Is the Human Race more prone to Altruism or Egoism

[Strike For The South]

Discuss amongst yourselves

[PBI]

Hmm, depends on the person, but I would tend to say that altruism is a uniquely human trait, and that without it human society is impossible.

Was that the question? Perhaps you could give your own views to spark discussion?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Prone to egoism, capable of altruism.

[Lemur]

Egotism/altruism is a funny way to break it down, since both can simultaneously exist in the same person, the same action, the same moment. And both can be absent.

At the end of the day, I'd say that humans are generally much more cooperative than combative. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have civilization.

[Viking]

Between the two - egoism.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hmm, depends on the person, but I would tend to say that altruism is a uniquely human trait, ...

Not exactly. Altruism has a specific meaning in biology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/) and is widely seen amongst organisms as a reproductive strategy.

Much like the human variant, much discussion is ongoing as to exactly why it exists.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right - we are going to get into the debate about whether or not Altruism is simply an advanced form of Egoism. I believe that altruism is distinct from egoism, even though certain acts can seem to be similar. Doing something to advance those around you may seem altruistic, when in reality generous socialization and alliance building is part of human development and power consolidation. Don't let this reality trick you into believing that altruism doesn't exist. Martyrdom or self-sacrifice to a different level can serve no egoistic purpose beyond some thinly rationalized biological function such as the extention of your progeny and DNA. You could equally argue by this standard that you simply have children to support you when you are old, rather than to spread your genetic sequence. I believe, instead that the knowing loss of life of one party on behalf of another goes well beyond any reasonable concept of egoism.

I stick with my opinion that humans are prone to egoism but are capable of altruism.

[yesdachi]

Both – we all try and establish ourselves as the alpha (or as high up the ladder as we can be) while spending our energy taking care of and protecting others.

I am the alpha in my family while my wife tries to contest this to become the alpha (I can parallel park and that gives me the alpha spot but I fear I slip a little more everyday to her crazy feminine wilds:kiss2:), either way we are both working to provide for and protect our child/family.

Perhaps for someone without the “burden” of a family they are free to let their egoism grow. Someone with a greater family burden may be more likely to give up their dominant alpha position or at least be less likely to challenge the current alpha because they would rather spend their time being more selfless (like a grandma).

[Craterus]

I think it'd be useful to establish a consensus on the definitions here.

But I'd say that the majority of human behaviour is centred around the ego.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Egoism is weakness! Altruism is the way forward.

[CountArach]

I would say we are capable of both, yet we are born with neither.

[Faust|]

I would say we are capable of both, yet we are born with neither.

WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG!

*ahem* sorry.

We're born with both.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I would say we are capable of both, yet we are born with neither.

That statement is patently absurd. You re just saying that so you don't have to make a decision on the matter.

Why would you say seriously that we are born without motivation for self interest? Can you name a high functioning mammal that is?

[Husar]

Humans pretend to be altruistic to suit their ego, take me for example...

[CountArach]

That statement is patently absurd. You re just saying that so you don't have to make a decision on the matter.
I believe they are created by society. Why would I be afraid of making a decision? That accusation is patently absurd.

[Papewaio]

A charity foundation named after oneself is an example of both combined.

The Harvard Foundation and the Bill Gates & Wife Foundations are two of the biggest ones.


Don't let this reality trick you into believing that altruism doesn't exist. Martyrdom or self-sacrifice to a different level can serve no egoistic purpose beyond some thinly rationalized biological function such as the extention of your progeny and DNA.

Read the Selfish Gene :book:... and the updates from then... I don't think altruism is thinly rationalized at all.

In recent studies they found that women were more attracted to helpful guys. Altruism is as much a reproductive long term strategy as a peacocks feathers.

[Viking]

Egoism is weakness! Altruism is the way forward.

Both are extremes and both take courage.


I believe they are created by society. Why would I be afraid of making a decision? That accusation is patently absurd.

I think that no matter what you are being indoctrinated with; you'll be less likely to help someone that you cannot stand than someone you like or do not know.

[CountArach]

I think that no matter what you are being indoctrinated with; you'll be less likely to help someone that you cannot stand than someone you like or do not know.
That's true enough I suppose. I do believe in a pack mentality we have arrived at through Evolution, I just wouldn't call it Altruism.

[Fragony]

Altruism is a strategy, the reciprocity-principle. Also happens among the great apes, for the dutchies, Frans van Waal wrote a great book about it ' van nature goed'

[ICantSpellDawg]

Altruism is a strategy, the reciprocity-principle. Also happens among the great apes, for the dutchies, Frans van Waal wrote a great book about it ' van nature goed'

That is advanced egoism, Frag. What reciprocity would you get from jumping in front of a bullet and dying to save a life? Altruism is very real, but not common.

[Fragony]

That is advanced egoism, Frag. What reciprocity would you get from jumping in front of a bullet and dying to save a life? Altruism is very real, but not common.

