Can an Altruist be happy

[samr]

(by "this" I mean the principle that altruism leads to unhapiness).

Many altruists would argue that altruism leads to hapiness. Once you surrender your selfish desire, and open your heart to the love of human beings, your life becomes deeper.

--

BTW, I I think they define "selfishness" in different ways than Ayn Rand does.For example, Pride is considered a sin in christianity.

But I don't think it means the healthy pride of a person knows he has something of value, I think they mean the variety of pride that is based upon vanity. To this type of pride, I think Rand would also object.

Only she would add that there is another type of pride, based upon reason, which christians seem to deny.

[2046]

What is the perceptual data that it is based upon?

Pain. What Ayn Rand meas by altruism is doing something that hurts you, is bad for you, has negative effects on you. It's easy to see that doing something that causes you pain isn't going to make you happy pretty tautologically. "Altruism" isn't itself perceptual, so you can't tell if someone is an altruist by observation alone, or by going "well look how happy I am, and I'm an altruist."

The point of the method of induction/reduction is that you have to ask what facts of reality give rise to the need for a concept and follow the logical hierarchy to its conclusion, keeping the context that it is formed in all the way. So it's probably not conducive to help your understanding of these things just by taking conventional opinion and jumping in midstream, obviously the conclusions will clash. You should start at the beginning and work out the concept of self-interest and its roots in life and go from there.

[softwareNerd]

I meant - empirically falsifiable. Can you falsify that from observing people and how they act. Can you falsify principles at all.

Yes, of course... in general any principle can be shown to be false if one shows that it was based on faulty observations or faulty premises.

[dream_weaver]

(by "this" I mean the principle that altruism leads to unhapiness).

Many altruists would argue that altruism leads to hapiness. Once you surrender your selfish desire, and open your heart to the love of human beings, your life becomes deeper.

--

BTW, I I think they define "selfishness" in different ways than Ayn Rand does.For example, Pride is considered a sin in christianity.

But I don't think it means the healthy pride of a person knows he has something of value, I think they mean the variety of pride that is based upon vanity. To this type of pride, I think Rand would also object.

Only she would add that there is another type of pride, based upon reason, which christians seem to deny.

You have many terms you are bringing up here. Altruism, happiness, selfishness, pride, sin, value, vanity, reason.

In addition to reducing a proposition to perceptual data, a proposition is made up of words, each of which to be reduced as well.

To start with, Objectivism does not have a principle, per se, which states that altruism leads to unhappiness. It is more of a derivative of analyzing altruism among other things. What is altruism? What would you have to know before you could form the concept of altruism? Do you envision altruism as a moral code? Do you consider altruism as the teachings of the Dalai Lama, or Jesus of Nazareth, or of the reigning Pope?

What do you know about altruism, and more importantly, how do you know what you know about it?

[Dante]

Many altruists would argue that altruism leads to hapiness. Once you surrender your selfish desire, and open your heart to the love of human beings, your life becomes deeper.

This is not at all what Ayn Rand meant by altruism. It is not the same thing as goodwill or benevolence. Other people can indeed be great values to an individual, and opening oneself up to those opportunities is obviously conducive to their prospects for happiness and fulfillment. I think you need to reexamine the core of 'altruism' as intended by the people making this claim, and decide whether that fundamental core is compatible or not with human happiness.

[Dante]

What is the perceptual data that it is based upon?

