Ethical Altruism

[Imagist]

I recently took an ethics class which I hated. The professor seemed intent on promoting the theory of ethical egoism -- that is, we should always act in self-interest. The one redeeming caveat of the theory is that it asserts that sometimes acting in the interest of others is in your own self-interest - a sort of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" social contract. Or alternately, "I won't kill you because if I try and fail, you might kill me".

I say that's crap -- it basically means that you can do whatever you want if you can get away with it. It might work as a philosophy if nobody got away with things, but people do get away with things all the time. I simply can't stand the idea.

So I propose an alternate theory: ethical altruism. That is, one should always act in the interest of others. I qualify this by saying that sometimes acting out of self-interest is in the interest of others.

I'm not interested in philosophies that I can't apply immediately to real-life situations. So here are some applications:

1. Suicide is wrong because it emotionally harms the people around you.
2. Not giving to charity is wrong, as long as you keep enough money to not become a charity case yourself.

I've been experimenting with this, and I tried something new today today. I am a poor college student, so I couldn't spend lots of money. However, I noticed that the local Dunkin Donuts had a sale, six doughnuts for $3 -- well within my price range. Doughnuts are a high-calorie food, and I know that for the homeless in this cold time of year, a high calorie intake is essential. On my trip to work I managed to give away all six doughnuts. For $3 a day until the sale ends, I can feed six people enough calories to keep them from freezing.

I don't say this to brag. Homeless men aren't particularly expressive (many are mentally ill) but one of the guys I gave a Boston creme doughnut to gave me a look that was all the reward I could have ever asked for. Instead, I'm posting this here to encourage others to try this out. It's brought me a great deal of happiness over the last few weeks, and I dare venture that it will do the same for you.

 

[linwood]

So the question becomes...

"Are you doing it for the homeless or for that feeling of happiness it brings?"

The next question I would think is...

"Does it matter why you`re doing it?"

 

[Imagist]

So the question becomes...

"Are you doing it for the homeless or for that feeling of happiness it brings?"

The next question I would think is...

"Does it matter why you`re doing it?"

This is where I draw the distinction between principles and reasons.

The reason I do it is for the happiness it brings.

The principle for which I do it is that one should act in the interest of others.

The reason, I agree, does not matter.

The principle, on the other hand, matters a great deal. As a man of principle, I will probably one day find myself in a situation where I do not have a reason to act in the interest of others. I hope then that I will act in the interest of others on principle.

 

[linwood]

The principle, on the other hand, matters a great deal. As a man of principle, I will probably one day find myself in a situation where I do not have a reason to act in the interest of others. I hope then that I will act in the interest of others on principle.

I entirely agree with this but often wonder why.

I too am a principled man, I value them highly, and defend them vehemently.

For the concepts I use to form my world view I require some sort of empirical basis yet have at least in a few exceptional situations in my past found myself continuing to adhere to a principle even when that empirical basis wasn`t evident.

Is this an inconsistency in my methods, an expediant consistency in my principles, or a bit of hypocrisy in accepting a priori what I normally wouldn`t accept in such a manner?

I`m just not sure.

 

[Imagist]

I entirely agree with this but often wonder why.

I too am a principled man, I value them highly, and defend them vehemently.

For the concepts I use to form my world view I require some sort of empirical basis yet have at least in a few exceptional situations in my past found myself continuing to adhere to a principle even when that empirical basis wasn`t evident.

Is this an inconsistency in my methods, an expediant consistency in my principles, or a bit of hypocrisy in accepting a priori what I normally wouldn`t accept in such a manner?

I`m just not sure.

I think that ethics is inherently a reverse-engineering process. We take the agreed-upon "factual" beliefs, such as "murder is wrong" (not to be confused with "killing is wrong") and attempt to come up with logical principles that would cause these "factual beliefs" to be correct. The purpose is to allow us to make ethical decisions about situations where there is no agreed-upon, "factual" belief.

