Logical arguments for why one ought to be altruistic?

[elnate]

"[T]here is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: ‘Why?’ Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given." ---Ayn Rand [Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 61–62]

Someone tried to logically prove to me why one ought to be altruistic. I found a list of logical fallacies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies and I'd like to know which one's apply to what he wrote. This is what he said...

"You should be altruistic because in the long run it will be beneficial not only to society, but also to yourself. Being altruistic fosters and encourages a society in which people help those in need of help, which ultimately means you will be helped when you need it. Conversely, altruism also encourages a society where negative acts against others are discouraged, meaning for yourself that you are less likely to be attacked, stolen from, killed, raped, etc. On the evolutionary level it means that a society that protects and helps each other, and does not ransack his fellow man whenever he deems it beneficial to himself in the short run, has a greater chance of survival, both for the group as a whole, as well as for the individual within that group, which in the end leads to a much increased probability of reproduction, which is the ultimate evolutionary goal of any individual being."

I believe he commited the the broken window fallacy. Take a look at this, it's only 3 minutes. It's a good explanation of the this logical fallacy. The Broken Window Fallacy -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs

After watching it, replace the hooligan with the store owner breaking his own window instead, and now you have the exact same altruistic argument which is guilty of using this logical fallacy. What do you think?


A little more analysis on top of what I said in regards to the broken window fallacy.

His first argument is a contradiction. If you are told that you should do something because it’s in your own interest then you are NOT being advised to be altruistic.

He doesn't define altruism. Ayn Rand wasn’t criticizing benevolence and good will when she argued against altruism. In fact, she felt her morality of self-interest provided the foundation for both of these things.

Now, for instance, lets say someone is in need, so much need that they require someone to care for them for all their life. You don’t want to do this, and you know it won’t be good for you, but according to altruism, you should. How does this benefit you in the long run? Why does society matter in this situation? Why do your genes matter at this point?

Finally, the argument that the main goal of life is to reproduce. That’s all. No ifs, ands, or buts. Yes, it’s that true that for praying mantis, the purpose of life is to reproduce. The male is eaten while he inseminates his mate, so that she can have enough energy to lay her eggs. The male allows this happen because his sole purpose is to pass on his genes.

How does that apply to humans? While some of us are equipped to reproduce, it doesn’t mean that reproduction is our ‘ultimate evolutionary goal’. In fact, there is no such thing as an ‘ultimate evolutionary goal’, because evolution has no goals. Evolution is not a planned process. It does no engineering. The end products were never visualized. No goals exist. There is no thought of failure or success. There is no seeking of perfection. There is no seeking of anything. Evolution does not do anything. It only happens. As animals we are sexual beings, but that doesn’t mean we only have sex for the purpose of reproduction. This is really easy to prove: people who are infertile have sex, get married, etc; couples who are fertile may also choose not to have children for a variety of reasons.. yet they are still a ‘couple’ and they still have sex. So there are other reasons why individuals unite and have sexual relationships, besides reproduction. If you don’t believe it, try to go up to the first woman you see and ask her if she’ll have sex with you. If reproduction is her ultimate goal, she’ll say yes. (That’s what a preying mantis would do, right, so why wouldn’t a human?)

Just to add a little more.

Consider the first sentence, “You should be altruistic because in the long run, it will be beneficial not only to society, but also to yourself.” Altruism, by definition, is sacrificing one’s self for the sake of others. This is antithetical to the furtherance of the self and in no way could “be beneficial.” I think you’re confusing kindness with altruism, so I’ll point out that kindness and good will towards others are conditional acts, filtered by the virtue of justice. We treat those we judge to be valuable with kindness. An argument could be made that other people in a society are valuable as partners in trade, and thus could reasonably be treated kindly.

Take a look at the next sentence, “Being altruistic fosters and encourages a society in which people help those in need of help, which ultimately means you will be helped when you need it.” To which I would reply, “Says who?” Altruism does not guarantee that you will be helped. Altruism is simply a moral philosophy telling individuals what they ought to do. You’re extrapolating a moral philosophy into probabilities that, in reality, contain far more variables than you’re willing to admit. Furthermore, history has shown altruism to give birth to the most heinous dictatorships (Soviet Russia, Hitler’s Germany) and justify the most deadly actions (the mass slaughter of Jews in the 20th century in the name of preserving the greater society). Far from providing ‘eventual help,’ altruism is much more likely to kill you.

The major problem with confronting what he wrote with logic is that he is speaking in large-scale terms, i.e. “society.” Why should we be moral? What constitutes a moral action? What constitutes a value? These are all questions that must necessarily begin at the individual level, but the paragraph also mixes concepts and drops contexts which than continues to be built upon assumptions, stretched from nothing, and applied broadly to a society.

