Altruism vs.(?) psychological egoism

You hear people say "true altruism doesn't exist", "people only behave for their own benefit" etc. but I don't see why the idea that all behavior is ego- driven is necessarily at odds with altruism/selflessness. I can't see why anyone would do anything if it weren't to experience some level of pleasure or happiness (I make a distinction between the two) or to avoid some level of suffering (I also make a distinction between pain and suffering in that pain causes suffering but one can experience some level of noxious stimuli without allowing themseves to suffer from it). At the same time, I don't see how a soldier sacrificing his/her life for a comrade or a man jumping in front of a moving car to save a child is not an altruistic/selfless act. I believe that there are selfish reasons to be both selfless and loving, love makes people happy and selfishness makes us vulnerable to suffering. Selfish love (attachment), for example, can lead to grief at the loss of a close friend/family member or jealousy at the idea of a lover being romantically/sexually attracted to someone else and pride, which I think is a self-oriented emotion, can also make one vulnerable to humiliation whereas someone who loves others selflessly cannot be easily humiliated or angered by them. To my understanding, there is a documented link between oxytocin (the love hormone) and happiness, I believe that the secret to a happy life is selfless love, how to go about becoming a selfless, empathetic person, I have no idea.


I think altruistic 'suicide' can still be explained in egoistic terms while still being recognized as sincere altruism, I think the life of an altruist that would be willing to sacrifice themselvesfor others would be qualitatively more desirable than the life of a single-minded person even if that single-minded person outlived the altruist by decades. Nature is a system based on co-operation, every cell in our bodies must co-operate with other cells so the system can run smoothly and despite what I said about society being a myth, humans do generally need other individuals to survive so it isn't surprising that natural selection would favor selfless, empathy or that happiness is nature's incentive for this kind of behavior (this will be the last time you hear me talk about 'nature' as though it were an actual entity with goals and intentions). What do you think, can egoism allow for the idea that one can be legitimately selfless for selfish reasons?

 

Hi,

I have a friend who believes in 'Perfect Love', which I imagine is closely related to your goal of Selfless Love. I've asked her to define it and she has never succeeded, but in my analysis of her, it is simply the frequent execution of good deeds with no thought of return.

It's my belief that the main cause of selfishness is scarcity, and that because our entire economic world system, from the peasantry to the boardroom, is modelled on the pursuit of acquisition for self, or for a group of selves, as well as a system of advertising designed to seduce us into believing the products/services offered will render us attractive, wealthy, healthy, eased, etc.

With such an enormous system constantly encouraging new selfishness and reinforcing existing...selfishness, altruism is rare; it becomes a concept theoretical to most people. However, there is still a scale, just as you have people in impoverished Indian villages who take it upon themselves to steal, so too do you occasionally have children of wealthy parents who eventually use that money for charitable acts. Such people, at both extremes, are simply the product of an unusual setting in some base-pair or chromosome. You will always have the relatively selfish/selfless.

Now, imagine a world where transporter-beam and replication technology has removed the scarcity of basic requirement; a steak can be created in a flash, or a house, or a swimming pool, or a dinner jacket. Imagine a world where holography allows you to simulate the satiation of any desire. Want to go to Tahiti? You've got it, minus sharks in the water, minus tropical storms 2 days a year. Want to go hang-gliding, but you weigh 300Ibs and can't do it for real? You'e got that too.

You can see where this leads, pretty soon, nobody has any material worries, and the cost of GIVING is reduced to almost zero. It behooves one to be more inclusive, to bring people pleasure, as they cost of transmitting pleasure. As you remove incentives to selfishness, it naturally begins to fade from society, leaving a more natural balance, with a few people still at either end of Pareto's Law.

Subcultures, even those that are not widely respected, can run smoothly within a differing majority. Bikers/Goths often hold down good jobs, are good uncles/fathers etc. Similarly, being selfless does not necessitate living like a pauper. I believe that as long as you continue to receive pleasure from selfless giving, you will function perfectly well in a society whose majority does not share your selflessness.

Sorry if I haven't directly addressed some of your questions, feel free to ask any for which you particularly want answers.

Your passage had, I noted, a powerfully academic flavour about it; are you perhaps also writing a paper on the matter?