The ultimate perceptual data that the argument is based on are the observations needed to form the relevant concepts, like 'value,' 'altruism,' and 'happiness.' The core of the argument is the following: The only way to construct a value structure that completely consistent, without inner contradictions and clashing values, is with one's own life and happiness as the core. All of one's values, from one's career, to one's personal relationships, to charitable involvements should be integrated and structured with reference to this fundamental value. The core of altruism, as Ayn Rand argued, is self-denial, elevating the values of others above one's own personal values (literally, 'other-ism'). No one can consistently practice an altruistic code that makes no reference whatsoever to personal needs without dying quickly, so the argument here isn't about consistent altruists. The argument is that people who incorporate elements of altruism into their own moral code will construct a value structure which is inconsistent, which is incapable of being realized because contradictions cannot exist in reality. Without a single fundamental value to act as a reference and barometer, clashes in values cannot be resolved properly, and an attempt to live by such a moral code results in failure and frustration. If we look at happiness as the emotion consequent to achieving one's values in reality, then for a person with an inconsistent moral code, it is not possible to fully realize one's values, and consequently there are always elements of failure mixed in with one's successes. Some kind of happiness is still possible for such a person, of course, but not total happiness without a trace of failure to realize values. The empirical refutation of this argument would be pointing to an error in forming the concepts and premises involved in the above deduction; showing that value or altruism or happiness is improperly conceived by the argument.

[Amaroq]

I think one thing to remember here is that our emotions are the result of subconscious value-judgments. Your emotions depend on your values. The pleasure-pain response is automatic. But since we're born tabula rasa, the joy-suffering response is not automatic. So I think it is possible to feel the emotion of happiness while living a life that is objectively bad for you, if your values are anti-life.

[LovesLife]

Happiness is the state of life resulting from the achievement of one's values.

It is not a moment in time. No, one cannot be happy and irrational.

Yes, there's a difference between "true" happiness and "transient" happiness -- with the former being long-term and the latter more short-lived.

In modern society, true happiness appears to most people to be unrealistic and therefore unachievable (which it probably is, given their philosophy). So, transient happiness becomes the goal instead, since it's achievable by anyone -- hence the power and prevalence of irrational activities such drug and alcohol abuse, whim-worship, junk food, overspending, etc. If you ask people when they are engaged in those activities if they are happy (something I've done many times), they will insist they are, even though they know the feeling won't last.

[TLD]

I think one thing to remember here is that our emotions are the result of subconscious value-judgments. Your emotions depend on your values. The pleasure-pain response is automatic. But since we're born tabula rasa, the joy-suffering response is not automatic. So I think it is possible to feel the emotion of happiness while living a life that is objectively bad for you, if your values are anti-life.

Correction: emotions result from conscious value judgments integrated by his subconscious.

As a state of consciousness, I would not call happiness an emotion. In a moment of joy, yes.

What you call a "feeling of happiness" is the "moment of joy"; but true happiness is still not achieved while holding anti-life values.

[Marc K.]

Being happy is a value. Altruists are supposed to give up values. If you are happy, then you aren't being a good altruist.

I believe Kant was explicit in explaining about sacrifice. If you sacrifice a value for one you love and you derive some satisfaction from it, then it wasn't much of a sacrifice since you gained something from it. It would be better to sacrifice a value to someone you didn't know but even then you might derive some satisfaction is helping someone. The best approach would be to sacrifice a value to an enemy (which is what the bible teaches also), and don't feel good about it either.

I doubt any of us has met an actual altruist. For the normal, everyday person who may perform an altruistic act of giving up a value, the only way they were able to give up that value is if they first had acted to achieve that value, which, of course, is what us selfish people do.

Take the case of Mother Teresa, the only real world example of a true altruist that I can think of. Apparently in her diaries she recounts how miserable she and her subjects were. Look at her situation to project what an altruistic society looks like: people suffering and dying, everybody miserably waiting for the afterlife and something better.

[Avila]

Actually, research shows that altruistic people are generally happier than others:

http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/altruism/altruism-happiness

http://www.wholeliving.com/article/giving-is-good-for-you

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p13s02-lire.html

There's a sort of debased kind of altruism, I'm sure, but I doubt it applies to most people.

As for Mother Theresa, that's not quite accurate -- what she describes in her diaries is what is known, in Catholic circles, as the "dark night of the soul". It's a phenomenom that's been described by other religious (St. John of the Cross, etc.) and is not to be understood as unhappiness.

[TLD]

Actually, research shows that altruistic people are generally happier than others:

There's a sort of debased kind of altruism, I'm sure, but I doubt it applies to most people.

That research does not define altruism properly; purely emotion based.

Why are you so intent to show that altrists are happy?

[Avila]

On what basis do you conclude that the various researchers do not define altruism "properly"? The basic dictionary definition (Merriam Webster) ought to suffice: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". That's a basic, general use of the term that the researchers would be using. If you have a different definition, or you're referring to a debased kind of altruism (more of a psychological problem), then you're simply referring to something different than the researchers are. In which case, you've no grounds for asserting that they're not defining altruism properly.

Why are you so intent to show that altrists are happy?

I'm not intent to show that altruists are happy so much as I am intent on questioning the premise (expressed here in various forms) that they aren't. Facts are facts, and the research doesn't support the assertion that they aren't.

[TLD]

On what basis do you conclude that the various researchers do not define altruism "properly"? The basic dictionary definition (Merriam Webster) ought to suffice: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". That's a basic, general use of the term that the researchers would be using. If you have a different definition, or you're referring to a debased kind of altruism (more of a psychological problem), then you're simply referring to something different than the researchers are. In which case, you've no grounds for asserting that they're not defining altruism properly.

This is an Obj.ist forum, and altruism has been defined here philosophically as Rand defined it - based on rigid concept formation and not on popular connotations. Be loose with definitions and rational argument goes out the window.

[LovesLife]

The basic dictionary definition (Merriam Webster) ought to suffice: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". That's a basic, general use of the term that the researchers would be using.

The key to that definition is the meaning of the word "unselfish." It's clear from the writings of the supporters of altruism that unselfish means that you can derive no benefit at all from your actions, not even feeling good about them.

In other words, the reason some people might feel happy about their supposed altruism is because they aren't really being unselfish, and therefore aren't really being altruistic.

[Avila]

The key to that definition is the meaning of the word "unselfish." It's clear from the writings of the supporters of altruism that unselfish means that you can derive no benefit at all from your actions, not even feeling good about them.

What "writings of the supporters of altruism" do you have in mind? Clearly it's not any orthodox Christian writing: the orthodox Christian, far from deriving no benefit at all from their benevolent actions, has three benefits: one, the "feeling good" aspect that the researchers document; two, the fulfilling of meaning and purpose (because the Christian is called upon to care for others); and three, a heavenly reward of happiness.

The "meaning and purpose" aspect is very important. Happiness is very much tied to a sense of purpose and meaning in one's life. I once met a group of Mother Theresa's sisters, the Missionaries of Charity. A more joyful group of young women I have not met. Clearly part of their happiness and joy stemmed from their sense of purpose and meaning. In the secular world, this shows itself by the attachment to various causes, such as environmentalism, Marxism, and various other "isms".

I think what you mean by "altruism" has more to do with a psychologically unhealthy attitude of personal "martyrdom". The classic Christian view of this sort of distortion is that it is a warped kind of pride ("look at me and how I sacrifice myself for all those around me").

[LovesLife]

What "writings of the supporters of altruism" do you have in mind?

You could start with the parable of the Widow's Mite from the Bible.

Then there's Kant and those who followed him, such as Hegel. And Schopenhauer:

A man must not desire "any reward for his works," whether it be "direct or indirect, near or remote," even if what he desires is "to work out his own perfections" -- because morality excludes "self-interest in the widest sense of the term ... The absence of all egoistic motivation is, therefore, the criterion of an action of moral worth."

[DonAthos]

I feel there's some confusion in this thread.

Selfishness versus altruism is not an answer to "what makes us happy?" but "in whose interests ought we act?" Selfishness answers that we ought act in our own interest while altruism insists that we act in the interest of others.

Therefore, whether Mother Teresa was or was not happy is besides the point. Whether "being charitable" can or cannot make a person happy is besides the point. If the argument being made is "being charitable can make you happy; therefore, be charitable," then it must be recognized that this is a selfish argument. If it were the case that acting in the manner of Mother Teresa was the way for a person to achieve their greatest happiness -- if acting as Mother Teresa was best for a person -- then surely a selfish philosophy would demand acting in that manner! Whether one should act as Mother Teresa did, in order to achieve their own happiness, is a question apart from selfishness versus altruism.

No, the truly altruistic argument would not be "do such, because such will make you happy" -- this is instead the absolute core of the selfish argument. The altruist argument can only be "do such, because such will make others happy." The question of whether the individual so acting will also achieve happiness is irrelevant in the face of altruism; it is not the actor's happiness that is deemed important.

If you were considering an action altruistically, though the action would make you miserable, if it makes others happy you should do that thing. (Though more often, I reckon, real actual people will gravitate towards those "altruistic" actions which simultaneously provide themselves some benefit and shun those that would do themselves real harm... and feel guilty for it!) Could certain altruistic actions accidentally provide the actor some measure of happiness as well? I'd suppose so. But given all of this, can altruism itself be relied on to lead individuals to their own happiness? By no means. After all, leading individuals to their own happiness isn't the goal. And if we sneakily make that the goal of "altruism," we're no longer discussing altruism at all, but merely saying that the selfish road to happiness runs through acts of charity and etc., which is a different discussion altogether.

[Avila]

You could start with the parable of the Widow's Mite from the Bible.

But she could expect a heavenly reward.

[Avila]

Whether "being charitable" can or cannot make a person happy is besides the point. If the argument being made is "being charitable can make you happy; therefore, be charitable," then it must be recognized that this is a selfish argument.

Yes! Thank you.

[Dante]

Actually, research shows that altruistic people are generally happier than others:

The first sentence in the first link is "As long as acts of kindness don't become obligatory or overwhelming, they can enrich the giver and the whole community." But philosophical altruism, the kind that we're talking about here, is precisely a code where such acts are morally obligatory. They're not studying the same thing we're criticizing.

[Avila]

The first sentence in the first link is "As long as acts of kindness don't become obligatory or overwhelming, they can enrich the giver and the whole community." But philosophical altruism, the kind that we're talking about here, is precisely a code where such acts are morally obligatory. They're not studying the same thing we're criticizing.

Thanks, that clarifies the matter.

I don't think many people adhere to the kind of philosophical altruism you're speaking of. Christians are rewarded ("paid") for their acts of kindness, and the admonition to "love they neighbor as thyself" implies a pre-existing self-love. Can you give me examples of the kinds of people you have in mmind?

[Eiuol]

I don't think many people adhere to the kind of philosophical altruism you're speaking of. Christians are rewarded ("paid") for their acts of kindness, and the admonition to "love they neighbor as thyself" implies a pre-existing self-love.

To expect payment from some deity that doesn't exist for an action that without payment would render the action altruistic makes the act altruistic. It is a rationalization for selflessness. If you aren't expecting payment from a deity, an action might be selfish. Whether or not something feels isn't the primary consideration. Happiness is not understood here as a state of mere contentment, but rather a state that incorporates making your life the best it can be, because that's what selfish actions accomplish. "Feeling happy" is not the purpose of any truly egoistic ethics. People can adhere to altruism to all sorts of degrees; few go whole hog, Jesus-style.

[Avila]

To expect payment from some deity that doesn't exist for an action that without payment would render the action altruistic makes the act altruistic.

You don't believe the deity exists, and so for you, yes, such actions would be altruistic. But the Christian does believe, and so they are not motivated by altrusism, but rather by the promise of a reward. As a side benefit, as the research indicates, they also experience happiness or at least a particular kind of happiness. Aquinas would put it this way: in practicing virtue man finds himself in a state of happiness as he slowly progresses toward that which is his final happiness. So it's not really altruism.

Would Buddhists perhaps be altruists?

True believers in Communism would likely be candidates for the philosophical altruism Dante references.

[Dante]

I don't think many people adhere to the kind of philosophical altruism you're speaking of.

I agree. Most moral systems that you'll find people adhering to are a mix of altruistic and egoistic principles. The altruistic elements in such a system set that morality against the life and interests of the actor, and to the extent that the person follows those altruistic elements, they will frustrate the achievement of their own personal happiness. In order to untangle these, it is essential to understand the core of altruism and its full implications, even though this form of pure altruism is almost never advocated or practiced.