Altruism v. charity
It’s the end of the holiday season, but the memories are fresh in our minds. Since Christmas is supposed to be a season of giving, let’s use those memories to respond to a request that I defend the assertion that “Nature selects against purely altruistic behavior”. Jump in the car of your imagination, crank ‘er up, and drive with me to the local Wal-Mart parking lot of two weeks ago…
You park the car near the back of the lot and get out into the cold wintry air. It’s gently snowing and there is a brisk wind coming in from the north and west. You can see your breath, snow is crunching under your boots, and you begin walking towards the door, dodging the occasional slushy puddle from where some fellow sat in the truck, waiting for his wife rather than going in, and the truck melted the snow. When you get closer to the door, someone goes to plaid as they back their car out of their parking spot at ludicrous speed, without looking, forcing you to come to an abrupt halt. As the sounds of your cursing cease to echo off the front of the rock monstrosity that is a Wal-Mart, a ringing is heard, along with a boisterous “Ho Ho Ho”.
Glancing up between your scarf and your sock hat, you spy jolly ol’ St. Nick standing by the door, ringing a hand bell. Out in front of him is a little plastic well, maybe a bucket, with an odd assortment of loose change and a handfull of bills down at the bottom. On the well, a sign describing the name of some charity which is humbly asking for your donation to help others during the holidays. You go by the Santa, into the store and do your shopping, more concerned with the welcome blast of heat than you are the Santa’s bucket.
After you finish shopping and paying for your goods, you’re pushing your cart out the door, and as you roll by the Santa, freezing his naughty bits off standing out in the cold ringing that bell, you drop the change the cashier just handed you into his bucket, and he nods, telling you “Thank you”, and giving you a good curdling with his halitosis as a gift for your generosity.
Isn’t altruism wonderful?
<hideous screeching sound of a needle being dragged off a playing record>
Hold up.
That’s not altruism.
al·tru·ism
Zoology Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
The qualification for altruism is that an effect which is “detrimental to the individual” occurs as a result of an action. You are in no way harmed by tossing some change at a drunk begging for money. Not in this day and age.
Modern civilization has done an awful lot for humanity. The division of labor is a powerful thing, and it has effectively removed all the challenges of living for the average American. Up until essentially the last 100 – 150 years, the amount of work required for you to grow your own food, find your own water, and provide for your own shelter and clothing took up 100% of your time, and even then, it wasn’t always enough. Back then, giving of yourself might actually be the difference between the receiving stranger getting through the week, and your kids getting through the winter, a situation which really is a no-brainer for most of humanity, isn’t it?
I’m here to tell you, humans aren’t altruistic when it’s life and death. You never see anyone giving so much to charity that they and their kids are kicked out of their homes, or go hungry for weeks on end, now do you? That’s what altruism really is, y’all. That’s why the Progressives need the government to force us to be altruistic at the end of a gun barrel. That’s why religions try to bribe us to be altruistic by promising us intangible rewards we can’t get until after we die. We have to be bribed or forced to commit altruistic acts, because they harm us, as individuals. There is nothing threatening your existence if you part ways with some pocket change.
As a proof of this, examine the reaction of the species when someone who is truly altruistic happens to live. Mother Teresa was the only person I can recall who was even somewhat altruistic during the last century, and we revered her because she was so uncommon. As popular as she was, she certainly didn’t inspire many millions of others to follow her example, now did she? And how did nature reward her behavior, the ceaseless, selfless drive to which she dedicated her life? She didn’t have any kids, she was too dedicated to taking care of other people’s children to have any time for her own genetic material…
Guess that genetic line got cut off? From an evolutionary standpoint, Mother Teresea was an unsuccessful attempt.
Thus we come to the difference between altruism and charity: Charity is a value-for-value exchange. You give the hungry bum a couple of dollars, you get happy feelings in return. Your life is in no way threatened or harmed, thus, we’re not dealing with an altruistic behavior. The high and mighty feeling some people apparently get when giving to a charity is what they’re paying the money for.
M. Simon hit this on the head in my post on Tiger Woods (here). Once the government begins to force your giving, you cease to have claim to any feelings of moral goodness, and the act ceases to be charity. It becomes robbery. We can examine the proof of it.
In reality, altruism is a horrible thing, and only someone with a really sick paradigm would revel in it. Let’s take a look at something I discovered when I was researching this post. It’s from the Wikipedia article for altruism, specifically the section being offered up as proof that altruism occurs in nature, in the face of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body.
