3 ms·

Yep, the article is completely missing the point. My favorite bit: "Those who maintain that being moral consists in being altruistic have no alternative but to

Yep, the article is completely missing the point. My favorite bit: "Those who maintain that being moral consists in being altruistic have no alternative but to base that belief on some form of mysticism" It's like they haven't heard of the iterated prisoner's dilemma or something.

jhickner 17y ago
Illustrations like the prisoner's dilemma help convey how an entire group can benefit from certain behaviors, but they're less useful when making decisions as a lone, rational actor with access to many different groups and no reason to keep iterating. And even if such illustrations were more helpful, they wouldn't rise to the same level as an imperative moral code. Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome?
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome? Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others. Altruism seems to be built into most human brains, and it would take a lot of conditioning to overcome. Most importantly, I think eliminating altruism would lead to a world where average quality of life was lower. (Of course, these altruistic tendencies are what cause me to care about average quality of life.)
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others." I do, to, but I also feel that often it's because it has been drilled into me.
- anthonyb 17y ago
  The main thing that you're missing is that people are social animals. That's how we've evolved, and why we have most of the cognitive biases/moral standpoints that we do (eg. punishing defectors/fairness/not killing other people for their stuff). This is Richard Dawkins' argument in a nutshell - you are essentially a paleolithic tribesman in a suit. If you prefer to look at it from a purely sociopathic amoral viewpoint, your ability to be a lone, rational actor is largely dependent on your interactions with society. You just have to look at people like Ted Kazcynski to see how completely independent actors live.
mike_organon 17y ago
Altruism does not mean doing things that in some way, directly or indirectly, benefit others. Nor does it have a monopoly on being nice or friendly to others. Instead, it means having a moral duty to serve others, acting in ways that avoid helping oneself. Some very influential altruist philosophers take it so far as to say you should suffer when helping others. Always, for your entire life. Contemporary altruists may not demand so much, but they do demand sacrifice, and deride self-interest. Game theory doesn't explain altruism. It wouldn't even convince people that capitalism (with full protection of individual rights) is a decent system to support. It's a game, and can be interpreted many ways, including self-interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

jhickner 17y ago

Illustrations like the prisoner's dilemma help convey how an entire group can benefit from certain behaviors, but they're less useful when making decisions as a lone, rational actor with access to many different groups and no reason to keep iterating. And even if such illustrations were more helpful, they wouldn't rise to the same level as an imperative moral code. Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome?

AngryParsley 17y ago
Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome? Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others. Altruism seems to be built into most human brains, and it would take a lot of conditioning to overcome. Most importantly, I think eliminating altruism would lead to a world where average quality of life was lower. (Of course, these altruistic tendencies are what cause me to care about average quality of life.)
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others." I do, to, but I also feel that often it's because it has been drilled into me.
anthonyb 17y ago
The main thing that you're missing is that people are social animals. That's how we've evolved, and why we have most of the cognitive biases/moral standpoints that we do (eg. punishing defectors/fairness/not killing other people for their stuff). This is Richard Dawkins' argument in a nutshell - you are essentially a paleolithic tribesman in a suit. If you prefer to look at it from a purely sociopathic amoral viewpoint, your ability to be a lone, rational actor is largely dependent on your interactions with society. You just have to look at people like Ted Kazcynski to see how completely independent actors live.

mike_organon 17y ago

Altruism does not mean doing things that in some way, directly or indirectly, benefit others. Nor does it have a monopoly on being nice or friendly to others. Instead, it means having a moral duty to serve others, acting in ways that avoid helping oneself. Some very influential altruist philosophers take it so far as to say you should suffer when helping others. Always, for your entire life. Contemporary altruists may not demand so much, but they do demand sacrifice, and deride self-interest. Game theory doesn't explain altruism. It wouldn't even convince people that capitalism (with full protection of individual rights) is a decent system to support. It's a game, and can be interpreted many ways, including self-interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism