PHIL 60: Egoism, Altruism, & Human Nature

An example of pure altruism would be a case where someone did not ultimately act out of self-interest.

As the NYT article asks: Is pure altruism possible? To answer that, what, in general, would be an example of pure altruism?

Charity check case

Couple who desperately wants kids but doesn't have them to avoid overpopulation.

Librescu case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSDmxCC2MjY

What are potential cases of pure altruism?

In many cases of 'altruism', the person feels pleasure from the action. In the charity case, 'actually that's selfish' the person might get a tax write-off. In the couple case, 'actually that's selfish' might get to brag to their yuppie friends about how noble they are (and avoid headaches of raising children). In Librescu case, he was still acting from desire, wanted to avoid a life of guilt. We could say, "Librescu, you're no hero, you just wanted to avoid survivor's guilt!" (Remember, some fates are worse than death, it's better to die now than die after 5 minutes of torture In all these cases, the egoist claims that here is a logically consistent, plausible story that can be told explaining that the seemingly altruistic action was ultimately self-interested because there was a selfish ulterior motive.

How might the egoist explain that these cases are actually selfish (i.e., cases of egoism)? That is how could we play the 'actually that's selfish' game?

Egoism is the view that the morally right thing to do is to maximize one's happiness/utility or self-interest. (I.e., Do whatever is best for you.)

What is egoism?

One argument that all actions are selfish: (1) All human actions necessitate desire (Hume/Lewis thesis). (2) Any action from desire is selfish. Thus (3) All human actions are selfish. And think about it, often times selfishness drives cooperation like in the A/B hunter gather case.

The egoist maintains that all human actions are ultimately self-interested or selfish. (Put another way, there's no morally good act that isn't selfish.) How can this be?

Not all desires are of the same type. A desire to steal is different from a desire to protect children. The latter isn't necessarily selfish. Consider Lewis' cold and warm desires. A case could be made that the former are sometimes altruistic. Also the author of the NYT article says there's a difference between satisfying a desire and being satisfied.

What's the reply to the previous argument?

Suppose he died before knew the students were safe.

What if we say that in the Librescu case, he benefitted from his action (because he got comfort in knowing he saved students), thereby making it selfish?

Suppose he actually felt guilty because he thought he could have done more, e.g., acted more swiftly. Oscar Schindler felt guilty. "This watch..." But what if he did it to avoid guilt. Possible, maybe even plausible, but isn't it at least conceivable that he wasn't worried about a guilty life.

But he benefitted in that he knew that he tried his best or because he avoided feelings of guilt.

If every action is by definition selfish, then the term 'selfish' can only be applied trivially. It's not a helpful term anymore, that is, to say of an action that it is selfish (i.e., a case of egoism) is just to say that it's an action. What if we did the same thing with 'red'. Red applies to somethings and not others. Selfish applies to some actions and not others. If red applies to all things by definition, then saying something is red isn't helpful. Similarly, if all actions are selfish, then saying something is self isn't helpful, that is, it doesn't really tell you anything, it isn't informative. Another way to think about it, theories that are true no matter what are dubious. They certainly are not scientific. Popper argued that all good scientific theories must be falsifiable. So "Everything happens for a reason" or "God doesn't give us more than we can handle" sound nice and might have pragmatic value in believing them, but what's the difference between "reasonable" bulletpoof (or unfalsifiable theories) and "unreasonable" ones "like all trees on campus do backflips when no one is looking (or recording) and go back when you do without leaving a trace." Also, think about the "everything happens for a reason theory" suppose tomorrow it's WWII, "ETHFAR", then next day, aliens come and torture us" "ETHFAR", then next day it's even worse aliens, and so on. If you could say it no matter what, then doesn't it lose it's meaning. There may be pragmatic value but maybe at too high a cost, Christian Scientist case of not giving kids medicine without with they would die. And infallible theories can be at least neutralize by their infallible negations, like "nothing happens for a reason" Which theory wins? Has to be a tie.

What's the problem with purporting that all human actions are selfish by definition?

Taking up two spots

Robbing the class case

What are examples of pure egoism/selfishness?

One retort to the claim that all actions are selfish is to flip the argument on its head and vehemently claim that, in fact, all actions are ultimately altruistic and that there is no pure selfishness. That is, you could just as easily defend the idea that no selfishness exists. For any so-called selfish acts we need only say, 'actually' that's altruistic. With the person taking up two spots, you could say that they want to encourage people to get exercise by parking further away. There's the George Castanza case where everyone claims he's selfish. 'Seemingly' he says but 'actually' he was a brave leader leading the way. If that's right, then which theory wins? It's gotta be a draw

What's another way to challenge the psychological egoist?

Perhaps instead of all actions being selfish, there are degrees of altruism and egoism.

Some argue that there are degrees of altruism & selfishness. What does that mean?

Problems for ethical egoism.

1. Even if we can stamp all acts as selfish, we still need a practical way to distinguish, say, robbing the whole vs. giving all my money to class. (jumping on grenade vs. pushing students over to avoid it)

2. Opera case. Theory says okay to give to opera over famine relief. Intuition: give to famine relief. (what about 'adult film arts')

3. Inconsistent: Giant's game case.

4. Peeping Tom case.

5. Sometimes we mess up: Smoking, Eating junk food, and other self-destructive behavior

What are problems for ethical egoism?

18th century French

Wrote The Social Contract

Provide some historical background of Jean Jacques Rousseau

The benefits of Moving to society is greatly outweigh drawbacks. We go from instincts to morality. We keep our instincts in check.

Sum up the thinking in the except from Rousseau's TSC

Hobbes believed that human nature was selfish and he imagined this would be clear if we could witness human behavior tens of thousands of years ago in the state of nature where there is little to no social agreements or cooperation. Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. He is credited with the notion of the 'noble savage', i.e., a bit like the Navi are depicted in James Cameron's Avatar. The Navi are innocent, live in an untouched, pristine natural setting, and haven't been uncorrupted evils of capitalistic, materialistic, corporatocracy society. Some have criticized this concept as racist, as it depicts 'natives' as unintelligence, naive, and as almost sub-human without a true sense of agency, rights, and personhood.

What did Hobbes and Rousseau have to say about human nature?

The saying and the case both suggest that moral human behavior is much more driven by morally arbitrary factors like recently finding change in a phone booth or whether we happened to have a hearty breakfast, and less driven by the goodness of human nature.

In our discussion of human nature, we debated about whether human nature is good (or altruistic), evil (or bad/selfish/egotistical), or neutral. What did the found money in the phone booth case (See https://imgur.com/3w55try & https://imgur.com/utKXtKV) seem to reveal about human nature? What about the saying "Justice is what the judge had for breakfast"?

It would only be a matter of time before an 'incorruptible' person shows their true colors if given absolute power (represented by a ring that makes one invisible)

What's Plato's ring of gyges suggest about human nature?

Ring of Gyges, Socrates and Thrasymachus, Lord of the Rings, Lord of the Flies, The Invisible Man, Riker episode of Star Trek, Walking Dead, Lost.

What literature, film, classic philosophical texts, and TV depict absolute power or one being able to get away with not following the contract?

Glaucon is a moral skeptic. He believed that 'justice' is a necessary evil and if we could get away with acting unjustly, we would. He tries to prove this with a thought experiment in which there is a magical ring that would make the wearer invisible. (Sound like Lord of the Rings? -- it is!) Give the ring to even the most just person and it will only be a matter of time before even they become corrupt. This sentiment was echoed by British Historian, Lord Acton's saying: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Glaucon argues that we do whatever we can get away with. Justice is just a means to an end and only has instrumental value (Hobbesian) whereas for Plato/Socrates justice has instrumental and intrinsic/ultimate value.

Watch Tamar Gendler, Yale Philosophy Professor, during 11-16:30 min of this video: (https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-1). What is Glaucon's challenge and how does the Ring of Gyges story go?

"Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." Thrasymachus was a sophist.

Sophistry -- using, e.g., non-rational ploys (instead of reason) to persuade, deceive, & manipulate. (Think of Jeff Winger's Character in "Community" https://imgur.com/Gkd9GrD.) This makes both a moral nihilist (those who say morality doesn't exist) and a pessimist about human nature.

What does Thrasymachus say to Socrates about Justice in Book I?