Loading...In my book on altruism (yet to be finished!), I’m thinking about including the following as a way to begin reflecting on the question of whether anything like “pure” altruism exists (where someone acts entirely for the sake of another with no benefit at all for the self). Let me know your thoughts.
******************************
One might think that “altruism” is a non-problematic term. It comes from the Latin word “alter” which means “other,” and so refers broadly to actions that benefit someone other than oneself. It stands in contrast with “egoism,” based on the Greek word “ego,” meaning “I” or “myself,” and therefore referring to actions that benefit oneself.
That all seems simple enough: the terms differentiate between doing things for others and doing things for ourselves. But it turns out that in practice it is difficult – possibly impossible – to establish clear boundaries between altruism and egoism. As a result, philosophers, psychologists, and evolutionary biologists perennially debate how to understand the terms.
I’ll illustrate the problem by telling a strange personal anecdote. Did it involve an act of altruism, egoism or, somehow, both?
It happened in 1974,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hi Bart….great post. Early in my career a senior executive told me “people act in their own self interest whether they know it or not”. I was young and naive at the time and I thought his quote was horrible. Now, as an older person, I think he was right……for the same reasons you explain. Looking forward to your next book! JS
Dr Ehrman,
I think clarity can be provided by contrasting your reaction with a drive by shooting on the same streets where bystanders are put at risk.
That had to have happened. No one could make that up.
I call it “Doing the next right thing.”
This is food for thought for sure. It is definitely altruistic to put your life in danger to try to help another. There might be some egoism involved but the fact that you could have been killed makes it mostly altruistic in my view. The most altruistic thing you can do is give your life for another. I have always been impressed with the kids in both world wars who joined the army ‘to see the world’ but really ended up giving up their lives for the freedom of others. Before the draft, they didn’t have to do that, but they did. (Maybe this is from a Canadian perspective. Things may have been different in the states as often the ‘love of country’ is thrown in due to the Pearl Harbour incident. We weren’t defending our country, just helping out Great Britain.)
Wow! What a story!
So, here’s a question. In light of all that you have written about changeable memory and innaccurate eyewitness accounts, how accurate do you think your memory of this years-old traumatic event is? Did you write it all down immediately, or only much later?
I want it to be true, to have happened exactly as described, but you’ve led me to really question people’s ‘true’ stories. Would small, vivid details be more likely to remain unchanged, or the larger outlines of the event as it unfolded?
All my questions are a side issue, of course, to your main point of the reality or not of altruism.
I’m prettysure I’ve told the story exactly the same way ever since it happened. Sometimes poeple ask me to tell it again decades after hearing it and they confirm that it’s like I told it before But I didn’t use a tape recorder then, so … no telling! The issue of altruism would hold whether it is pinpoint accurate or not I suppose.
I think about people from the past and present time who have endured the hardships of war or famine or extreme poverty. They have nothing to gain by doing small acts of kindness toward each other. Some people just want to help.
These kinds of arguments are so weird to me because it draws a line in the sand that creates judgment and self loathing. I wonder whether there’s negative consequences to having these types of arguments in the first place. Discussing altruism vs. ego while people are living in extreme conditions doing small gestures of kindness toward each other just seems wrong on some level. Yet, here I am.
I have an elderly neighbor who has two dogs that act like crackheads every time she lets them outside—unsupervised of course. They get all the other fenced in dogs (including mine) riled up then go potty wherever. Collectively, my neighbors and I would like those dogs to run off and find a farm to live on. Yet, we help her round up the dogs back to her house every dang day. There’s no benefit to us. We all wish she would move. We’re just helping her out.
Since free will is an illusion, don’t praise me for heroism when I jump on a hand grenade to save my buddies or condemn me when I don’t.
(I’m Irish and okay with paddy wagon.)
Incredible story, Bart! The way you frame altruism in this tale made me think about an issue I often have with western ethical philosophy. To a certain extent, I think the western moral tradition has been too obsessed with “true altruism” and its purity—an issue which, as you just showed, can be nearly impossible to resolve, because there is always the possibility of hidden egoistic motivations.
Sometimes, I think the proper answer to that charge is “so what!” Maybe rather than seeking the holy grail of the pure altruistic act, we should be focusing more on creating win-win scenarios in our interpersonal relationships. This is a more realistic goal, we can put it into practice in scenarios from the mundane to the heroic, and it seems difficult to deny that if we all more readily avoided win/lose and lose/lose scenarios and sought to create more win/win scenarios, everybody would benefit. As a bonus, perhaps we could finally table the unproductive debate over pure altruistic acts, in favor of a conversation about how best to increase well-being for all.
