Can philosophy reconcile altruism with self – interest?

[ethinker]

Folks,

A C Grayling, writing in ‘Prospect’ magazine July 2007, gives a short answer to an age old question.

In familiar moral theories, altruism has been regarded as good (kindness, concern, self sacrifice) and self –interest as bad (selfishness, egoism and greed). There seems to be a clear difference between these notions, so how do we reconcile them?

Grayling reminds us of a ‘third way’ in analysing the issue. On this view, agents recognise that benefits accrue to themselves in the longer run even if at their own expense they benefit others in the shorter run. In this way individual members of a community perceive that the general community benefits yield benefits for themselves in indirect ways over time. So, in short, people give now but get back later.

My problem with Grayling’s view is that it doesn’t seem to describe altruism, but a clever sort of rational self-interest, so I don’t see how philosophy has reconciled anything here.

Any ideas?

e.

[lawman]

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: first of all, you oversimplify with the "good vs. bad" labels; altruism and self-interest are competing motivations which are sometimes congruent and sometimes not, and the behavior they drive may or may not be ethical by other standards. Second, the "problem" you cite is mostly a semantic one, since asserting that self-interest dominates so long as any personal benefit eventually accrues requires a degree of self-abnegation that's not actually an essential aspect of altruism. Third, it's worth looking at science as well as philosophy -- evolutionary pressures often produce a long-term survival advantage, for one's gene pool if not oneself, to behavior that serves no short-term self-interest.

That'll do for a start...

[mataj]

Here's what mathematics has to say about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[ethinker]

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: first of all, you oversimplify with the "good vs. bad" labels; altruism and self-interest are competing motivations which are sometimes congruent and sometimes not, and the behavior they drive may or may not be ethical by other standards. Second, the "problem" you cite is mostly a semantic one, since asserting that self-interest dominates so long as any personal benefit eventually accrues requires a degree of self-abnegation that's not actually an essential aspect of altruism. Third, it's worth looking at science as well as philosophy -- evolutionary pressures often produce a long-term survival advantage, for one's gene pool if not oneself, to behavior that serves no short-term self-interest.

That'll do for a start...

Hi Lawman,

The oversimplification came straight out of Grayling's article, and I see your point.

Do you have some practical examples of altruism and self interest as congruent?

Abnegation? Yes I agree that this is not always a feature of altruism, although those people arguing for self - interest over altruism are generally fearful of losing out on something (at least the ones I have known).

Long term survival? Good point. Even one's own future self is not the self we are interested in here and now, so, as Parfitt pointed out, thinking of the needs of one's future self is not so different from thinking of the needs of another person.

e. :)

[Izdaari]

My problem with Grayling’s view is that it doesn’t seem to describe altruism, but a clever sort of rational self-interest, so I don’t see how philosophy has reconciled anything here.

Any ideas?
Sure. The first thought that comes to mind is "Who is John Galt?".

Grayling seems not to have heard of Ayn Rand. Or pretends not to have heard of her, perhaps out of plagiarism, perhaps out of the academic conceit that she wasn't a "real philosopher".

[whatever]

Personally, I think altruism and self-interest are two exclusive sets. It's my definition of them, so, like lawman said, it's a semantic arguement.

However, I can think of one example where the two might overlap depending on how you perceive the two terms: the principle of Karma. You help others completely out of kindess, but at the back of your mind, you know that you are accureing good karma for later lifes or reducing bad karma.

That's my 2cents.

[lawman]

Personally, I think altruism and self-interest are two exclusive sets. It's my definition of them, so, like lawman said, it's a semantic argument.
I don't think they are; I think there's a spectrum with a great deal of overlap and intermingling in the middle.

If I pay my taxes or donate to charity, I know that much of the direct benefit will accrue to people other than myself, but OTOH I also know that they contribute (hopefully) a better and more stable society for everyone including me.

If I do a favor for a friend, I again know that the direct benefit will be to someone other than me, but I also know that I'm generating goodwill that may result in a reciprocal favor when I need one.

And of course, there's always the intangible "ego gratification" of seeing oneself as a "good person."

OTOH, there are also plenty of examples where the two motivations drive completely opposite behavior. For example, if I dump my factory's toxic waste into the local river, I know it'll harm the local ecosystem and other people who live along that river, but it saves my business money. If OTOH I do the right thing for nature and my neighbors, it reduces profits for my boss and my shareholders, and may cost me my job.

No simple answers.

[Simba]

Folks,

Any ideas?

e.

I have always tried to live as much as possible within the premises of two books I read in the late 1970's. They may not reconcile both principals perfectly, but they make a strong argument for the blending of the two through what is called "rational selfishness."

They are by Robert Ringer. "Looking Out for Number One," and "Winning through Intimidation."

The titles are actually misleading. You will see why upon reading them. They are still part of my library, and amongst the books I have all my daughters read. They were also the standard business Christmas or birthday gift for one year.

[whatever]

I don't think they are; I think there's a spectrum with a great deal of overlap and intermingling in the middle.

If I pay my taxes or donate to charity, I know that much of the direct benefit will accrue to people other than myself, but OTOH I also know that they contribute (hopefully) a better and more stable society for everyone including me.

If I do a favor for a friend, I again know that the direct benefit will be to someone other than me, but I also know that I'm generating goodwill that may result in a reciprocal favor when I need one.

And of course, there's always the intangible "ego gratification" of seeing oneself as a "good person."

OTOH, there are also plenty of examples where the two motivations drive completely opposite behavior. For example, if I dump my factory's toxic waste into the local river, I know it'll harm the local ecosystem and other people who live along that river, but it saves my business money. If OTOH I do the right thing for nature and my neighbors, it reduces profits for my boss and my shareholders, and may cost me my job.

No simple answers.

I happen to think they are.

For me, altruism is selflessness. The moment thoughts of one-self comes into play, "altruism" no longer applies, at least in my definition.

To me, most of the things we do are "tainted" by self-interest, and I think that's a good thing most of the time, it's hard to find a truly altruistic act.