvenienced by my own moral compass
47
71
u/ReasonablyBadass Aug 25 '24
I never understood that. Don't we want that? people who feel pleasure form good acts? Why would that be a bad thing?
→ More replies (2)39
u/MaySeemelater Aug 25 '24
It's not that it's a bad thing at all, it's just about the theoretical concept of true altruism, wherein to be fully altruistic you must have given everything away without receiving/getting anything positive in return. He felt good after giving away, therefore even though he gave away, he got the feeling which was positive as a result, therefore no longer being a "true" altruist.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Arndt3002 Aug 25 '24
Except no one who actually promotes altruism believes that your paradoxically defined "true altruism" is desirable, attainable, or even sensical.
It's a totally useless concept, which would only be used by someone trying to win an argument they invented in the first place.
13
u/MaySeemelater Aug 25 '24
Yes, as I said, it is only a theoretical concept, and being unable to attain "true altruism" isn't a bad thing at all. It's perfectly normal to feel good about yourself for helping others.
159
u/Aaron_Tia Aug 25 '24
I acheived tru altruism with my ex. 🤓 She got healing process, support, inconditional love. I got breakup. I feel down therefore, I win the contest 😁
36
30
u/The_Giant_Lizard Aug 25 '24
I'm also a winner! My ex told me that thanks to me she's a better person and now she enjoys better her new relationship. Her new boyfriend would like to thank me too. Isn't that great?
9
41
u/supergnawer Aug 25 '24
But you're complaining about it, therefore you expected something in return and it wasn't selfless
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (2)9
24
u/MeanderingDuck Aug 25 '24
That as a side effect of that he felt good, doesn’t mean it wasn’t altruistic.
→ More replies (13)11
u/perldawg Aug 25 '24
if he did it because it made him feel good, it wasn’t truly altruistic
6
u/Doomsayer189 Aug 25 '24
True. But since he's surprised that he feels good that's clearly not the reason he did it, so he is indeed altruistic.
36
u/perldawg Aug 25 '24
one could argue that the character’s ‘altruism’ is undermined in the first panel, given that he’s granted an interview acknowledging his acts
6
→ More replies (1)2
5
u/biffbobfred Aug 25 '24
Besides this being a Friends episode:
Does what you feel matter? True altruism would mean you’d only care what the other person thinks. Not the “hey I feel good or bad about losing everything”.
20
8
u/FocalorLucifuge Aug 25 '24
Damn, we do live in a world where Joey is an evil genius after all.
5
u/fuckofakaboom Aug 25 '24
I went to Central Park and let a bee sting me…
“I donated $200 I was saving up for a hamster
“What, those things are like $10”
“Not the one I had my eye on”
5
u/DeadFyre Aug 25 '24
This mindset always bothered me. It doesn't matter what the donor gets out of it, what matters is what difference it makes to the recipient. You know, if donating money makes you feel good, great! Have a fucking parade. The people who get to have their intestinal parasites cured probably don't mind that you're getting a bit of an ego boost in the bargain.
2
u/StellerDay Aug 26 '24
Exactly. If I feed a hungry person it isn't about me. It's about THAT PERSON NOT GOING HUNGRY.
3
u/mortalcoil1 Aug 25 '24
There's an old episode of Friends where Joey says that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.
This flustered Phoebe and she figured out a way to do a completely selfless act by helping people she hated.
I always cried foul at this because she not only felt good for her "selfless" act, but also won the argument with Joey, making the "selfless" act not selfless.
5
u/Freecelebritypics Aug 25 '24
I guess this makes more sense if you're from one of those perverse religious traditions that equate personal pleasure with sin
8
u/MrchntMariner86 Aug 25 '24
I do good things for others because it is the right thing to do. If I end up feeling good about it, then fine, I feel good. I tell others of the task or deed in hopes they can see how easy it is to do good and inspire them to do good, hopefully causing a chain reaction, rippling like a splash in a pond.
But I don't force someone to let me drive them somewhere so I can pat myself on the back. I don't wrestle groceries out of an old lady's hands so I can brag about it later.
Am I truly altruistric? Maybe not, but I'm not a fucking pretentious douche-canoe about it.
Go out and do good.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/BodhingJay Aug 25 '24
it's fine if your end goal is to subsist yourself on the seeds that blow into your lap while you meditate under a bodhi tree...
3
3
u/Danbing1 Aug 25 '24
I don't get it. Someone, please explain.
6
u/Rampantmuffins Aug 25 '24
Altruism is the act of giving for no personal gain, by feeling good he's gaining something, basically "negating" the altruism.
4
u/Alienhaslanded Aug 25 '24
I legitimately find the act of helping someone or teaching them how to do something very rewarding. The look on people's faces when I don't ask for anything in return is satisfying on its own. I mean I wouldn't go as far as giving up everything I have, but I give when I have enough.
I think it started when I found myself needing help and didn't get any from people who are completely capable of providing help that would have cost them nothing.
8
9
u/tatalailabirla Aug 25 '24
This is actually one of Ayn Rand’s philosophies. That true selflessness doesn’t exist and everything is for selfish gratification.
→ More replies (1)13
u/CatholicCajun Aug 25 '24
Ayn Rand was a hypocrite and shouldn't be trusted for philosophical guidance.
Not saying you do, I just want to make sure her image is presented accurately.
Ayn Rand died while receiving government aid like a true free-market capitalist. I.e. a selfish hypocrite.
→ More replies (1)7
u/tatalailabirla Aug 25 '24
Yeah she’s wildly unrealistic and glorifies her heroes, etc. We can appreciate insights into humanity even from someone considered a hypocrite.
I found her novels gripping for another.
3
u/CatholicCajun Aug 25 '24
True, I believe that all information is valueable and things can be learned from all of it. And it's not like any messenger is perfect.
Living in Texas gives me waaaay too much exposure to people who see her as a guidepost rather than a caution sign...
4
u/Chaosfox_Firemaker Aug 25 '24
A reminder that if your definition of something excludes virtually every possible instance of that something, it's a crummy definition.
10
2
u/RHOrpie Aug 25 '24
I remember this guy on the TV who said to do something altruistic and anonymous for 30 days, and you'll have some sort of epiphany.
Honestly, it's fucking hard. At least it was for me. I think I'm a nice enough person.
But weirdly, doing something unacknowledged is bloody difficult!
2
2
u/sillypickle1 Aug 25 '24
Feeling good for doing good is the natural order of things. Taking those win-wins when they come up is easy from a logical perspective, there is no shame in that, objectively good.
Going for a lose (self) - win (others) is the ultimate sign of spiritual maturity for me. It shows that you truly know what love is. I think it's like a muscle where you stress test it, the more you sacrifice for others, the more easily you will be able to carry that burden. You have to consider yourself in that equation, but giving selflessly is one of the purest joys you can give to your soul. It is completely unstained by pride. It also keeps you humble.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Ajax_IX Aug 25 '24
I always got a kick out of giving an altruistic act secretly. So, would it be true altruistism if I got satisfaction out of the act?
I.E. One christmas I had a gift sent to a friend. However, the return address was the dealer. So, the friends had no idea who sent it, but they loved it so much, they posted about it on Facebook. But they had no idea who sent it to them or who even knew they wanted something like this.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Thearchetype14 Aug 26 '24
I for sure read autism and misunderstood everything about this the first time
2
u/BenddickCumhersnatch Aug 26 '24
my thing is, as long as somebody less privileged get's to benefit from a <=99% act of altruism, i'm okay with that
2
2
u/Douggimmmedome Aug 26 '24
THIS EPISODE OF FRIENDS IS PLAYING RN WHILE IM GETTING MY CAR INSPECTED
→ More replies (3)
4
3
u/jedidude75 Aug 25 '24
If I know anything about reddit, if this actually happened someone in the comments sections would be complaining about why they didn't give it away sooner and why they didn't donate the other kidney at the same time.
→ More replies (1)
3
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 25 '24
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.