In exploring some of the biological issues surrounding selfishness and altruism, invariably the philosophical issue of selfishness surfaces. Ayn Rand has argued that selfishness is a virtue because it is the rational and principled concern with one’s own well-being and is necessary to lead a healthy, purposeful, and fulfilling life. It isn’t my intent to deal with Ayn Rand, but rather to examine the sense that many people have regarding these concepts.
The only problem with Ayn Rand’s definition is that the meaning of “selfishness” was manipulated to become “self-interest”. According to the dictionary definition, “selfishness” is “extreme or exclusive self-interest” which is also the commonly understood form of the word.
By changing this definition, it became a case of where helping someone became a selfish act, because it was done only to make the individual feel good. In this case, we reach the nonsensical conclusion that altruistic acts are ultimately selfish. While I’m sure we can all parse such meanings and see how they might be assessed in that fashion, it is useless as an operating definition because it only allows one conclusion to ever be drawn.
Self-interest is not a choice one makes. It is simply the first-person state we find ourselves in and consequently any choice we make is clearly a self-interested one. In other words, it isn’t the consequences of our choices but rather the fact that we have choices that establishes the point that we are acting in our self-interest.
It is important to understand that our “interest” in this case, is not always beneficial, nor does it need to be. Self-interest is the base from which other actions can be interpreted as being “selfish” or “altruistic”.
The selfish individual tends to exaggerate the role and importance of self-interest and is generally viewed as not caring how it may impact others, while the altruistic individual will be inclined to suppress their self-interest in favor of others. Selfishness and altruism are opposites of each other and both ultimately relate to how individuals act in their self-interest within a cooperative group. Therefore we can say that selfishness represents individuals that want to withhold from the group, while altruism represents individuals that are willing to sacrifice for the group.
It is also necessary to recognize that individuals may belong to a wide range of groups, each playing roles of varying importance, so actions can be interpreted in that context, as well as recognizing that the behavior of selfishness and altruism are not constant characteristics, but may change with the circumstances and individuals involved.
Ultimately it is up to the cooperative group to make the value judgment regarding how selfishness or altruism would be viewed, and up to the individual to determine how they make choices.
While many of us feel comfortable in identifying selfishness, altruism is a bit more of a stretch. In many cases, the only images we have are caricatures of the reality.
Altruism has been institutionalized in most countries of the world. Ironically these are represented by religious organizations and the military. Religious groups typically establish themselves on the altruistic front by their beliefs, so that isn’t an unexpected development.
Of more interest is how altruism has been institutionalized by the existence of the military. It should be recognized that the purpose of the military is to have a collection of individuals that are fundamentally prepared to sacrifice themselves for the group they represent. We also see comparable behaviors in groups like the police, fire departments, etc.
Essentially all these organizations serve to promote the welfare of the group and specifically avoid the self-interest of the members within that group. This isn’t to say that there is no concern for their well-being, but the point is that the purpose of these organizations is specifically to avoid advancing individual self-interest and instead focus on the protection of the group and potentially sacrificing themselves for that objective.
What is also of interest is that many of the members in such organizations wouldn’t necessarily see themselves behaving altruistically. Instead we use words like “duty” and “honor”, but in the end, they are just different ways of expressing altruistic group behavior.
One can also observe any number of action/adventure movies or crime dramas and see no end of altruistic behaviors shown by the heroes. Invariably the bad guys are ultimately selfish. The real irony is that most people tend to view altruism as some sort of mindless, self-sacrifice, akin to sheep going to the slaughter. Yet, some of our main entertainment and respected organizations exist specifically for that purpose.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the cooperative group is an absolute necessity to the survival of humans. So it is useful to recognize that human society honors and respects those that participate in the altruism of group preservation. While the myth that humans are “rugged individualists” and that “selfishness is a virtue” may initially sound reasonable and even attractive. It is just a myth and never has been true, nor will it ever be true.
Comments
All altruistic behavior is associated with strong group identification, such that it is the preservation of the group and what it means that invariably will drive it. In that respect, an individual can clearly be acting in their own self-interest while supporting the larger group. This is precisely what the purpose of the military is and why the group tends to honor those individuals that take on that responsibility, while recognizing that every one of them is essentially expendable in that role. However, it is equally important to recognize that the average military person doesn't view themselves as fighting for their country, but rather they are fighting for their companions, their fire team, their squad, etc. It is the group and how one behaves within it that will dictate the extend to which any particular individual will go.
This is precisely why the invention of the professional military was so overwhelming against tribal societies. You had individuals that had a singular responsibility and were willing to altruistically sacrifice to their group going against individuals that had many divided responsibilities. Using an extreme example like Custer's Stand at the Little Big Horn, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that any of those soldiers were there acting in their own self-interest. They were there as soldiers and not individuals. The group superceded all personal interests and that's why they were there.
