garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (08/25/83)
Let me see if I can throw a monkey wrench into the discussion about altruism vs. selfishness. Tom Craver says that if you believe that you are doing something out of altruistic motives, you could be wrong, because what you do produces benefit to yourself as well, and this is the real purpose for your supposedly altruistic action (do I understand you so far, Tom?). Well, this can work the other way. If you claim that you are doing something for a selfish reason, it may be that you are mistaken, or lying, and that you are really doing it for an altruistic reason (pardon me if I use 'reason' and 'purpose' interchangeably; I don't quite grasp the difference, and I don't think it germane to this article, anyway). For example, my wife gets unhappy if I get unhappy. Therefore, anything I do to make myself happy could be for either her benefit (altruism) or my benefit (selfishness). If I go buy myself a new car, I can make a defensible case that I did it for my wife, since buying it cheered me up, and she rejoiced at my improved mood. (Her moods, by the way, make wider swings than mine. If I get a little unhappy, she gets a lot unhappy, and if I get a little happy, she gets a lot happy. So my happiness does her more good than it does me, in a way.) If I believe and state that my motives are altruistic, and she believes that my motives are altruistic, why is it more rational to assume that we are both wrong, and that my motives are "really" selfish? Motives are a hard thing to prove, anyway. Judges and juries, and even sports officials, are expected to be able to analyze a person's motives, and such judgments invariably disputed. The solution in some legal cases is to presume motive in the case of certain actions. For example, if a bank robber shoots and kills someone in the course of the robbery, the charge is automatically first degree murder. The wielding of a gun in the act of robbing a bank is considered presumptive evidence of his (or her) intent to use it. Therefore, I propose that we consider (external) actions rather than (internal) motives in determining whether an act is altruistic or selfish. I have no way of determining what your motives are. You have no way of determining what my motives are, except by a priori assumption. But we can both agree (probably) on who is the primary beneficiary of an action. An action can be altruistic or selfish, or both. (An aside to those of religious persuasions: yes, I know that God, according to the Bible, will judge by motives as well as actions. We do not have the God-like ability to determine what motives a person has. Perhaps that is why Jesus commanded people to "judge not, lest ye be judged." If we attempt to judge people by motives, we are sure to be mistaken at times, and if we judge people by actions, we are likely to condemn people who were trying to do the right thing.) If we consider actions, and give up the impossible task of trying to determine motives, then it is clear that most people are part selfish and part altruistic, since they perform selfish acts part of the time and altruistic acts part of the time. It also means that we will, on occassion, attribute altruism to a selfish person, but I can accept the risk of making such an error (it may lead to a good habit). Even though it seems clear that selfish motives are behind (apparently) altruistic actions more often than altruistic motives are behind (apparently) selfish actions, I would still rather make the mistake of attributing altruistic motives to a selfish person than vice versa. Comments? Questions? Snide remarks? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys