It seems logical to me that genuine altruism can exist. Natural selection would work in favor of an instinct to behave in ways which support the survival and thriving of other individuals who share genes with oneself. The most obvious example is the altruism of mothers toward offspring, which is seen in all mammal species. Any bloodline in which this instinct was absent would die off, since all mammals go through a period of total dependence in infancy and could not survive without help. Depending on the type of social organization a species has, in some cases even altruistic behavior toward individuals whose genetic overlap with oneself is smaller than in the mother-offspring case can still result in better chances for the survival of one’s genes than non-altruistic behavior does, and thus the instinct is reinforced.

Given that we surely do have some instinctive capacity for altruism for these reasons, and given that we have evolved the ability to treat individuals we do not know personally as members of a common community (one of the key differences between ourselves and our chimpanzee cousins, enabling us to form nations of 100 million instead of just chimpanzee-like clans of 100), and given further that all real-world human behavior is strongly influenced by culture, it seems perfectly believable that genuine altruistic feelings can sometimes exist even toward individuals who do not share any genes with us at all. It’s certainly more straightforward and plausible than the ever-more-tortuous arguments required to re-classify all apparently altruistic behavior as being ultimately soemhow rooted in self-interest.

You’ve brought up a good distinction between biological altruism and sociological altruism. I absolutely concur that biological altruism exists and is an evolutionary necessity.

But sociological altruism–where I perform an selfless act for another non-related human being–is another story altogether. Schopenhauer once made the argument that human beings will spontaneously reach out to save someone in a moment of crisis because it’s a metaphysical realization of the underlying truth that you and the other are indeed one but appear separate only through the phenomenal forms of time and space.

So, politically and sociologically, I would argue that almost every “altruistic” act in out society has an underlying basis of utter selfishness but that metaphysically, altruistic acts are not only selfless, they are the only religious expression worth anything in the world today.

I’m not sure I understand your point. It seems to me that people either perform altruistic acts or they don’t. “Biological” and “sociological” would be categories of reasons why they do (or don’t), not different categories of altruistic acts. Am I missing something?

Uncle Josh is altruistic. For example, he talked me into doing RSS. Now, I have the feeds for all my favorites coming in whenever they puke a new post out.

However, I feel funny about relying solely on that - so I stop by and visit all of them anyway. Which more than doubles the time I waste, I mean, work, yeah, that’s what I meant to say, on the computer.

That’s what true altruism is, right? Doing something that is meaningless to you, but affects someone else a lot, hopefully but not necessarily in a good way? Or, is it some new sort of post-post-modern-modern sex act that I’m not up on? If that’s what it is, pardon me.

Joshua — if you grant that altruistic impulses can exist as part of human nature due to our genetic heritage, why can’t at least some appeals by charitable organizations be rooted in genuine altruism? Maybe some aren’t, maybe some are. I see no reason to think that the most cynical interpretation of reality is necessarily the wisest one.

Hey Josh,

Is there such a thing as an altruistic act? I don’t think so.

I am a “do-gooder” and will go out of my way to help out people who need help; whether it’s due to their stoopidity or because they are unable. For my friends and family, I will go way beyond normal helping out; for aquaintences I will also go beyond the norm; for people I don’t care for, I will help if if it’s pressing or they are totally S.O.L.

I’ve been told I need to tame it down at times and because of that I’ve pondered why I am so willing to help people out. I haven’t come up with any particular reason but have decided to whatever extent is it for selfish reasons. I also feel a large part of it is based upon the golden rule.

In todays society, so many people are completely selfish and if something doesn’t benefit them, they don’t give it a second thought.

In my helpfullness, if part of the reason is because I wish to feel good about myself, is that anti-altruistic? Jeez, I need to look at myself in the mirror and not want to puke at WHO I see looking back at me.

Not quite on topic, but something that fired some synapses as I was writing this is that people’s lack of saying thank you is appaling. Along with that is people’s lack of acknowledging things done for them. Of course being helpful or ordering at a restaurant shouldn’t be done to get a thank you, but it would be nice to hear a thank you once and a while for efforts given or when someone supports the place that gives one a paycheck.

Asta Josh