Gerhard Adam | 05/25/09 | 00:52 AM
That's why I prefer to simply use self-interest to indicate the actions that an individual takes. In effect, if an individual is making the decision, then presumably it is for themselves (coerced behaviors aside).
However, the problem with selfishness (just as Dawkins uses it), is to ultimately be forced to consider that every action becomes a selfish one, because we presume to know what motivates people. My point, is that the motivation doesn't matter.
Using Dawkins as the example, the concept of selfishness in this context is so flawed that it falls apart as soon as we have to explain sexual reproduction and multicellular organisms (both of which expressly require cooperation and reduce the probability of a gene being replicated). In case you hadn't seen it, I have a couple of other posts that propose that the dominate trait seen in biology is "indifference" rather than any active action.
In looking at the world from a selfish or an altruistic perspective, one is gaining a skewed view of any interaction, since these are special cases only and are aberrant if they were applied on a continuous basis in any species. This is why I feel we must be firm in holding the definition of self-interest apart from selfishness.
Regarding altruism, if someone's job is to potentially sacrifice themselves for someone they don't know, then there is no way you can dress that up and make it a selfish gesture. It is altruism at every level and in modern society, it has been institutionalized. The problem with Ayn Rand and Dawkins is that they want to argue that the individual is doing it to make themselves feel good and therefore it is a selfish gesture.
This is where many people have made the mistake (at least in my opinion). To evaluate selfishness or altruism, one has to evaluate the action and NOT the motivation behind the action. Therefore if we accept the fact that everyone will act in their own self-interest, then we have a working definition that says (regardless of motivation), a selfish individual is one that is extremely (or exclusively) self-interested, while the altruist is focused on helping (or sacrificing) for others.
It doesn't matter what motivates these two paths, especially when we consider that these same actions will be witnessed in social animal groups so any presumption we make regarding motivation is already flawed.
There is also no question that there may be some benefit (real or imagined) to the actor, but that changes nothing in describing the action. Self-interest is what drives; selfishness or altruism is the action driven.
The fact that there may or may not be a particular benefit must be evaluated separately, if at all. Depending on what occurs, there will be benefits and liabilities depending on the perspective used to view it, so it would certainly not be likely to fit neatly into any particular category. In short, it will be a very subjective assessment based solely on the individual's sense of its perceived value. Once again, it cannot be used to determine an evolutionary direction since it's value is a subjective judgement.
Gerhard Adam | 05/25/09 | 00:39 AM
To evaluate selfishness or altruism, one has to evaluate the action and NOT the motivation behind the action.
In many situations there is quite literally no time for reflection. Heroes act when others would debate.
... an enemy grenade landed in their midst. Shouting a warning to his
comrades, he, selflessly and unhesitatingly, threw himself upon the
grenade and smothered its explosion with his body. This intrepid action
saved his comrades from death or injury.
Military Medal of Honor citation - John W. Collier.
Patrick Lockerby | 05/25/09 | 03:04 AM
Another point which is key to this whole discussion is that selfishness and altruism only make sense within an expectation of cooperation or a group. In other words, it would be foolish to use either word when describing an individual living or acting in isolation.
Gerhard Adam | 05/25/09 | 03:11 AM
And the reason is, as we've discussed before, that the lone individual is a dead man walking. Individualism is therefore not a stand-alone concept opposed to that of the group, it is a sub-category of the group.
Steve Davis | 05/25/09 | 04:10 AM
Another point which is key to this whole discussion is that selfishness
and altruism only make sense within an expectation of cooperation or a
group. In other words, it would be foolish to use either word when
describing an individual living or acting in isolation.
Agreed. But is there any species of the animal kingdom that habitually lives in isolation?
It appears that even plants can assist each other, but I don't see anybody calling that selfishness or altruism.
Social Networking - For Plants
Patrick Lockerby | 05/25/09 | 03:27 AM
It appears that even plants can assist each other, but I don't see anybody calling that selfishness or altruism. Social Networking - For Plants
That gives 'in the clover' a strange new meaning.
Hank Campbell | 05/25/09 | 10:25 AM
Robert H Olley | 05/25/09 | 10:44 AM
The Romans can take that back, as far as I'm concerned.
I heartily agree, Robert. The ground elder is extremely invasive, crowds out native species, and shares 99.99% of its genes with forum trolls and comment spammers.
Patrick Lockerby | 05/25/09 | 10:58 AM
That gives 'in the clover' a strange new meaning.
Yes, and it makes the bawdy barrack ballad positively perverse!