An example of the agreed-upon, "factual" belief is whether it is wrong, right, or simply amoral to murder. Ethical egoism says it is wrong to murder because you will be caught and go to jail -- unless you can get away with it, in which case it is amoral -- unless it provides some benefit to you. I would regard this as a disproof of ethical egoism. In contrast, ethical altruism says it is wrong to murder because it is not in the victim's best interest to be murdered.

An example of a belief that is not agreed-upon is whether it is wrong, right, or simply amoral to not give to charity. Ethical egoism says that it is right not to give to charity unless it would cause others to think less highly of you in a meaningful way, in which it would be wrong not to give to charity. My ethical altruism says that it's wrong not to give to charity. Some people might be uncomfortable with that, but I don't regard people's discomfort as a disproof.

 

[linwood]

I think that ethics is inherently a reverse-engineering process. We take the agreed-upon "factual" beliefs, such as "murder is wrong" (not to be confused with "killing is wrong") and attempt to come up with logical principles that would cause these "factual beliefs" to be correct. The purpose is to allow us to make ethical decisions about situations where there is no agreed-upon, "factual" belief.

This may be my problem then as I`ve purposely tried to found my ethical conscience on an action/reaction sort of basis.

I`m always thinking of potential outcomes.
"If I commit/ don`t commit this act what are the possible outcomes of my action/inaction and who might they violate?"

This of course creates numerous instances of value judgment as it isn`t very often on a daily basis that any action/inaction is so ethically cut and dried that it can be taken without some level of violation to someone.

The value judgements are where my subjective bias comes into play.

An example of the agreed-upon, "factual" belief is whether it is wrong, right, or simply amoral to murder. Ethical egoism says it is wrong to murder because you will be caught and go to jail -- unless you can get away with it, in which case it is amoral -- unless it provides some benefit to you. I would regard this as a disproof of ethical egoism. In contrast, ethical altruism says it is wrong to murder because it is not in the victim's best interest to be murdered.

Ethical egoism has always struck me as an empty philosophy.
While it can provide some of the answers some of the time it`s standards cannot be consistently used to provide many of the answers most of the time.

I also find it distasteful by my own ethical standards.

I`m not however an ethical altruist as it seems to me it might have it`s own problems with being weighted down by subjective standards.

-Who do you help?
-How much do you help them?
-How do you determine how much to help them?
-In what manner do you help them?
-How do you determine in what manner to help them?
-Is my help truly helping them?
-How do I determine if my help is truly helping them?
-Might my help actually be harming?
-How do I determine if my help is actually harming?
-Are they deserving of my help?
-How do I determine if they are deserving of my help?

The last 2 questions are particularly important to me.

Given my often mind boggling confusion with my simple ethical standard of "Do not violate" it might very well put me in a mental health ward to take on all the possible ramifications of a truly altruistic ethical world view.


I`m not saying I don`t commit altruistic acts because I do.
I`m just saying I don`t judge my ethical impact on society around me by my altruistic acts.
I judge my ethical impact on society around me by my ability to cause as little violation to others as I can.

Altruistic acts are icing on the ethical cake to me.
They are nice when I can and I make a point to commit them when I can but making them a part of my ethical foundation would bring more conflict into my already subjective human value system.
Not to mention my limited resources and my self imposed responsibility to use them first on those few humans I value most

An example of a belief that is not agreed-upon is whether it is wrong, right, or simply amoral to not give to charity. Ethical egoism says that it is right not to give to charity unless it would cause others to think less highly of you in a meaningful way, in which it would be wrong not to give to charity. My ethical altruism says that it's wrong not to give to charity. Some people might be uncomfortable with that, but I don't regard people's discomfort as a disproof.

I`m not uncomfortable with it.
It just seems as if it is too much for me personally to hold myself to such a standard.

This discussion reminds me of an essay by Twain I read years ago where he makes the argument that all of humanity is actually operating on ethical egosim and ethical egoism alone.

What is man?

If you appreciate Twains sardonic style it`s an interesting read because it`s one time where I can`t tell if he`s serious or not.

 

[Imagist]

In the following post I explain some ethical terms, possibly more than necessary. It's not because I think you're stupid, it's that I don't know how much exposure you've had to ethical theory.

This may be my problem then as I`ve purposely tried to found my ethical conscience on an action/reaction sort of basis.