Here is the bottom line: altruism is always the sacrificing of the self to others; of higher values for lower values, and in no possible way is that ever beneficial to an individual or a group of individuals because it necessarily truncates values, lives, goals, and minds. No amount of twisted logic could sanction such an anti-individual, anti-life philosophy. And remember, morality is a code of ethics to guide the actions of individuals. “Society” is nothing except for a collection of individual human beings.

[prof]

I prefer the definition of "altruism" that we can find at dictionary.com - namely,

al·tru·ism
   [al-troo-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
2.
Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

Human beings are brainy biped animals capable of generating value (e.g., many of them are capable of creativity: producing funky art; composing music; or of ushering philosophy into science, etc.).

Definition 2 above - when something close to it applies to the human animal - strikes me as similar to a definition of "Moral Courage" in keeping with Rushworth Kidder's book of the same name. When an individual at some danger to himself (of which s/he is aware) behaves in a way to help another, that is what is named 'moral courage.'

You, and Ayn Rand, are in favor of benevolence, good will, and kindness. Okay. So am I. Only I would add we are morally-obliged - by the best system of Ethics I know of - and by its definition of the concept "obliged" - to care for the less-fortunate. Note well that I, along with you, am definitely opposed to "self-sacrifice" and martyrdom ...with one exception: I admire the heroism of someone pushing a child out of the path of a moving bus, and thus risking his own life. I don't want you to endure life-long suffering caring for someone if you aren't doing it whole-heartedly, out of love and a commitment to service. The best nurses do their work with loving devotion to the welfare of the patient. Ethics teaches me to minimize human suffering - that's one of its principles. [Another is this: Maximize human well-being. Add value.]

I, along with you, want people to operate out of self-interest, but I advocate and recommend 'enlightened self-interest' just as did the economist, Adam Smith, when he wrote his moral philosophy.

Although, as you rightly noted, your friend did not define his key term, 'altruism', I agree, employing definition 1 in the first paragraph above, that

"You should be altruistic because in the long run it will be beneficial not only to society, but also to yourself. Being altruistic fosters and encourages a society in which people help those in need of help, which ultimately means you will be helped when you need it." Being concerned with the welfare of others does not exclude your being primarily concerned with your own welfare, your own seeking joy, love and peace. [Implied by this is your personal concern with health (for you are unlikely to enjoy life if you don't have health) and with justice (for there is no peace without justice). The probabilities of your getting love are increased if you give love - if you are loving. After all, wise men have found it to be the case that (the moral life, the good life) is more about giving than getting: you receive what you give; or as one wise rabbi put it, "Give, and you shall receive." In my own experience I have found this to be true. {So far I have only experienced 82 years; I am looking forward to the next 28 and to the adventures it will bring.}

Your friend seems to be advocating a world society wherein folks cooperate with one another to achieve worthwhile goals. Are you opposed to that?

Furthermore, I believe that Friedman's "broken window fallacy" is not a fallacy at all IF the public works projects, that serve as a stimulus to get a social group out of a depression, or hard times economically, are devoted to building something that is really needed, such as repairing worn bridges, implementing alternative (clean, green) energy projects which result in true energy independence of each dweller (say, by installing solar panels, or windmills, on the roof of his or her dwelling.) Even building fast, safe bullet trains between major cities - or other such infrastructure projects - could prove quite useful, if done in the most efficient manner. And no, I don't sanction throwing a brick through a window, or any other mainly-destructive activity that does not lead to actual construction but rather imposes an ultimate cost to society.

I agree with you that "society" is a mental construct, a mere systemic value, and that the individual is to what we ought give our priority. From the Ethical perspective the individual is an Intrinsic Value (an In-value.) This is a technical term in Formal Axiology, the science of values. To learn precisely what it means peruse the works of Marvin Katz, which you may google. Also see the thread here,What is Ethics?

The knowledge discipline, the coherent study, bearing the name, Ethics, does not impose on anyone. It affirms the values of autonomy and individuality. Its principles can be phrased in an imperative mode,, but anyone is free not to introject them nor take them seriously. Only the enlightened ones would tend to do that. Yet, with good efficient world-wide education people will come to realize what is in their true self-interest and will live accordingly. Efficiency will become effectiveness. Individuals will become more and more efficacious - in Bandura's sense of the word.

Two books I would highly recommend for Forum members to read are: Diamandes & Kotler - ABUNDANCE (NY: Free Press, 2012). Also, Skidelsky - HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? (NY: Other Press, 2012). Both are excellent exercises in applied Ethics.

[reasonvemotion]

When was the last time, either of you did a good deed for a complete stranger, without any thought of yourself.

When did anyone here, recently?