On the surface one might suggest that it is possible. When I go shovel my neighbour's driveway when he is terminally ill with cancer – that could be considered truly selfless. Right? I mean he has does not have the ability to repay me for it in kind and if I refuse to accept any other sort of payment for the work then I have indeed met the obligation of a truly altruistic action. Right?
Could it be that there is more to it than that? Is it possible to think about every human action in the same way that Newton thought about physical objects in motion? If this is true than we should be able to construct something akin to a relational action equation with a zero SUM. What happens on one side of the relationship must be balanced with an equally significant action on the other part.
So I mow your lawn when you are out of town and you mow mine when I am out of town. This then in mathematical terms is a reciprocal relationship. You can easily see how we can put an equal sign between these two actions. But what about the snow shoveling scenario? It would seem that the two sides of the relationship are not equal since I will not be getting anything in return for my action. But is that really true?
If I do something for my neighbour, I still actually get some things coming back to me across that equation even if they do not come directly from the person I am serving. The first thing I get back is a good feeling. Add to that the idea that by doing this action I am meeting my obligations to my religious beliefs which add to my sense of accomplishment (in some religious systems these acts of kindness might qualify me for greater eternal rewards as well). Not only that this action gives me a better standing in society. When my neighbour’s kids come over and he mentions that I did this nice thing for him well they are impressed and feel they owe me something. Even if I refuse to accept anything – they will talk to their friends and family and in the end my personal rating go up. I have more money in the relationship bank. Now in fairness if I did it completely anonymously no one would know that I did it so that social capital would not increase for me.
But even in the case of the anonymous giver – the gift itself can be enough payment. Think of the anonymous donor of a million dollars to a hospital. Does she get increased status? Well it would seem not except that when it comes to being sick this person will ultimately benefit from the increased capacity of the organization to which they have given money. So we can’t say that the action is disinterested or that there is no return on investment.
If I do something out of a sense of duty – it means that I accept that there is already a deficit in my relational account. I accept that I owe society a debt of selflessness for what I have already received. Duty works like a mortgage in this case and it forces us to accept that we are inherently in a deficit position toward others. Duty constructs the self as a perpetually deficient entity that necessarily needs to repay the debt which the self has accrued – naturally.
So maybe there is no such a thing as a truly altruistic action. Maybe real selflessness is a fiction that works conveniently to reinforce our sense of duty toward each other which in turns us into depreciated goods in constant need to redeem our deficit…
5 comments:
How about an Ayn Rand quote.
"When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal, selfish importance to you and to your life. If you were selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
sure
interesting quotation to be sure and it seems to follow the logic upon which my original post was framed.
I think that the logic is frustratingly circular and her point might be just as easily fictious as the advocate of altruisms actual existance.
Consider that, following Rand's logic one could also argue that the most important action that any human could perform is to seek to satisfy the needs and wants of others - at the expense of one's own desires - in order to ensure one's own hedonistic pursuits are met by the people he craves to have his own pleasure fulfilled by. (reciprocity in action) So self-sacrifice appears to be self-indulgence which seems opposed to the refusal to sacrifice one's desires.
According to Rand the purest of loves is self-serving in order to pay the greatest compliment to the other. But then why would a self-serving love be interested in paying a compliment to another - well only if giving that compliment can increase the givers getting - if you follow my meaning...
The logic seems circular and fantastically frustrating.
To me this suggests that the way we understand the motivations of actions is worth tearing apart. It does not inevitably lead to amorality (to anticipate a potential argument) but it does complexify the nature of motivation and role of self-indulgence and self-sacrifice in the producing actions. I think it also necessarily forces us to investigate the way action are commodified in the social sphere.
It also suggests that there might be a third way to view altruism that is not intrinsically connected to the self.
"Consider that, following Rand's logic one could also argue that the most important action that any human could perform is to seek to satisfy the needs and wants of others - at the expense of one's own desires - in order to ensure one's own hedonistic pursuits are met by the people he craves to have his own pleasure fulfilled by. "
I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to convey here. Are you saying that Rand's logic leads one people wanting to satisfy other peoples needs so in turn they can get their own needs met by the people they tried to satisfy? I don't really understand your point here.
While I think it is possible that one factor in giving a compliment maybe to increase the "givers getting" but I doubt it if it is always a factor or even essential in one giving a compliment. She kind of answers the question of "why would a self-serving love be interested in paying a compliment to another" in the quote. It is in part a payment for the happiness and pleasure from the company and existence of the person you love. The compliment is basically acknowledging a reality.
So you and I are in a coffee shop. We both want coffee and we both have the money to pay for only one coffee. You seem to think that it would be logical for me to pay for your coffee so that you will buy me the coffee I desire in return. I really don't know how you deduced that this would be the logical action of self interested person.
By singular productive action do you mean an action that once done would cement a persons love for another person regardless of any previous or following actions? Who would claim such a thing existed?
What's wrong about me not wanting to scratch your back without a trade for something else of value. Should I be happy to be someone's back scratching slave?
"That admission is a naturally inferior position one that cannot be sustained"
Is there supposed to be a period between 'position' and 'one.'. Can you please explain to me what you think is unsustainable and why?
"So you and I are in a coffee shop. We both want coffee and we both have the money to pay for only one coffee. You seem to think that it would be logical for me to pay for your coffee so that you will buy me the coffee I desire in return."
Your coffee shop example makes sense in the context given. If productivity is the concern then it would be simply inefficient for those two people to buy each other a coffee. Where I believe your example fails is the situation where neither person has the means to acquire what they want or possibly need.
Considering the love between two human beings as a purely selfish act seems illogical simply because of the two people's need for one another.
"Should I be happy to be someone's back scratching slave?"
If love was a purely selfish act, done for one's own satisfaction, then one would think that the simplest way to go about this would be for the more powerful of the two involved to do exactly this and force another to be their "back scratching slave". But I think you and I can both agree that this is in no way as fulfilling as a reciprocating relationship of love being given and received. I think that considering a relationship between two human beings as either purely selfish or purely altruistic is simply impossible. If one could find a fulfilling relationship where only one party was receiving then the purely selfish love would be possible. The fact of the matter which Ayn Rand and, I believe, most of humanity recognizes is that we need each other and when that need is expressed in its purest form (love) it is in fact a reciprocating relationship.
I do not claim to understand exactly how to classify this type of relationship but I think to argue that it is either purely altruistic or selfish is quite impossible. This puts forward the question of why our most fulfilling relationships do in fact demand some sacrifice on our own part. Going back to the original post, the duty we have toward one another in order to gain fulfillment in relationships strikes to the core of human interaction and seems like something much deeper than a flawless act of selfishness or altruism.
Post a Comment