In my view, the first step of what you did is purely altruistic. Perhaps the spontaneity of it confirms its altruism. The rest, however, is wonderful for ego. I’ve often thought that people- me- do altruistic things because it makes you feel so good and therefore may not be purely altruistic.
You know what? You inspired me to remember a certain funny story with regard to altruism. I started reading Nietzsche at 17 or around that time (2005), and one of the very first things I remember shocking me was his view that there are no altruistic deeds (I’m very possibly paraphrasing here, but that was the gist of his thought). His point was that, basically, whatever it is that you do, you do it because in some way or another it satisfies an impulse or inner desire of yours. And around the same time I remember a certain “Friends” episode (I’ve always loved that show) where Joey and Phoebe get into this philosophical debate (which is quite funny already, since especially Joey is not that deep to begin with) on whether there are altruistic deeds at all! Phoebe was adamant that there are, and Joey (like Nietzsche) claimed there aren’t. And through the whole episode Phoebe is trying to prove to Joey that there really are purely altruistic deeds, only to be shown wrong by Joey in every single case.
My personal opinion is aligned with Nietzsche’s/Joey’s: I think anything we do, we do it for us on some level.
Philosopher Ayn Rand wrote *a lot* about Altruism, probably more than anyone else. If you haven’t already, check her thoughts out.
Hi, Bart,
When are you planning to make a post talking about the lord’s prayer found in Matthew and Luke?
I am very curious and sorry to bother you again with this topic.
I don’t have it immediately in the works, I’m sorry to say! Possibly down the line — it’s an important topic.
What does it mean to be poor in spirit?
Matthew 5:3 NIV
[3] “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Humble, meek, not arrogant or self-asserting.
An toff-topic question
Bart,
What is the youtube where you say, “if such and such, it depends on what gospel you read.” On that youtube you said that repeatedly several times in a row. What is that youtube?
Thanks
Jerry
I’m not sure. I say it a lot!
As a forensic psychologist, I’m hooked. I cannot wait until you are finished with this book. I am particularly interested in the ” why” we should do things factor. Pondering that concept leads me to a thought I’ve never considered: if the first followers, or subsequent as well, took up things like feed the poor, turn the cheek, etc…why? What was it about him that made his followers feel they ” should” do what he said? They believed him, clearly. Respected him. But why? And I’m referring to historical Jesus sans miracles. Is it down to the same factors as cult leaders? Charisma, manipulation, etc? Or something more palpable, such as some inner goodness? They trusted his word on moral issues. I find the question of why very interesting.
Incidentally, I’m listening to your podcast and have a question- you just mentioned Matthew being known as Matthew and then Levi. Then Simon is changed to Peter, etc. The renaming or multiple names, was that a common occurrence at the time? Or was it specific to Jesus? Why did he give some different names? I’ve never considered it. Thank you for your time!
Jesus gave Simon a nickname “Rock” (Aramaic Cephas; Greek Petros/Peter), so thta tsometimes he is called Simon, sometimes Cephas, and sometimes Levi, in different places. So it’s not a new name but a nickname. Matthew and Levi are not like that. There’s a story in Mark that talks about Levi and the same story in Matthew calls him Matthew; no story calls this (fictional?) person both Levi and Matthew. One of the Gospels simply calls a figure in the story a different name.
Bart, how sure can scholars be that Jesus gave Simon the nickname “Rock”? Perhaps that nickname was given to him by his mother when he was very young, and the gospel writers got the idea that Jesus gave him the nickname from a bogus oral tradition. And, back altruism, there are known cases where a whale has saved a human being from drowning, sharks, etc. Nobody can claim that altruism is exclusively a human trait.
It’s not a certainty, but a high probability. “Rock” wasn’t a name before Simon had it making it hard to see why a mother would bestow it. It appears to be a name based on personal characteristics. Think of our one-time president Tricky Dick (if you’re my age).
I have often thought about this in terms of evangelism. In my mind, evangelism is supposed to be done out of love for others but cannot be solely altruistic. Evangelism is commanded by their scriptures, and some believe it’s required as proof that they are saved. Those motives are compromised by quite human fear that I have personally experienced. Some of my own parenting as a Christian was marred by selfish, self-preserving motives out of fear. I regret that. I’m not a Christian any longer, partly for reasons related to that.
Off Topic: What are the Hebrew and Greek words for the word “kill” in the commandment forbidding killing?
What are their primary meanings? Could you give us a little context?
The Hebrew word is ratsach; it means different things realted to killing in different contexts; Greek is phoneuo, which normally means something like murder. As with all sentences, this one needs to be read in its context to undersgtand its meaning. In Exodus 20:14 it means “do not murder (i.e. intentionally kill) a fellow Israelite.” It is not a condemnation of judicial execution (death sentence) or military killing (in war), given the rest of the broader context.
I’d say you were responding to a cumulation of evolved neuro-chemical impulses that have proven to be more beneficial to our species as a whole than detrimental or else they might have disappeared from the gene pool or become extremely rare. On the other hand, the psychopathic impulse hasn’t evolved out either, but the majority of humans still reject that impulse, but find the impulse that motivated your actions as inspiring: “wow, I could never do that, but I am in awe that you could!” We feel the ways we do for a reason, but trying to explain why involves a whole other level of mental evolution. And I suspect that’s what you’re getting at in your investigation of what’s special about the origins of Christian morality?
Yup. althought I don’t think it’s an evolutionary (physiological) development, but a cultural one.
THere hasn’t been enough time, I should think for an actual genetic development. But I’m no geneticist!disabledupes{b8430d1c51659836f4c8864dac46bc1b}disabledupes
I suspect the genetics goes back at least 300,000 years, possibly even earlier. There are human and hominid bones found that show evidence of healing, suggesting evidence of care by others. Presumably they were family members, but it doesn’t seem much of a jump from caring for immediate family to caring for someone distantly related or not related at all. The same tendencies that enable mothers to care for helpless babies might be easily transferred to caring for helpless adults, maybe even helpless strangers if the (probably female) caregiver has strong empathy tendencies. And what about caring for the injured tribal dog? No immediate genetic relation there either. What I’m suggesting, and I don’t think I’m alone in this, is that Christian morality could be the first verbal then written articulation of an evolved tendency that was already there, at least to some small extent. There are hints of it in Mosaic law, mixed in with the supposedly God given “don’t mix fibers, don’t eat pork, don’t work on the 7th day” stuff. Jesus and company simply distilled it further, focusing more on the human relations parts (still thinking they’re getting all this from God, of course).
I think the evolutionary and historical record both show that it’s a huge leap between helping those socially and / or genetically related and those who are not. Seems weird to most of us, but the data are pretty compelling.
An observation, not a complaint or comment of any pertinence:
What’s with the [] that sometimes get added to your comments?
I’m cognizant of the hidden coding that underlies formatted text in contexts like editors and blogs, so I comprehend >what< it is. But just curious how it surfaces in the displayed format.
Perhaps it has to do with whether you include an [ENTER] at the end of your comment??
(Sorry — I'm a retired computer scientist at loose ends!)
Don’t know!!
Something else I just thought of—this blog. It’s a charity blog to help those in need. Are you doing it out of ego or altruism?
Knowing me, probably ego.
I guess we’re not altruistic as members of the blog since we get something in return. Oh well lol
Very interesting story but how accurate do you think your 50-year-old memories are? In thinking about other blogs on the accuracy of memory, if Jesus was crucified in the year 30 CE how accurate do you think somebody’s memory of it would be in the year 80 CE?
I don’t think anyone conected with Jesus’ crucifixion would habve been alive 50 years later. If they were, they wouldn’t remember a thing about it, since the nes htere were Roman soldeirs who did this kind of thing regularly for a living, and didn’t realize that this particular person would end up being called th eSon of God who created the world.
Before to add this to your book I suggest you add wording that clarifies the welfare of the child following the paddy wagon stop.
Good idea. but I have no idea, other than he wasn’t injured.
I think you may be overthinking this. It was a quick decision on your part and put your life in danger, too. I think it was what caring humans do whether you were a devout Christian or not. Congratulations for helping them!
The point of my gook will be that it’s not what caring human beings did historically, until the early Xn tradition. The reason it seems entirely “natural” is because of our views of morality inherited through that traditoin. I’ll have to demonstrate that, of course, but htat’s the point of the book.
Consider all the verified stories in the archives about soldiers jumping on grenades (with fatal effect) to save their buddies. If that’s not pure altruism I don’t know what is.
