What are the basic drives that explain all human actions?

[Pasteur]

I believe that altruism is an illusion, if one defines altruism as an action that benefits someone else at the expense of the doer. An action which is apparently altruistic is done, at the very least, for the pleasure that it gives to the self. I don't claim that there is hypocrisy in this action. If someone finds it pleasant to help others, what is the problem? Everyone should be like that.

An altruistic action may be done also in order to avoid pangs of conscience. Here we have the two basic drives of human behavior: search for pleasure and avoidance of pain, at the level of brain activity. There is nothing loftier than that. But maybe we can learn to appreciate these drives and to value them.

I think that if one were able to study the chemical activity of the brain in naturalistic settings, this theory could be borne out.

 

[Troublemane]

Great post! Are you familiar with Spinoza?---he wrote at length on the concept of ethics and morality being derived from just that, the avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure.

I maintain that virtue is highly prized (at least as an ideal) precisely because it is difficult to attain. If virtue was commonplace would it be so valuable?

 

[Pasteur]

Hi,

I am not very familiar with Spinoza...

I think that, all other things being equal, a good deed which is harder to do is indeed more praiseworthy.

It is psychologically impossible to be virtous for some time if there is no hidden benefit at all to be found in virtue. I think that the difference between virtue and vice is not to be found in free will or the lure of Satan, but in the organization of the brain. Some people seem to be good naturally. And indeed, goodness may be part of their nature, that is, of the functioning of their body. I am not defending genetic determinism, however.

If a person knew that some deed is evil, but felt no pang of conscience in doing it, and felt no internalized reward in not doing it, then he would not refrain from doing it, if there is some pleasure to be found there. Unless he is afraid to be caught, but some bad deeds are too mild for that.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe that altruism is an illusion, if one defines altruism as an action that benefits someone else at the expense of the doer. An action which is apparently altruistic is done, at the very least, for the pleasure that it gives to the self.

Your definition of altruism strikes me as confusing. You seem to have at least two definitions of altruism. First, you plainly define "altruism as an action that benefits someone else at the expense of the doer" and call that an illusion. (Are you seriously suggesting that someone cannot do something that benefits another at ones own expense? That's absurd, isn't it?)

Second, you have a strongly implied definition of altruism as an action which is done for the benefit of another but with no benefit whatsoever to the doer. Do you see how that definition differs from your first definition?

So which is it? Is altruism to you an action that benefits someone else at the expense of the doer? Or, is altruism to you an action done for the benefit of another, but with no benefit to the doer?

In regards to your first definition, I would suggest the world is full of actions that benefit someone else at the expense of the doer. That is, I disagree with you that there are no altruistic acts in that sense of altruism. On the contrary, I think altruism is quite common in that sense of the word.

In regards to your second definition, I would suggest that defining altruism as an action done for the benefit of another, but with no benefit to the doer, is extraordinarily problematic. For one thing, if you look hard enough for some "benefit to the doer" you will surely find one. But are any and all benefits meaningful? For another thing, the question soon becomes how do you decide when a "benefit to the doer" outweighs any disadvantages to the doer in the mind of the doer?

For instance: If Smith jumps into the river to save Jones from drowning, and thus obtains some warm and fuzzy feelings for himself, how do you determine that Smith values those warm and fuzzy feelings so much that he thinks they outweigh the risk he's exposed himself to in order to help Jones? Is it not possible that Smith would see those warm and fuzzy feelings as incidental to some other reason he had for rescuing Jones? Or what if Smith is annoyed with Jones for Jones getting himself into trouble and he (Smith) does not consider any warm and fuzzy feelings he might have to be adequate compensation for his feelings of annoyance? Under those and other circumstances, how would you determine that the doer is obtaining benefits for his altruistic actions that mean more to him than the risk he's put himself to or other feelings (such as annoyance) that he might harbor?

 

[PureX]

I believe that altruism is an illusion, ...

So a good thing isn't really a good thing if it's good for both the giver and the receiver?

 

[Pasteur]

To Sunstone,

Interesting remarks! First, I would like to say that any work costs something in energy and in time. So, when a deed is done for someone else's sake, it is always, in some sense, at the expense of the doer. However, this cost may be outweighed by some pleasure the deed gives or at least by a greater pain that it permits to avoid.

You are right, in one sense, that people can sacrifice themselves for other people. But what I claim is that the cost of a deed is on the whole no greater than its expected benefit.

If I take your example of a guy saving someone who is drowning, it may be that if the guy refrains from attempting to save the person, he would feel a very strong guilt for the rest of his life, and this would bring about a lot of psychological pain.

Or it may be that the feeling of pleasure he experiences while he is considering saving the person overrides any logical consideration, because he has been conditioned to be helpful. So his mind chooses the way which, at first glance, seems to be most rewarding.

As for your other objections, I think that the though processes that lead to an "altruistic" deed are chiefly unconscious. The person does not consciously calculate what is at stake (costs and benefits) whenever a choice has to be done. All we can do is to try to figure out what the unconscious would "say" if it thought aloud. This remark means that we don't have to feel guilty for being secretly selfish. We can't help ourselves.