A buddy of mine posted this link on his Facebook page this morning.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/
it's an interesting conversation (okay opinion) about whether morality exists independent of religion. One of the things that caught my eye most (which was hardly the point of the article, but ...), and an issue we all really struggled with when I took some psych. classes in college, due to its subjective nature, is the concept of altruism.
I have never held any favor for the concept of true altruism. Altruism is something that is done *for* someone else without *any* benefit for yourself.
The author of the article (a very accomplished and respected behavioral biologist) argues that it does exist. He contends that the warm, fuzzy feeling derived from doing something for another only exists because of the other individual is involved.
That's pretty weak, it's almost as redundant as saying it takes two to fight. It neither supports or refutes his point. I have no idea why he included that point.
He also cites some examples where primates have done deeds that show no real benefit for the one doing the deed. However, most primates are pack animals and helping another member of the pack also helps the individual.
Even one of the cases he mentions shows an immediate benefit for the donor (if you read the article the prosocial token -- yields a reward for BOTH monkeys). This is the opposite of what he is discussing, so again, not sure why it was included.
He claims that these primates cannot perceive what future benefit would come from doing an act now. With lesser intelligent animals, that would be more likely. It would be nieve to think that -these- animals are not intelligent enough to have that level of forethought and planning.
This is why I believe there is no such thing as true altruism. If it's defined as a truly selfless act, then how can it be called altruism if you get some reinforcement for doing it? There are no free rides. ; )
2 comments:
I'm not sure that 'feeling good' is enough of a payoff to support your argument that there is no such thing as altruism; though, I suppose that if you wanted to be a strict literalist, it would have to be.
What is the benefit to the tribe/herd/clan for helping Peony? Is it just because they don't want to see her die?
well animals are always the x-factor. there is no real way to understand what they are "thinking" so subjectivity rules that domain.
however, my opinion on helping peony, a dying member of the group as you put it, may be that again, while she is still here, it adds to the strength of the group. even a slack "worker" is doing some work.
as for the "feel good" part, the article mentioned that studies have shown that pleasure centers in the (human) brain are active when doing a charitable act. that's immediate payoff.
i would say that is enough to validate a benefit. it may be a short payoff but so is something like alcohol, yet we still purchase and drink it. ;j
Post a Comment