I`m always thinking of potential outcomes.
"If I commit/ don`t commit this act what are the possible outcomes of my action/inaction and who might they violate?"

This of course creates numerous instances of value judgment as it isn`t very often on a daily basis that any action/inaction is so ethically cut and dried that it can be taken without some level of violation to someone.

The value judgements are where my subjective bias comes into play.

I can see how this type of analysis might be paralyzing. This seems a bit like utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) with good being defined in deontological terms (deontology being rule-based).

-Who do you help?

Everyone, within reason, of course. If helping someone a little would cause greater harm to others, don't do that. "Others" can include yourself if the harm would render you unable to continue helping others.

-How much do you help them?
-How do you determine how much to help them?

As much as you can reasonably. Again, the limit is where continuing help would prevent you from helping in the future.

-In what manner do you help them?
-How do you determine in what manner to help them?
-Is my help truly helping them?
-How do I determine if my help is truly helping them?
-Might my help actually be harming?
-How do I determine if my help is actually harming?

I don't know if these are ethical questions as much as practical questions. This is where educating yourself can help you be more efficient and effective in helping others. I think this education is an obligation. For example, the pope's recent assertion that condoms don't prevent HIV may have been intended to help, but is an uneducated opinion that is counterproductive. The moral issue is not how he helped, but that he didn't educate himself properly to ensure that his "help" was actually helpful.

-Are they deserving of my help?
-How do I determine if they are deserving of my help?

The last 2 questions are particularly important to me.

Deserving implies making a value judgment about another person, which I don't feel qualified to make. It seems more valuable to just help people unconditionally.

Given my often mind boggling confusion with my simple ethical standard of "Do not violate" it might very well put me in a mental health ward to take on all the possible ramifications of a truly altruistic ethical world view.

Well, the way I deal with this is simply by accepting that I'm human, and I will make mistakes.

I`m not saying I don`t commit altruistic acts because I do.
I`m just saying I don`t judge my ethical impact on society around me by my altruistic acts.
I judge my ethical impact on society around me by my ability to cause as little violation to others as I can.

It seems to me that our views differ only in that yours is "passive" while mine is "active". That is, you attempt to have a positive ethical impact by reducing your negative ethical impact, whereas my focus is more on increasing your positive ethical impact. We both do positive and negative things, but our focus is different.

I think that being active is better. I'm not saying you should go out and try to do good everywhere without any consideration for the results of your actions. But in my experience the first 10% of the time you could spend considering an action will probably catch 90% of the potential violations you could cause. The end result is that well-intentioned actions with even a small amount of educated consideration have a very high positive to negative impact ratio.

I`m not uncomfortable with it.
It just seems as if it is too much for me personally to hold myself to such a standard.

No, I wasn't accusing you of being one of the uncomfortable ones. Generally, it's ethical egoists who would be uncomfortable with the drastic shift in thinking (it's not all about me? really?).

This discussion reminds me of an essay by Twain I read years ago where he makes the argument that all of humanity is actually operating on ethical egosim and ethical egoism alone.

What is man?

If you appreciate Twains sardonic style it`s an interesting read because it`s one time where I can`t tell if he`s serious or not.

I'll try to read that when I have time; I'm a bit busy right now responding to various threads.

 

[maro]

This is where I draw the distinction between principles and reasons.

The reason I do it is for the happiness it brings.

The principle for which I do it is that one should act in the interest of others.

The reason, I agree, does not matter.

if the principle can't be a very good reason itself..then it's nonsense.. by saying :
The reason I do it is for the happiness it brings. , I am sorry to tell you that you haven't gone so far from the ethical egoism you hated...
Which means that if helping others will bring trouble to me , or will not bring me happiness ,it doesn't worth it..it's all about me ,then

The principle, on the other hand, matters a great deal. As a man of principle, I will probably one day find myself in a situation where I do not have a reason to act in the interest of others. I hope then that I will act in the interest of others on principle.

