From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 09:28:10 MDT
Lee writes:
> > > "The Emory studies revealed a biological theory that
> > > essentially says people cooperate because it makes
> > > them feel good."
> > (Brett)
> > My own gut feel here is that individuals are social way before they
develop
> > rationality or language...
>(Lee)
> By "social" I think you mean predisposed to cooperative or
> altruistic behavior.
A predispositon to cooperation or at least to learn to be cooperative, yes.
But I am still a sceptic on the existence of altruism per se. And I think
the difference between altruism per se and the sort of quixotic enlightened
self-interest that someone like say Ghandi might exhibit in going on a
hunger strike is effectively minimal with perhaps one caveat. It seems in
the absence of real good evidence for altruism it might be best to treat
apparent acts of altruism as forms of enlightened self-interest where the
individual concerned has a strong attachment to "their" values, "their"
family, "their" country etc. In some cases a person might prefer to suffer
and die rather than life with a self-image of having reneged on a core
principle that is integral to their self inage. Especially perhaps a person
convinced that the mortal condition is the inevitable one.
If there is a side of caution to be erred on I think its the one that comes
down sceptical on altruism. I also think that there might yet be hope in
finding a sort of value system not based on absolutes but based on
universal's that can accomodate enlightened self interest (and still extend
to altruism if it exists) but that, more importantly, would not be derailed
if altruism doesn't exist. The prospect of finding such a value system may
be a fools errand, like looking for the perpetual motion machine, or trying
to put all the principals of mathematics in the principia mathematica before
Goedel comes along. But these thoughts on grounds for a new universal value
system are preliminary only. I still retain an open mind.
> Your gut feel is evidently quite accurate.
> I was startled while reading Matt Ridley's 1995 book "The Origins
> of Virtue" that the more recent anthropological research has
> established the genetic component of altruism.
I'll add it to the reading list.
> > > The part that seriously bothers me is that such language
> > > can be immediately turned towards use by those that claim
> > > that no one ever does anything except for a selfish reason.
> >
> > Why exactly does that bother you?
>
> There are two reasons. The first is merely corruption of
> language. Someone used a very elegant phrase for that either
> here or on SL4---something like "good mental hygiene" but I've
> been unable to find the original quote. It's just stupid, IMO,
> to attempt to lump together sincere acts of anonymous charity,
> for example, with self-serving behavior. Our language---indeed
> I would speculate ever language on Earth---evolved a very clean
> distinction between self-serving behavior, and acts of noble
> intent. Both are real, I say, even though of course complexities
> and mixed motives can and do arise.
I think we would agree that there is little point trying to redefine a word
like selfish to make it a virtue. Crude, banal exercises in unenlightened
self interest deserve to be labelled prejoratively as selfishness.
However I would not myself at this point see selfish and self-interested as
synonymous. A person can persue their self-interest in an enlightened way
sometimes through competition and other times through cooperation.
I don't know if I'd recognize altruism if I saw it, I'd probably categorise
it as some sort of positive self-image preserving self-interest but treat
such behavior very similarly, welcomingly, and reinforcingly, I expect.
>
> The other reason is much more conjectural; it could very
> well happen IMO that by repeatedly announcing to oneself
> that every act one does is for a selfish reason, less
> cooperative behavior in one could develop. I actually
> think that this has happened to a few libertarians.
I think for me its more that I'd remind myself that I am intrinsically
social. That my self-interest and self-image is intrinsically tied up with
the welfare of others. Even as an adult I can't do anything *really*
significant and world changing/improving on my own. Whether my attitude is
an accident of my circumstances and upbringing I don't know. I suspect it is
quite fundamental though. I am interested in seeing if it can be
generalised. I have been assisted early in life, I have come to recognize
that others often feel as I do, that I can empathise with their emotional
states and "caring" for others especially those that are like me comes
naturally without intellectualising. Prisoners Dilemma situations, games
theory and old notions of WWII notions of mutually assured destruction do
bring my intellectual radar on to full strength though (whatever strenght
that is).
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST