How to explain Altrusim

[Adjutor]

I've been reading these forums for a while and once in a blue moon I pipe up and offer a response to a thread. I don't consider myself an Objectivist simply because I am not well versed enough in it to really explain everything, but I do agree with it. Anyway, a friend of mine was telling me that he thought only an atheist could be an altruist. His reasoning was that when a religious person acts altruistically, they aren't actually doing it (in other words, they aren't making a sacrifice) because they believe they are obtaining something in exchange for their (charitable, for example) behavior. God is going to reward them for good behavior, so therefor having donated their life savings to a homeless shelter rather than investing in a new home because it's a Christian virtue to do so wouldn't be a sacrifice. I made the argument that they are basing their decision off of irrational mystical thoughts, and simply believing they didn't exchange a high value for a lesser value is delusional. How can I better refine my approach to explaining sacrifice and altruism? Was he right?

[fountainhead777]

values are objectively defined in benefit to your life not your supposed after-life. If a value cannot be demonstrated to have a tangible direct benefit to yoru life it is not a value much less a higher value.

[Eiuol]

Anyway, a friend of mine was telling me that he thought only an atheist could be an altruist. His reasoning was that when a religious person acts altruistically, they aren't actually doing it (in other words, they aren't making a sacrifice) because they believe they are obtaining something in exchange for their (charitable, for example) behavior.

For one, if someone is doing something because god will rewarding them in the afterlife, would that even be altruistic? If god knows everything, wouldn't acting in self-interest like that condemn you to hell? Anyway, what matters is why someone performs an action. If it is -for- someone else, it is altruistic. In that case, it's the other person's values that matter and not your own. If a person values another person being happy for that other person's sake more than their own happiness, that might not necessarily be a sacrifice. But it's still selfless.

But on a related topic to sacrifice, is it possible to not be making a sacrifice but still self-sacrifice? As in, could a person still achieve a greater value (a value they hold for irrational reasons like a sense of duty) but at the same time giving up exactly what gives them a sense of self? (not a question directed at you, but anyone who knows)

Edited September 16, 2009 by Eiuol

[softwareNerd]

God is going to reward them for good behavior,...

Yes, unless they're really, really religious. Religious thinkers have been aware of this paradox and some of them conclude that the real good person does good for good's sake, and not for reward. T.S.Eliot dramatized this in the play "Murder in the Cathedral', via the "fourth tempter":

The Fourth Tempter, however, approaches Thomas from a different angle. Advising Thomas to “Fare forward to the end” and “think of glory after death,”

... ... Unlike the first three Tempters, whose offerings are easily mocked and spurned by Thomas, this Tempter causes the Archbishop to experience a crisis of conscience: he asks, “Who are you, tempting me with my own desires?” and asserts that the Tempter offers only “Dreams to damnation” since the very act of courting one’s fame through martyrdom is an act of “sinful pride.”

In reality, why does it matter whether you agree with your friend or not? What if you concede his argument and say: I disagree with altruism used in the sense of putting others before yourself while you're alive? Would you see a problem conceding this, and what victory would he see in such a concession?

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Can one not act altruistically without knowing it?

If a Christian gives away his life savings to charity in order to secure a good position in heaven, that is still a huge sacrifice because, obviously, he will not get the return on his "investment" that he expected. Something can be a sacrifice even if the person sacrificing doesn't recognize it as such.

[Mister A]

Can one not act altruistically without knowing it?

That's the problem: people unable or refusing to identify their own behavior.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mister A

[DavidOdden]

Can one not act altruistically without knowing it?

Obviously not. Altruism isn't about whether some other person accidentally happens to profit more from a trade, it is about a choice to set someone or something other than oneself as the highest standard of value.

[Adjutor]

Yes, unless they're really, really religious. Religious thinkers have been aware of this paradox and some of them conclude that the real good person does good for good's sake, and not for reward. T.S.Eliot dramatized this in the play "Murder in the Cathedral', via the "fourth tempter":

In reality, why does it matter whether you agree with your friend or not? What if you concede his argument and say: I disagree with altruism used in the sense of putting others before yourself while you're alive? Would you see a problem conceding this, and what victory would he see in such a concession?

It matters to me only because I wish to be able to explain the position better. My friend and I agree, we were really arguing about whether or not his assertion that "only an atheist could be altruistic" is true. I disagree with it, because a theist that sacrifices for the sake of obtaining something from God is ignoring the reality that God isn't real and therefore the hoped for reward isn't real.

[Maximus]

That's the problem: people unable or refusing to identify their own behavior.

Or, put another way, willful avoidance.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Obviously not. Altruism isn't about whether some other person accidentally happens to profit more from a trade, it is about a choice to set someone or something other than oneself as the highest standard of value.

But acting rationally would always be, necessarily, not altruistic. If one is irrational, it is easy to envision a scenario where somebody thinks they are acting in their self-interest, but because of their faulty premises, fail to actually do so. The example of the Christian acting "rationally" in donating his life savings to secure a spot in heaven is a false premise - irrational, and self-destructive. Is self-destructive not necessarily the same as altruistic? Had the Christian placed himself as his highest value, wouldn't he not have arrived at the conclusion that there is a heaven, and that he can get there by giving away his life savings?

Edited September 17, 2009 by Andrew Grathwohl

[whYNOT]

Or, put another way, willful avoidance.

Or, another way, wishful thinking.

Spare a moment's pity for the quandary the religious altruist is stuck in for a lifetime. The consistent, or 'honest' one, knows he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Whenever he carries out an act of charity he is aware that he should not, under any circumstances be benefitting from it - so there goes that little secret pleasure he feels from helping a less fortunate; there goes the pride he might gain from the acclaim of his peers; but worst of all, his place in heaven he might be buying is very uncertain, because of course God can see right through him.

What a hell on earth!