Oh, the beauty of altruism, some small segment of the population selflessly dying so that their brother and sister slime molds may live on! Hogwash. You know what I see when I read that? I see this:
The slime molds were starving. As they cast about for a solution to their starvation, they eyed some of their less fit, somewhat plump brethren. Giving in to their desire for life, the great mass of slime molds banded together, rose up, and murdered their less fortunate brethren so that they may continue to live on their remains.
See? One researcher can look at that and see “altruism”, I look at it and see “democracy” and “a mob killing and looting”. I guess it’s all in semantics, eh?
You know what? We should celebrate the fate of the of the Donner Party! That’s slime-mold-like altruism at work! Granted, the people were already dead, but we need to put aside those feelings of revulsion at the act, and give thanks for the dearly departed-then desecrated who made life possible for the rest of the people! What a noble thing.
Or we should rejoice every time we watch the nature channel and see the old, the young, the lame, and the sick wildebeests “sacrifice” themselves “for the good of the herd”, not cry and get upset by thinking of it as “The predators killed the young, the old, and the sick with no complaint from the rest of the herd”. It’s beautiful altruism at work…
No, nature does most certainly select against altruistic behavior, as it does any behavior which doesn’t increase the chances of you passing on your genetic material. Humanity is not constantly engaged in activities which threatens the existence of the actors, no on is committing real acts of altruism, no one is giving so much that their life is being threatened without any reward for themselves. Trying to compare the charity of giving some money out of your pocket to altruism is like trying to compare giving someone a paper cut on their pinky to first degree murder, not even in the same ball park, from a moral nor an evolutionary standpoint.
P.S. M. Simon:
If you examine the paragraphs in my Tiger Woods post on the theory of natural selection being the founding for morality, you’ll see that I was satisfying Mr. Hamilton’s rule when I mentioned that family was a secondary genetic priority. Your family has enough of your genetic material to satisfy the natural impulse to protect your genetic material, thus the reason you look after your family is because you are getting some form of natural reward from it. That’s not altruism.
Latest posts by Mike McGowan (Posts)
- From one single father to the next - July 20, 2012
- Why isn’t anyone talking about the man - February 13, 2012
- Questions about the power of precedent - February 8, 2012
- Suffer not the Innocent to find relief - February 2, 2012
- Romney v. Newt: How the GOP and the conservative media killed the TEA Party - January 31, 2012
Print This Post
Good post, Mike .. though you and I will have to ‘agree to disagree’ over what we gain from charitable contributions. I believe we get so much more than just “happy feelings in return.”
As for altruism … I agree, there might not be much to be found in the parking lot of your local super-mart. But what about elsewhere? In the battlefield, for existance. Growing up in a military family, I was surrounded by examples of altruism, listening to stories of those who gave the ‘last full measure of their devotion’ in service to their country, told by those who were ready to follow in their footsteps when called upon.
I also think about firefighters rushing into a blazing building, police officers moving in to defuse a bomb or an armed standoff, chaplains offering their life vests to others on a sinking ship, Chinese students confronting tanks at Tianamen Square, passengers on a hijacked airliner deciding to “Let’s Roll.”
True, none of these acts favor the survival of the individual actors, or increase the chances that they will pass on their genetic material. But they do favor the survival – and, perhaps, the enoblement – of the species.
In every situation you mentioned, the person diving on the grenade to save his buddy, the bomb defuser, the life vest offering of the chaplain, there is an equal value-for-value exchange. No one throws themselves on top of a grenade to save the enemy, or a complete stranger.
In every situation you listed, the person performing the *charitable* act was simply doing their job. When you sign up for the military, you are supposed to consider yourself already dead. You lose all of your freedoms, and if your ranking officer tells you to march into withering gun fire, up and into formation you go. The military takes care of you, and in return you are the military’s. You’re no longer a person, you’re a chess piece. Who wouldn’t sacrifice one piece to save 10?
This is the reason I am such a supporter of the people who volunteer to serve in the military. They do a necessary job I couldn’t/wouldn’t do.
The police officer takes an oath to protect and serve, and if that officer is defusing a bomb, the odds are that the person is fully aware of the demands of their work due to the many hours of specialized training they’ve gotten in the past.
The clergyman is certainly handing over the life vest because “God wants him to”, and he’s doing what God wants in expectation of a reward in heaven. And don’t for a moment think that this is typical behavior amongst preachers.
All of these people were doing the job they chose to work. They all sustained themselves by performing this job before it lead to their demise. They got paid for their job, but in this particular instance, the job duties called for their lives. I see no difference between these deaths and those of coal mine workers buried in a cave in, or loggers getting cut when their chainsaw slips. Natural, normal hazards of the job.
There is another thing I would like to point out: Your response only strengthens my argument that altruistic acts aren’t the norm, and that the vast majority of us don’t act in any altruistic manner whatsoever.
You say: “I was surrounded by examples of altruism, listening to stories of those who gave the ‘last full measure of their devotion’ in service to their country…”
Notice that the acts you consider altruistic are rare enough to inspire memory? They’re the things people see and remember, a mere handful of minutes’ worth of experiences, over the course of lives many years long, where someone did something “not normal”….
PS: Thank you for reading! I appreciate it!
You lost me when you suggested that sacrificing one’s own income does not constitute an example of cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
Isn’t Income earned via labor over time? labor now not going to the individuals survival but to others’ survival… seems like it fits the definition quite well. Your example is an imperceptible amount of detriment, however extrapolate and you’ll notice its still a degree of detriment however small.
the definition calls for detriment to the altruistic individual, yet you spend the whole essay as if the detriment must be so severe that it is a risk to the survival of the individual. This is not explicit in the definition, this is something, you’ve mistakenly projected onto it. Or perhaps you’ve subconsciously redefined it for the purposes of this essay.
It seems to me that you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Giving up your change as you leave Wal-Mart doesn’t quite make you Mother Teresea, now does it?
Not really even close to something like snatching a kid out from in front of a speeding bus and then taking the hit yourself, now is it?
Real altruism is pretty stupid, when you think about it. It’s like giving so much food to the food pantry that your kids starve, or dontaing so much money that you can’t pay your mortgage.
For example: In the Bible, the widow giving her last pennies as a tithe is what impresses Jesus, not the rich men carefully counting out their 10%. They aren’t being altruistic, not like she was, and yet Jesus said that she was the one worthy of heaven…
There is a difference between altruism, which is stupid when done correctly, and charity, which is done for warm, fuzzy feelings and a sense of moral superiority.
Which is what I spent the whole article discussing.
Thanks for reading!
Mike, I enjoyed reading your original post, and I’ve enjoyed the ensuing discussion … although I must, with all due respect, continue to disagree with some of your points.
Are there those for whom charity is practiced solely for “warm, fuzzy feelings and a sense of moral superiority?” Yes … I’d be a fool to say otherwise. But, at the same time, I suggest that there are those for whom acts of charity make good civic, even business sense.
Charitable contributions – whether they’re a few cans of food to the local soup kitchen, or a few million dollars to the local college – are also investments in the community, and efforts to raise the standard-of-living for all in that community. There is a saying about the tide, and how it raises all boats … one way we raise those boats is through contributions that provide warm meals and shelters for the homeless, education and training (or re-training) for the workforce, vaccinations and healthcare, arts and entertainment, home restorations and neighborhood revitalizations.
And the more that we – as private individuals – contribute through charity, the less that we – as taxpayers – need to contribute through government programs.
Jeff:
Thank you for reading! I appreciate it.
However, I do not see why you disagree with my thoughts on altruism. I state and defend the hypothesis that charity is not altruism, it’s a value-for-value exchange.
It doesn’t matter if the value you get in return for your contribution is a feeling, or business advertising, you’re still getting something in return, thus, this is not altruism. Remember, value is a subjective term, and different things are more or less valuable for different people. The individual decides what is and is not valuable for themselves.
I do not argue that charity is a good thing, nor would I argue that the American people don’t need to devise better methods of dispersing funds through charity to lessen the need for government. I agree whole-heartedly with it. I’d rather see voluntary assistance than the rise of government-sanctioned armed robbery.
All I’m saying is that the two, altruism and charity, are not one and the same. Altruism is assistance with no gain for yourself. That’s why we consider it to be “selfless”. Obviously, no creature on Earth would willingly engage in such behavior, this is why governments force us to give to the needy by taking money from us at the point of the gun and redistributing it themselves (also helping themselves to the votes that come with the forced handouts) and why religions try to bribe us into it with promises of rewards after we die.
We do not have any other reason to contribute our time, our money, our very lives, for others unwilling or unable to do the same. We are not supposed to yoke ourselves to the inability of others to provide for their own wants and desires. This makes us a slave to their need, and that’s not freedom, nor liberty.
Altruism runs counter to our natural instincts, our basic programming. Charity, with the value we get in return for our contributions, does not.
Great article and discussion. This echoes a similar notion that I have espoused over the years, that true altruism doesn’t even exist. However, my argument is nagged doggedly by a Discovery Channel program I saw a while ago. (and you know that everyhting on the Discovery Channel is true and indisputable…fact…you can look it up).
Apparently, the African wild dog (or more specifically a pack of wild dogs) is the most successful pack hunter on the planet. Ok this isn’t so shocking and when they show aerial footage of how the hunt is set up and executed, it isn’t so hard to believe why they are successful. However, the shocking part comes after the kill is made.
The dogs run for very long periods of time over the course of the hunt and part of why they are so successful is how well they work together and share the responsibilities of pursuit. But when the kill is made, food is actually saved for the injured and old. Everything I have seen in nature shows me that the strong eat first…get their fill…and the rest get their chance. I believe lion cubs eat last.
So the fact that a successful hunt ends in some portions of food being apportioned to those that did not or could not contribute says something about animals in general and altruism existing. Like I said earlier, this only is problem for my assertion that altruism doesn’t exist. It is not proof that I’m wrong…I don’t think.
As is implied in the article, too many people mistake charity for altruism. Charity is an inherently selfish act. The negative connotation of the owrd selfish must be removed before one can accept that charity is selfish. But altruism is a fanciful idea that is not natural.
united we stand, divided we fall.
it doesn’t change one little bit at all.
i and my will certainly win for them,
until the goose is cooked, it’s eye’s dim.
then horrible things happen,
for all.
“No one throws themselves on top of a grenade to save the enemy, or a complete stranger.”
This article is so very wonderful. Really made me think and who doesn’t like to think?
Ok liberals aside…..there are a lot of people who like to think.
Anyhow, are you stating that altruism doesn’t exist?
Because in making such a statement you are, in essence, declaring that you know everybody’s heart. No?
Jesus so LOVED us that He laid down His life that we might live.
Altruistic?
Hypothetical:
Troop of U.S. soldiers do reconnaissance on the home of a known terrorist. They see him, his wife, and his daughter at the home. They know the mother and the daughter always leave every morning to go to the local village market. Their plan is to attack the terrorist as soon as they see the mother and daughter leave.
Morning comes and the mother and daughter leave and get out of sight so the troops begin their maneuvers. Time lapse is about 30 minutes. They move in.
Soldier “A” tosses a grenade blindly into a room where the terrorist was spotted and yet soldier “B” quickly sees the daughter in the room with the terrorist. Soldier B then runs into the room and falls on the grenade to save the child that belongs to the enemy. He dies.
Altruistic?
Another example:
A man is driving on an interstate section in a very bad area of town. Statistics show that nearly one murder happens every week in this particular area and it is well known. He sees some young women stranded on the side of the road in this area. To top it off it’s about minus 10 degrees outside. They ran out of gas but have to be at a close friend’s funeral within an hour. He looks at his own gauge and has about a gallon or two at the most. He siphons all of it out and gives it to the girls and tells them he wants to be sure they make it to the funeral and that he’ll be fine.
Not altruistic?
You said in response to Jeff:
In every situation you listed, the person performing the *charitable* act was simply doing their job.
Again, then you have to say that the heart of the Chaplain had nothing to do with his actions and that he only handed them the life vest because he was getting paid to be a Chaplain. The same with the policeman. There are many officers who would never try to save someone even though they’re being paid. So I can’t buy that Jeff’s examples only did so because it was their job.
By the way…being a libertarian what do you think of the philosophy of Ayn Rand? Do you agree with her sentiments here:
“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” Ayn Rand
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.” Ayn Rand
Thanks for posting a very thought provoking article. Though I realized I’m late to the party…….I enjoyed it immensely. Well done.
.
Oh, “how did the daughter get back into the room with her father?”
After the mother and daughter walked out of sight the soldiers quit watching them. While preparing for maneuvers they did not notice the girl go behind the village homes and enter into the back of the house to come back and be with her father.
Or pick your own scenario.