self-interest/altruism dichotomy

[David Dunn]

From the other thread:


I think that every decision one makes is for self-satisfaction, but this philosophical question has been debated for many centuries and probably not one to try and answer in this thread.

But worth a new thread. Indeed this question has exercised philosophers since the ancients.

In a philosophy that begins with the individual as the basis of society, it is easy to assert that self-interest is the prime mover of all decisions. In a society (capitalism) that is founded on the premise that the economy is best organised by relying on people's self-interest coinciding with a wider good, it is easy to hold this point of view. Lately, the dichotomy of why people do altruistic things is even explained away by suggesting that the altruism is merely another expression of self-interest. Some evolutionary biologists rationalise that altruism confers an evolutionary advantage. We gain a sense of satsifaction by performing altruistic deeds, hence altruism coincides with selfishness.

It's compelling, but I think that it's wrong, and misanthropic. The basis of society is not the individual. Rather social classes and groups determine the nature of society. I think the enlightenment humanists solved the dichotomy. Man is a species-being, and the individual cannot be understood outside of the specific social and historical position in which they are situated. We are purposive, autonomous subjects and can make any decisions for any reasons. We put society at the top of our thoughts. We all have political points of view on how society should be organised, we are able to advocate freedoms and rights for others. We fight for causes, to the point of dying for them, which we have rationalised and understood through ethical analysis. Essentially, it is our nature to be social-beings.

[Daniel J Hulme]

Essentially, it is our nature to be social-beings.

Quality Dave! This is a trickster, but essentially I agree with the evolutionary biologists – however, I’m totally open to persuasion. Could you expand a little more:


The basis of society is not the individual. Rather social classes and groups determine the nature of society.

What makes the social classes and groups?

1. Is this going to start another thread…….Nature .vs Nurture?
2. Despite my fascination in this subject, is a Shorinji Kempo forum really the place for this type of discussion?

My interest is about how altruistic actually are we; specifically related to SK practitioners. What is the true motivation behind the decisions we make? There is a big difference between adhering to what we get told is right and wrong, and knowing what is right and wrong and behaving accordingly; both look the same on the surface.


I think the enlightenment humanists solved the dichotomy. Man is a species-being, and the individual cannot be understood outside of the specific social and historical position in which they are situated.

In what sense?


We are purposive, autonomous subjects and can make any decisions for any reasons. We put society at the top of our thoughts.

Really? I fear even more threads!

1. Do we live in a deterministic universe?
2. What is consciousness?


We all have political points of view on how society should be organised, we are able to advocate freedoms and rights for others. We fight for causes, to the point of dying for them, which we have rationalised and understood through ethical analysis.

I’m sure that there are evolutionary explanations for all of these, no?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Daniel

[Blackwood]

Might I suggest this? I had given up hopes of ever finding it online, but at last someone has added it to the vast repository of information that is the web.

"The Pragmatics of Patriotism" (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail212.html#RAH)

I find the definition and example compelling. And having served on active duty as an officer in the US Navy, this hit home a bit harder than most, but think it provides a good set of discussion points. And says it much better than I can!

Please note that I have not perused any of the other articles on the linked page and have little idea as to their content.

[Trevor Johnson]

Or, if you like Heinlein, this (http://www.wegrokit.com/shines.htm) one!

His graduation speech is a work of art, and I quite agree with it.

[David Dunn]

What makes the social classes and groups?

The short answer is history - the development and change of the structure of society begins with the division of labour, which makes production of the means of life a social affair. The history of society is the history of various forms of ownership and social relationships. The precise details of how classes emerge from primitive society has been the subject of debate for 160 years. The problem with evolutionary biology is that it takes the object - the human being - and tries to explain present society in terms of its evolution on the savannah. This completely neglects all intervening history, the struggle for survival, ownership and change of social relations as social antagonisms drive change and development of society. Human ideas are a product of both objective and subjective circumstances, and vary in time and space according to material and social conditions.