Patrick Lockerby | 05/25/09 | 10:44 AM
Problems with this analysis arise when people attempt to over-generalize from it, or use it to dictate what people *should* do - on the selfish side, Ayn Rand is guilty of making these moral generalizations, while on the other side, Marx practically made the same mistake. Just b/c all creatures act by Dawkins' definition of selfishness doesn't that they *should* act by society's definition of selfishness. Analogously, just b/c all objects act in accordance to the laws of gravity doesn't mean that all creatures should actively pursue acting in accordance to the laws of gravity.
Another difficulty with over-generalizing - be it towards the selfishness end or the altruistic end - is, again, that selfishness/altruism mean different things across species, individuals, contexts, & circumstances. You can zoom out & say that everyone's existence is dependent upon society & their parents' reproduction - you can zoom out even further & say that our existence is dependent upon the occurrence of the big bang. The view from either of these extremes misses the most important details. Ants & humans both depend on the group, but the degree to which they do, & their subsequent actions, are very different. It is not enough to simply say that every individual is somehow dependent upon a group & therefore should act altruistically. For it's the qualities & circumstances that characterize the individual's dependence upon the group that are key.
kerrjac (not verified) | 05/25/09 | 10:42 AM
Dependency on a group isn't a matter of choice in this context. It is absolute although one can not draw any inferences about how one should behave beyond what is in that individual's self-interest. The level of altruism will be determined by how important the group identity is to the individual's in question. For example, most people will tend to identify with the group that is their nation (i.e. patriotism) much more readily than they may identify with the collection of employees that work for a specific company. Each will have an expectation of behaviors and priorities to the individual associated with them.
This country learned during the Vietnam War that altruism couldn't be coerced (through the draft), but it most certainly is counting on altruism when it recruits volunteers. This altruism will be driven by individual philosophies, values taught, family traditions, etc. It doesn't really matter what drives it, but it will certainly give rise to alruistic behaviors because the sense of group identity is strong enough to warrant the potential sacrifice. Each person may belong to numerous other groups that never rise to that level, so it isn't a generalization that can be applied indiscriminately.
It seems to be common knowledge in our society that a crisis will unite people, so that whatever group is under threat, if it is important enough, the people will unite to defend it.
Gerhard Adam | 05/25/09 | 13:31 PM
The level of altruism will be determined by how important the group identity is to the individuals in question.
I think that your statement could be very neatly paraphrased1 to apply directly to conformity in language use:
Conformity, the tendency to conform one's behaviour to the norms of a group, is mostly subconsciously rather than consciously adopted.
The level of linguistic conformity will be determined by how important the group identity is to the individual in question.
I suggest that a member of a smaller or less cohesive language group will conform less to the linguistic behaviour of that group than in the case of a larger or more cohesive group. I would be very interested in seeing a psycholinguistic study of this.
Footnote1 - i.e. plagiarised with no accreditation. ;)
Patrick Lockerby | 05/25/09 | 14:20 PM
A large portion of Ayn Rand's philosophy - I'd agree - is founded upon a fast & loose definition of "selfish". Like you bring up, if every human action becomes by definition selfish, then "selfish" becomes a meaningless word.
Working from this definition, however, a better approach - & I believe this is the one Dawkins takes, but it's been a few years since I picked up the Selfish Gene - lays in assuming that all actions are selfish & working out the implications. This might be viewed as similar to the assumption that 2 sides of an equation will equal each other. Subsequently, the debate isn't so much about selfishness or no selfishness - just as, statistically, you wouldn't argue over the arithmetic assumption regarding equality - rather, the focus is on *how* any particular action is selfish, ie, how it cycles back around to benefit the individual's interests.
Since selfishness is such a loaded word, you're right that it's a little awkward when objectivists are like, "Selfishness is acting in your own interest. Everyone is acting in their own interests or wouldn't be alive. Therefore everyone is selfish." That reasoning, however, is only the start. Firemen for instance are acting out of duty to their community, and by definition they're acting out of self-interest. So their duty to community = their self-interest. The interesting part lies in answering how this inference works, not in questioning the right side of it.
The answer of course is not as black & white as either of us would like it to be, & it's tie-in to more meaningful & conversational uses of the terms "selfish" & "altruistic" is fuzzy at best. But if one can overcome social biases to these words, & also overcome the temptation to think dichotomously, this sort of thought is intensely meaningful, as it inspired Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and has deep social/psychological roots. As an example of the latter, some variables to consider is that what makes up each person's "self-interest" - ie, their selfishness - differs by skills, talent, environment, context, etc, & that self-interest is heterogeneous, both across & within people, as even for an individual fireman it might mean duty to others, salary, and sex-appeal all at the same time. Other variables to consider is the difference between actively & passively attaining one's self-interest; and pursuing things for one's self-interest versus avoiding circumstances creating a lack of self-interest (eg, pain vs pleasure). With regard to the latter, consider the neuropsychological import of behavior inhibition.