As I said , The principle that fails to justify itself with a reason..a very good reason...is not practical..and probably some sort of self deception that won't stand any of the life tests

 

[Imagist]

if the principle can't be a very good reason itself..then it's nonsense.. by saying :
The reason I do it is for the happiness it brings. , I am sorry to tell you that you haven't gone so far from the ethical egoism you hated...
Which means that if helping others will bring trouble to me , or will not bring me happiness ,it doesn't worth it..it's all about me ,then.

The entire point of my post was to show that the principle and the reason can be decoupled. The fact that you've equated the two shows that you didn't understand my post at all.

As I said , The principle that fails to justify itself with a reason..a very good reason...is not practical..and probably some sort of self deception that won't stand any of the life tests

The reason behind this principle should be obvious.

 

[maro]

The entire point of my post was to show that the principle and the reason can be decoupled. The fact that you've equated the two shows that you didn't understand my post at all.

i did understand your post ,but i wasn't convinced...practically speaking ,the principle and the reason can't be decoubled..they are 2 faces of the same coin...So ,unless you are able to provide your principle with a very good reason that satisfies the ego..that principle won't be tough enough to stand any of the life tests

we don't see politicians sitting to discuss the negative effects of waging a war on the other camp..do we ?...as long as that war is benefitial to them...to the hell with the other country..!!
so,practically speaking ,either you have to accept ethical egoism as realistic..or you have to add the missing factor to your theory...The factor that adds a reason or a meaning to helping others ,even it was on the expense of my own interest..my own happiness

The reason behind this principle should be obvious.

not really

 

[Imagist]

i did understand your post ,but i wasn't convinced...practically speaking ,the principle and the reason can't be decoubled..they are 2 faces of the same coin...So ,unless you are able to provide your principle with a very good reason that satisfies the ego..that principle won't be tough enough to stand any of the life tests

we don't see politicians sitting to discuss the negative effects of waging a war on the other camp..do we ?...as long as that war is benefitial to them...to the hell with the other country..!!
so,practically speaking ,either you have to accept ethical egoism as realistic..or you have to add the missing factor to your theory...The factor that adds a reason or a meaning to helping others ,even it was on the expense of my own interest..my own happiness

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said:

It's brought me a great deal of happiness over the last few weeks, and I dare venture that it will do the same for you.

 

[lunamoth]

So we should be ethical altruists because you say so?

 

[Imagist]

So we should be ethical altruists because you say so?

I never said anyone should do anything. I'm merely presenting the theory and saying that it has worked for me so far and seems internally consistent. I recommend giving it a try in the same way I recommend a good restaurant; my guess is you'll enjoy it but if you don't try it I won't even know, let alone care.

 

[lunamoth]

I never said anyone should do anything. I'm merely presenting the theory and saying that it has worked for me so far and seems internally consistent. I recommend giving it a try in the same way I recommend a good restaurant; my guess is you'll enjoy it but if you don't try it I won't even know, let alone care.

OK then. Recommending good behavior is the same as recommending a good restaurant. Check!

 

[Imagist]

OK then. Recommending good behavior is the same as recommending a good restaurant. Check!

Nope. You fail reading comprehension. Try again.

 

[Magic Man]

I recently took an ethics class which I hated. The professor seemed intent on promoting the theory of ethical egoism -- that is, we should always act in self-interest. The one redeeming caveat of the theory is that it asserts that sometimes acting in the interest of others is in your own self-interest - a sort of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" social contract. Or alternately, "I won't kill you because if I try and fail, you might kill me".

I say that's crap -- it basically means that you can do whatever you want if you can get away with it. It might work as a philosophy if nobody got away with things, but people do get away with things all the time. I simply can't stand the idea.

So I propose an alternate theory: ethical altruism. That is, one should always act in the interest of others. I qualify this by saying that sometimes acting out of self-interest is in the interest of others.

First, to me it's not about what you should do. We do things because they're in our best interests. Whether or not we should is a different matter.

Second, that doesn't mean you can do anything you can get away with. Most people will feel bad about doing something to hurt others. That's why they don't do it. I could get away with a lot of stuff, but I would feel bad about it and, at least most of the time, regret it. That's all the negative I need not to do it. In other words, I want to feel good (thinking about myself), so I don't do those things.

1. Suicide is wrong because it emotionally harms the people around you.

I would also say it's wrong because of how it harms you. It's in my best interest to stay alive, even if life is hard. If I die, it only makes things worse for me. This is where the self interest comes in.

2. Not giving to charity is wrong, as long as you keep enough money to not become a charity case yourself.

As linwood already pointed out, you're really doing this for the warm feeling it gives you. Even if the recipient doesn't give you the acknowledgement you'd like, you still feel good about having helped someone. If I didn't like the feeling of making my wife feel better, then I probably wouldn't give her backrubs.

 

[Magic Man]

Nope. You fail reading comprehension. Try again.

Actually, that's pretty much what you said. You said that you had tried out this reasoning, and liked it, so you recommend it to others. The idea was that you displayed good behavior and liked it, so you think others should try that good behavior. If that's not what you meant, you might want to go back and change it to mean what you really want to say.

I'm merely presenting the theory and saying that it has worked for me...

Common sense has worked for me.

 

[Imagist]

First, to me it's not about what you should do. We do things because they're in our best interests. Whether or not we should is a different matter.

On the contrary, ethics deals exclusively with what we should do. If you want to study what we do do, anthropology or sociology are the fields for which you are looking.

Second, that doesn't mean you can do anything you can get away with. Most people will feel bad about doing something to hurt others. That's why they don't do it. I could get away with a lot of stuff, but I would feel bad about it and, at least most of the time, regret it. That's all the negative I need not to do it. In other words, I want to feel good (thinking about myself), so I don't do those things.

This is the distinction I made between reason and principle.

I would also say it's wrong because of how it harms you. It's in my best interest to stay alive, even if life is hard. If I die, it only makes things worse for me. This is where the self interest comes in.

I agree; the example I gave was merely an application of my ethical theory. That's not to say that other theories (in this case, ethical egoism) can't be applied.

As linwood already pointed out, you're really doing this for the warm feeling it gives you. Even if the recipient doesn't give you the acknowledgement you'd like, you still feel good about having helped someone. If I didn't like the feeling of making my wife feel better, then I probably wouldn't give her backrubs.

As I pointed out, that's the reason, not the principle.

As for the importance of principles, I point you back to one of my previous posts:

I think that ethics is inherently a reverse-engineering process. We take the agreed-upon "factual" beliefs, such as "murder is wrong" (not to be confused with "killing is wrong") and attempt to come up with logical principles that would cause these "factual beliefs" to be correct. The purpose is to allow us to make ethical decisions about situations where there is no agreed-upon, "factual" belief.

 

[Imagist]

Actually, that's pretty much what you said. You said that you had tried out this reasoning, and liked it, so you recommend it to others. The idea was that you displayed good behavior and liked it, so you think others should try that good behavior. If that's not what you meant, you might want to go back and change it to mean what you really want to say.

He said:

OK then. Recommending good behavior is the same as recommending a good restaurant. Check!

I said:

I never said anyone should do anything. I'm merely presenting the theory and saying that it has worked for me so far and seems internally consistent. I recommend giving it a try in the same way I recommend a good restaurant; my guess is you'll enjoy it but if you don't try it I won't even know, let alone care.

Casually recommending my ethical theory is clearly different from casually recommending good behavior. My ethical theory is merely one of many, and I don't feel strongly that it is superior to others. In contrast, good behavior is rather important. The difference, along with lunamoth's aspersion upon my character, is appreciable.

 

[maro]

It's brought me a great deal of happiness over the last few weeks, and I dare venture that it will do the same for you.

My point ,is that by saying so , you are still within the limits of ethical egoism..and that you haven't introduced anything new ,really..
My question is , what if doing the right thing will cause me trouble ? or will not cause me happiness ? what if i am in a situation where morality VS interst ? how can your theory ,practically speaking , motivate me to do the right thing..no matter what..
The great deal of happiness you felt probably motivated you once or twice ..but can that stand all life tests...it's possible that in a particular situation , the great deal of happiness will be replaced by a great deal of trouble...and this is where your theory 's missing factor appears clearly !