72 virgins, hall of fame, maybe unconciously the survival of the species. Some argue that altruism is actually an advanced sort of egoism, qui pro quo, cash the cheque later. That is not to say that there aren't exceptional individuals, that brittish soldier that throwed himselve on a grenade to save his buddies. But maybe not even him because he cared so deeply about his buddies, even that could be considered egoistic in a twisted sort of way.

[ICantSpellDawg]

72 virgins, hall of fame, maybe unconciously the survival of the species. Some argue that altruism is actually an advanced sort of egoism, qui pro quo, cash the cheque later. That is not to say that there aren't exceptional individuals, that brittish soldier that throwed himselve on a grenade to save his buddies. But maybe not even him because he cared so deeply about his buddies, even that could be considered egoistic in a twisted sort of way.

Egoism refers to self. If you help others in order to ingratiate yourself - that is advanced egoism. If you kill yourself to save others or benefit in no way - that is altruism. There is a clear distinction.

[Fragony]

Egoism refers to self. If you help others in order to ingratiate yourself - that is advanced egoism. If you kill yourself to save others or benefit in no way - that is altruism. There is a clear distinction.

If it is you that cares about others then killing yourself can be a selfish act. Sounds cynical but it really isn't because most don't realise why they are doing it. I donate a lot of money to charity but I really couldn't care less about hunger in africa or hangings in Iran, but I give money anyway, makes me feel good. In the end I do it for myselve.

Ok I am pretty cynical.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If it is you that cares about others then killing yourself can be a selfish act.

Nonsense. Making a conscious decision to die for the sake of someone else is not selfish - that is nonsense.

[Fragony]

Nonsense. Making a conscious decision to die for the sake of someone else is not selfish - that is nonsense.

What would be a completily unselfish act? If you die because you want others to live it is still something you do because you want something.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What would be a completily unselfish act? If you die because you want others to live it is still something you do because you want something.

But you don't live to benefit from their survival. It is a cynics attempt to minimize selflessness. I understand the attempt to call socially conscious opportunism by what it is, but it is a logical stretch to debase real altruism.

[Fragony]

But you don't live to benefit from their survival. It is a cynics attempt to minimize selflessness. I understand the attempt to call socially conscious opportunism by what it is, but it is a logical stretch to debase real altruism.

Well I don't actually believe what I said there about the brit throwing himselve on a grenade, just debating, me and Poor Bloody Infantry seem to be the only one who believe we are more prone to altruism then egoism, but I do believe that it is a survival strategy. There are many good people, but real altruism would require absolute selfleshness and like all absolute things I don't think it exists.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well I don't actually believe what I said there about the brit throwing himselve on a grenade, just debating, me and Poor Bloody Infantry seem to be the only one who believe we are more prone to altruism then egoism, but I do believe that it is a survival strategy. There are many good people, but real altruism would require absolute selfleshness and like all absolute things I don't think it exists.

Your argument is confused. You can't do something altruistic for a recognized reward. Altruism is something different entirely. Egoism isn't necessarily a bad thing at all - it can cause someone to do tremendous good for everyone involved with little risk. Altruism is a different thing though; it is necessary when not everyone can benefit and someone needs to act out of self sacrifice for the greater good for no reward. Sometimes this results in the death of the actor, but it can still exist if the actor survives the ordeal.

My point is that Altruism and Egoism are absolutely distinct rather than different grades of the same impulse.

[Ironside]

My point is that Altruism and Egoism are absolutely distinct rather than different grades of the same impulse.

What's considered worth preserve and tender for:

Your life

Your family

Your friends

Your tribe/village/city/nation

Your ideals (God, Allah, Communism, Fascism, honour etc, etc)

This list is more of the thought process to more abstact things than the one before and requires more mental constructs to be valued higher than the ones before.

Personally I would say that it's a natural consequence of the first step, wich then leads with a bit of thought to "just like family" and then when you add our tendency to personification it leads to the rest.

[ajaxfetish]

Martyrdom or self-sacrifice to a different level can serve no egoistic purpose beyond some thinly rationalized biological function such as the extention of your progeny and DNA.
Not a thin rationalization. You're just stuck in the mindset that you are ultimately responsible for what you do, rather than a slave to the gene. ~;)

Where does altruism most commonly express itself? In the preservation and advancement of close kin. Protecting family is direct service to the gene. Protecting community, nation, and other associations is indirect service by assisting the society and raising the chances for a higher standard of living. Protecting other human beings in general is further indirect service by assisting the species in its chance for survival and success. There are of course exceptions. Parents who sacrifice to protect adopted children don't fit neatly into the model, but it's a very powerful model nonetheless, and the statement that self-sacrifice can serve no egoistic purpose is imo much too strong.

Ajax

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not a thin rationalization. You're just stuck in the mindset that you are ultimately responsible for what you do, rather than a slave to the gene. ~;)

Where does altruism most commonly express itself? In the preservation and advancement of close kin. Protecting family is direct service to the gene. Protecting community, nation, and other associations is indirect service by assisting the society and raising the chances for a higher standard of living. Protecting other human beings in general is further indirect service by assisting the species in its chance for survival and success. There are of course exceptions. Parents who sacrifice to protect adopted children don't fit neatly into the model, but it's a very powerful model nonetheless, and the statement that self-sacrifice can serve no egoistic purpose is imo much too strong.

Ajax

I think that it is a very weak model. I don't buy it.

[Ironside]

I think that it is a very weak model. I don't buy it.

So... What's the fundamental difference between risking your life to save your own child compared your adopted child?

Is there any emotional difference?
No
Is there a difference for being protective of your genes?
Yes

So is one action more altruistic than the other?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... What's the fundamental difference between risking your life to save your own child compared your adopted child?

Is there any emotional difference?
No
Is there a difference for being protective of your genes?
Yes

So is one action more altruistic than the other?

That is why I think that DNA/Gene protection is irrelevant. I agree with your points - I though that they complimented the point that I was trying to make.

[atheotes]

Human race is prone to egoism but capable of altruism....

[Innocentius]

Altruism is just another form of egoism. Everything, every single act, every single breathing moment, is egoism. Of course, egoism isn't a very appropriate word given the tone it bears; perhaps self-interest would be better.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Altruism is just another form of egoism. Everything, every single act, every single breathing moment, is egoism. Of course, egoism isn't a very appropriate word given the tone it bears; perhaps self-interest would be better.

I don't agree - read what I posted about the differences

[ICantSpellDawg]

Human race is prone to egoism but capable of altruism....

Exactly.

[Kurando]

A direct realization of our true nature will reveal that the "human race" is essentially an illusion and the byproduct of this direct realization will be a natural movement of Altruism. On the other hand, a denial of our true nature will yield a belief in the "human race" and the inevitable result of that belief will be an uncompromising movement of Egoism.

..

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving."

The other said, "The wind is moving."

The Sixth Patriarch of Zen happened to be passing by. He told them, "The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving; mind is moving."

[Innocentius]

I don't agree - read what I posted about the differences

I'm afraid disagreeing sort of goes against what we today know about humanity.


Don't let this reality trick you into believing that altruism doesn't exist. Martyrdom or self-sacrifice to a different level can serve no egoistic purpose beyond some thinly rationalized biological function such as the extention of your progeny and DNA.

What is thinly rationalized in this context? Biological evidence? The selfish gene drives us ever onwards. The survival of our own genes and, secondly, our species is what motivates us all and what keeps us breathing. We are, after all, biological machines like all other animals. Where one draws the line for "martyrdom" is another interesting aspect, but let's say someone sacrifices him/herself to save ten other people. This will indeed be considered a heroic deed, especially by the survivors, and the martyr probably never considered that after all, the only reason why he made this utilitarian sacrifice was because ten members of the own species can do more than one. On a subconscious level (possibly conscious as well of course) he was only acting to favour those who, in a pre-programmed world of instincts, were the ones who would raise his children, care for him as he got older and secure the survival of the species.


You could equally argue by this standard that you simply have children to support you when you are old, rather than to spread your genetic sequence.

Exactly. And the only reason why older members of the now vast human flock is allowed to live on, even when they've become too old to provide themselves with food, is the knowledge they (hypothetically) possess and will/ought to pass on to younger generations. In modern Westworld, this keeping of the "old and helpless" has resulted in a situation were genetical programming conflicts with necessity and utility: We want to keep our grand-grandparents, even when they're 90+, senile and incapable of recognizing even their loved ones, even though through very rational and evolutionary thinking; we should just let them pass on.


That is why I think that DNA/Gene protection is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. It seems fetched out of thin air to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. It seems fetched out of thin air to me.

We'll, I'd give up my life just as quickly for my adopted puerto rican brother as I would for my biological northern European brother. The disbelief in altruism is for young cynics who don't want to believe in it, in spite of evidence right in front of them. Some may rationalize their altruistic feelings as "biological and genetic selfishness", but in the end, you are dead so that another may live - I'd bet that most of the people "died for" were unrelated to the martyr.

[Innocentius]

We'll, I'd give up my life just as quickly for my adopted puerto rican brother as I would for my biological northern European brother.

What does that prove? In your mind they are equal; that one is properly genetically tied to you and that the other is only imaginary so apparently doesn't effect your behaviour, which only serves to prove that we strive to protect our loved ones (ie. our genes, superficial or not).


The disbelief in altruism is for young cynics who don't want to believe in it,

On the contrary, I'd say that the belief in altruism is for naive people who can't accept the fact that they are, after all, only acting in self interest.


in spite of evidence right in front of them.

What evidence?


Some may rationalize their altruistic feelings as "biological and genetic selfishness", but in the end, you are dead so that another may live - I'd bet that most of the people "died for" were unrelated to the martyr.

Yes, that's what I suggested in the hypothetical scenario described above. They're still members of your species, and you can, at least in your mind, benefit from keeping your own species as safe as possible. You and your genes come first; then friends, associates, co-workers etc; then your neighbourhood and/or community; then your culture and your people (however you define that); then your species. If we didn't have these pre-programmed thoughts on survival we wouldn't have gotten very far.