While I certainly don’t have a story that can match yours, in 1979 my sister and I were living in a room in Oxford and we often heard the couple upstairs fighting. One night it escalated to screams and an ominous thumping sound (as of someone being beaten badly). Without any hesitation or even a word exchanged we ran directly upstairs, pounded on the door, yelled “Open this door or we’ll call the police!” My sister had grabbed our broom on the way out of our apartment but we were otherwise unarmed.
They opened the door and we told the woman she was welcome to come down to our room and spend the night there . (She refused.)
My sister and I were both atheists. Neither of us was thinking in terms of what God would want. We were simply reacting to someone screaming in distress. So I don’t think, Bart, that you need to second-guess yourself and wonder if you only reacted as you did because you wanted to please God.
Our lives weren’t obviously in danger as yours was, but honestly we didn’t think of it in those terms. We just acted.
Right! Well done you.
One more point — we have all read of cases of people leaping into a lake to save a drowning child they’ve never met before, jumping onto subway tracks to rescue a stranger, and so on, at clear risk of their own lives. Often they die in the attempt. Some of those people may be motivated by religious feeling, but some are undoubtedly atheists. Those actions, when performed by atheists, seem to me to be pure altruism. An atheist who risks his/her own life to save a stranger’s cannot be expecting a reward in the afterlife. S/he can’t be hoping for God’s approval. S/he can only be acting out of overwhelming concern for the well-being of the other person — and that, in my opinion, is indeed altruism.
Yes, my argument in my book will be that in our culture this is part of what it means to be moral, and that is actually not part of the human DNA broadly or part of western culture prior to the Christianization of the empire.
Very interesting. I’m looking forward to the book!
That’s quite a story!
And then there’s animal altruism.
There are many accounts of an animal helping another animal of another species.
Here is a discussion:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/goodness-sake/201610/animal-altruism
thanks. Yes, this is about whales helping a seal. That’s very interesting indeed, and one would need to consider the evoluteionary processes that can provide an explanatoin. It does not appear to be a phenomenon among animals that form social groups vis-a-vis behaving altruistically to members of the same species in social t\groups other than there own, and it is precisley the opposite of what appears to happen among non-human primates and, well, lions etc.
Evolution — theory:
Speciation, a challenge. Description of Speciation (book):
…gives special emphasis to topics that are either controversial or the subject of active research, including sympatric speciation, reinforcement, the role of hybridization in speciation, the search for genes causing reproductive isolation, and mounting evidence for the role of natural and sexual selection in the origin of species. The authors do not hesitate to take stands on these and other controversial issues….
The explosive fish speciation in Lake Malawi challenges conventional notions of evolution:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/mystery-lake-malawi-180971442/
Usually:
Species, unchanged for millions of years:
Benton: “it seems clear then that stasis is common, and that had not been predicted from modern genetic studies.” A paramount example of evolutionary stasis is the fern Osmunda claytoniana. Based on paleontological evidence it has remained unchanged, even at the level of fossilized nuclei and chromosomes, for at least 180 million years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
The fossil record does not show transitional forms, so the notion of “punctuated equilibrium” was proposed. “PE” equals “and then a miracle occurred.”
Which is why “Dawkins regards the apparent gaps in the fossil record as documenting migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but ‘probably gradually’ elsewhere.”
“Probably.”
I had to trim off 60 words from the post above to meet the word limit.
Some of what got trimmed:
I don’t subscribe to any creation myth, but I do embrace as an axiom that consciousness gives rise to matter not the other way around.
My post indicates an ironic application of *faith* in the theory of evolution.
In short, evolution is for materialists.
Bart, I’m reading a book which may (or may not) be relevant. It’s A Brief History of the Female Body by Deena Emera. I just started, but she talks about how the mother and the fetus struggle to use nutrients in the body, etc. Biologically, the self-sacrificing mother will probably turn out to be a myth.
Since I know you read widely before writing your books, and I somehow don’t expect you to run across this book in your research, I wanted to mention it.
Thanks!
The military has researched this issue with MOH survivors. They could not stand seeing their fellow soldiers in pain.
We can’t accurately talk about morality or altruism without evolutionary biology. We have inherited from evolution much of our moral compass and it can be demonstrated in biology. There are studies!
Oh boy are there.
Only glancing at JPeters12 links, but they look similar, with references, to what I was writing based on perusing books, websites, videos on the subject. I used to believe morality was impossible without God, so, 13 years into my atheism, it’s something I think about a lot.