Society is the sum of all human relationships, not all human individuals, although the former is predicated on the existence of the latter. I assert that this is demonstrable by studying history. Social movements and economic conditions are more revealing than the particular individuals in history.



1. Is this going to start another thread…….Nature .vs Nurture?
2. Despite my fascination in this subject, is a Shorinji Kempo forum really the place for this type of discussion?


1. It's the same question - objectivity vs subjectivity. It's a false dichotomy. Humanity is both the subject and object of human history.

2. Dunno, you made the original assertion. I 'm happy to discuss it here.



My interest is about how altruistic actually are we; specifically related to SK practitioners. What is the true motivation behind the decisions we make? There is a big difference between adhering to what we get told is right and wrong, and knowing what is right and wrong and behaving accordingly; both look the same on the surface.


The aim of philosophy ought to be to aprehend the truth. Right and wrong are concepts that are determined by human beings, again in specific circumstances. How can you 'know' what is right? You can only 'know' something that is a truth. Right and wrong are questions of ethics, and become axioms of thought - they're the product of human labour, not products of nature. What's more, they are products of a battle of ideas, fought out in particular arenas.

Back on terra firma, if you're in an organisation, that organisation has precepts and rules of conduct, as well as procedures for changing those rules. Any organisation. If you're in the labour party, you don't stand on a platform and say you agree with the tory candidate, because your position in that organisation becomes untenable. You either attempt to change the policy of the organisation or you leave. Alternatively you subsume your own ideas - the basis of democracy.

History has a knack of throwing up time and again people who will devote their lives to causes. You know sometimes those people are particularly unpleasant individuals, yet somehow they are able to separate their narrow self interest from (usually) a move to a more universal social relationship.


In what sense?
I think I already answered that. You cannot understand much other than biology by taking a human being out of the social and historical concept in which they exist.



1. Do we live in a deterministic universe?


Yes.



2. What is consciousness?


Whatever it is that separates humans from objects. It is the product of history, and the sum total of all human relationships.



I’m sure that there are evolutionary explanations for all of these, no?


No, I don't think there are. We have not evolved biologically for our whole history, yet we have history. We are purposive, autonomous agents, that much is indisputable, and is perhaps an evolutionary legacy, but evolution doesn't explain what has happened in our history.

[Steve Williams]

1. Is this going to start another thread…….Nature .vs Nurture?
2. Despite my fascination in this subject, is a Shorinji Kempo forum really the place for this type of discussion?



You are exactly right, this is not the best place for this.

Lets give it its proper setting, probably "Budo No Kokoro", but I think it will get a better viewing in the lounge..... so I will put it in both, one for the "philosophocal view" one for the "view of the masses".... you can guess which is which ;)

[Trevor Johnson]

No, I don't think there are. We have not evolved biologically for our whole history, yet we have history. We are purposive, autonomous agents, that much is indisputable, and is perhaps an evolutionary legacy, but evolution doesn't explain what has happened in our history.

Take into account, though, that history is cyclical. It doesn't just progress, it can regress, and many of the themes within it, such as conflict, generation of law, growth of technology, etc, are recurrent with each cycle and are different with each cycle. Evolution provides clues to what we are programmed to do, it doesn't mean that what we are programmed to do is what we must do. Nurture can override it quite easily.

I actually take comfort sometimes in knowing that the sheer diversity of human customs continues. Take one example, harems and cheating. Here, harems only happen in Utah, and cheating is frowned upon. Other cultures of the world have different customs. With AIDS in Africa, it's biting them in the butt because of the promiscuity issues, but the benefit of that kind of society is quick rebuilding after most kinds of disaster, and lots of warm bodies to do the work.

Question, though. In your opinion, how much does technology and a feeling of security affect development of ethics? And how so?

Also, how much and how does the amount and type of violence within a society affect its ethics?