dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/07/83)
Before I explain why the definitions quoted by Tom Craver don't do much to support his own definition of altruism, let me explain my own. Specifically, I once said the difference between altruism and benevolence is "small to nonexistent." If benevolence is defined as an emotion that has nothing to do with moral beliefs (I'm not sure that it *has* to be, but I'm willing to grant that it's OK to), then there is a (small) difference. Benevolent actions are then a proper subset of the set of altruistic actions; those actions which are altruistic but not benevolent are those done from moral beliefs with no corresponding emotion. In other words, I grant that altruistic actions *can* be done from moral beliefs, but I deny that moral-belief-inspired actions are the *only* ones that can be altruistic. Recall that there are two components of Tom's definition to which I object. First, that altruism is a moral belief (i.e., that a moral belief is *essential* to altruism). Second, that altruism necessarily involves self-disregard; that altruism is the contrary and not the contradictory of selfishness. Of five dictionaries that Tom quotes, only one supports the second objectionable component, and none support the first. The American Heritage Dictionary supports the second by using the word "selflessness." On the other hand, the other four dictionaries undermine the second by not using the word selflessness, and not specifying "*exclusive* regard for others" as opposed to simply "regard for others." If they had meant this, they would have said it; they would have *said* "exclusive". And altruism's being "opposed" to egoism does not show anything, since there are two ways the two could be opposed: as contraries, or as contradictories. I maintain that they are contradictories. Therefore, altruists include Utilitarians and other humanitarians as well as "True Altruists". Random House gave one definition of egoism that makes it a moral belief. However, note that this definition came last in a list of three, and that it was specified that the definition was from the field of "Ethics". Such specifications usually signal a technical definition. The number 1 definition called egoism a "habit", i.e. a way of acting, rather than a way of believing such as a moral view. Websters says altruism is "sometimes in accordance with an ethical principle," but note that this means *sometimes not*! This supports my view 100%; see my remarks on altruism and benevolence, above. *Sometimes not* -- therefore, moral beliefs are not essential to altruism. Random House says altruism is the "principle or practice ..." whereas I would say that the primary use of the word applies to practice. However, at least Random House allows that altruism *need not* be a principle, much less a moral principle (vs. a religious principle, a principle of etiquette, etc.). In summary: against the first objectionable component of your definition, I cite Webster and Random House as denying that moral beliefs are necessary to altruism. I cite the others as using language referring to action or motivation rather than moral belief. Against the second, I cite all but American Heritage for not specifying that the concern for others involved in altruism is "exclusive". That they do not specify that altruists have concern for themselves also, is no damage to my position, because I hold that True Altruists as well as middle-grounders are both altruists in the common (standard English) sense. By the way, "calculated consideration of ... others' interests" would mean, I think, that one treats others' welfare only as a means to some other end. Therefore, I think the word "uncalculated" is used only to exclude this sort of "consideration" (since selfish people can give *that* sort of consideration). --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park