To save us time, a short blog I wrote showing that at least some of our morality including altruism is inherited; transcending the individual and even different societies. Many of course are culturally derived and not universal. We have the studies in many social animals to show this. No click bait or monetary advances to me. Many people outside of evolutionary biology and ethology in theology and philosophy are not aware of the science supporting this. My point; we can’t discuss cogently morality, altruism, etc. outside of an evolutionary lens with social species, including us.
https://www.truthfulorigins.info/consequences-morality
Altruism vs egoism. I can’t help but to think about Level 4 vs Level 5 leadership based on Jim Collins’ 20+ year old business book ‘Good to Great’. Level 4 leaders are often charismatic ego-driven folks, as opposed to Level 5 leaders being more humble, altruistic, giving credit of wins to the team, taking responsibility for failures, and making sure successors are set up for success.
And every four years we have to decide which level to vote for!
yep…
We obviously have a leadership problem. Worse now than ever IMO. I’m personally convinced it emerged out of an epistemic problem, which is now an epistemic crisis. A multi-cultural nation will have many competing epistemologies. Throw in postmodernistic subjective truth, kayefabe performance art, reality tv, social media, a pinch of salt, bring to a rolling boil, and here we are.
Can the leadership problem be fixed without first tackling the epistemic problem? Can it be done without first changing peoples’ minds?
Is that not what Jesus was doing? Was he not building the foundation for what he thought was a utopian society? A new kind of kingdom based on virtues, values, axioms, character, etc? Mutual gains?
Yeah, i find the social gospel hypothesis intriguing. Strip away the miracles, theology, mythology, apocalypticism, prophesy, supernatural, and whats left? Some approximation of a historical jesus that thought differently and was compelled to spread his way of thinking to others.
The “mind of christ” as the original gospel, with zero supernatural works or divinity necessary? I like that version of Jesus and the gospel way more than the attoning resurrected son of god version. I’d probably vote for that guy. lol
Bart…as part of your research are you looking at how a person’s personality hardwiring impacts how altruistic they are?
The most widely used, and most validated personality assessment used in 80% of Fortune 500 companies is the Hogan Personality Inventory. One of the areas leaders get assessed on is their “motives, values and preferences”, and one of the factors assessed is their “altruism” . There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the Hogan assessment.
I would hypothesize that a person’s level of altruism is more influenced by their personality “hard wiring” than their upbringing or their religious affiliation.
If you are interested, one of the world’s expert on the Hogan Assessment lives right down the road from UNC. If you want to connect with him, just shoot me a note.
I wouldn’t think Personality Inventories per se can draw physiological conclusions can then? I would imagine that’s more along the line of neuroscience. But do correct me! (Or do you mean something different / non-neurological by “hardwiring”) disabledupes{7998dc6656b687c58127e4b9ca0449bb}disabledupes
Bart,
I can just imagine you walking west on Chicago Ave, from Mr. G’s when you saw this vehicle out of control. I barely remember this, but do recall it was all over the Institute. Glad it ended well.
Bill, MBI Class of ’75
Ah, right!! It was a few blocks before that.
Has anyone EVER made a better hamburger? “I’ll take a number one”! (Did we know each other then?)
We may have. I entered in Fall 71 got married in 73 and worked on the Moody Painting Crew for a year. Went back full time in 75 and graduated with you. Went to Trinity after that. Do you remember Ma Parker’s terrible Shephard’s Pie? I remember having a line out the door at Mr. G’s on bad food nights at MBI. Lived on the 8th floor in Culby before I got married. You should have my email. Give me a shout and we can see if we had classes together.
Ah, I was on the notorious 13th floor. Don’t know if you remember but a bunch of us got suspended for three days for raiding and, well, rather seriously rearranging/disrupting the dean’s office on “Devil’s Night”/”Mischief night” (the evening before Halloween). Some of the faculty wanted us permanently expelled. I was one of the few who didn’t actually get caught, but I confessed anyway….
I am in the camp of “there is no such thing as pure altruism”, but not because of the alternative motivations of ego, fame, etc., rather due to affective empathy. Seeing another person in pain or distress can cause a sympathetic response in an observer, and taking action helps relieve that empathetic negative feeling. Conversely, not doing anything to help someone in need often causes feelings of guilt, a byproduct of affective empathy. So, feelings of empathy provide a self-centered benefit for altruistic behavior, negating the “no benefit for the self” idea. However it can be argued that acting empathetically is what altruism is really all about.
I have an entire chapter about Empathy in a book I am trying to write. I would be willing to share this chapter. In it I talk about how affective empathy is sometimes reserved for those who are closest to us, relatives, friends, same social group, etc., with “others” garnering few feelings of empathy. But some people feel empathy broadly with little distinction between “us” and “others.” Religious beliefs can push people toward broad empathy though I am not convinced Jesus is the originator of a push to broad empathy.
Very touching story. I examine myself and doubt that I would have succumbed to any such impulse even
during my holy Christian youth 60 years ago.
Is the good act of a Christian ever truly altruistic? Is it ‘theoistic’ since God is the holy ‘Other’, and we are his hands and feet, and as Christians we want to please him. But to what end but to make him happy by our obedience? And of course we want him to be happy with us. So in this life we are egoistic in the end??
And where do the words, “Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what is done for Christ will last” fit into this?
Looking forward to your book.
P.S Forgive my neologism.
As someone who does not believe we have free will, I’ve always thought that altruism is a meaningless word. We do what we do because we must. It is a result of personal experiences, genetics, environment, and various other life influences. Do we really choose our thoughts? I think not.
OK, you think not, but it’s only because you have no choice. 🙂
An extraordinary act of heroism, in the face of many unknowns. As others have noted, there is considerable evidence for various levels of intra- and even inter-species altruism in social animals; the classic work is Lorenz. The evolutionary story, imo, is consistent with much philosophical work, going back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, that sees no real opposition between altruism and rational self-interest (in humans), as explicitly argued in, e.g. the Meno and the Republic. The idea is that virtuous action is always in one’s rational self-interest, given human nature.
Your action reminded me (perhaps ironically), of my experiences as an inveterate hitch-hiker (thousands of miles). I was the beneficiary of acts of kindness, attendant with some risk (ride-givers didn’t know me) and no particular expectation of a reward. But it also occurred to me that *I* was giving a profound gift in return: giving my ride-providers some proof of their kindness and generosity toward those in need, and assurance of own decency. Some, were, indeed, motivated by an opportunity to give testimony of their Christian faith. And none the worse for that, I should think (I’m no Christian).
A subject I’ve been pondering my entire life. I’m not well educated, but I would guess you did what you did with the automobile because that’s who you thought you were and wanted to be.
I had a friend who was supposedly a math quiz and taught at a local college. To me, he was just a fun guy, pot smoking hippie type then he found God. I remember him coming into my business and telling me that I had to love God unconditionally. At that time, I was already weaning off my born again experience. I never could convince him that there was no such thing as unconditional love he couldn’t see that loving God gave him the pass to heaven or what have you. Like so many commenters have already said, I think we only do what we believe to be in our self interest if it’s only to make ourselves feel good about ourselves.
Many distinctions, while meaningful, are incomplete. Take for example the sympathetic (flight or flight) and parasympathetic (rest and digest) nervous systems. There’s no switch determining that one system is on and the other off. Your GI tract doesn’t shut down when you exercise. Your heart doesn’t stop as you digest a meal. At different times though, one system may be more active than the other. Hopefully, the systems are balanced to appropriately meet demands of the situation.
Altruism vs egoism is more subjective of course. You needed your heart rate to increase (and not need the restroom) while chasing after that car. But should you have chased it? How altruistic should a person be? Even if altruism is good, is it wrong to do things for oneself? What is the right balance to be a moral person?
If pure altruism is impossible, does that make altruistic behaviour less meaningful? It seems ridiculous to say ‘’you’re not a good person unless you dislike helping’’ or ‘’you shouldn’t donate to charity unless you don’t want to.’’
It’s possible to do harm while trying to help though, which may be more likely when someone cares more about feeling good rather than what others want/need.
Yeah, that was more or less the moral dilemma Kant was put into with the moral imperative. Good point!
How would you conceptualize the distinction between altruism and egoism? They might seem like opposite and incompatible, yet people are capable of both. I see them as two ends of a continuum of behaviour, or perhaps two spheres that can overlap. If a parent is riding a plane with their child, cabin pressure drops, and they place their mask first to ensure they can save their child, might one call that altruistic egoism? If a corrupt politician or unscrupulous business owner gives to charity solely to improve their own image, would that be egoistic altruism? If someone genuinely cares for others, helps for the right reasons, and also happens to enjoy doing so, is that a symbiosis of sorts that is both egoistic and altruistic, or perhaps neither?
I’d say it’s a spectrum; but whereas I’m pretty sure there are acts that are purely egoistic it’s hard for me to imagine an absolute form of altruism.