CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
10
Yes No
Debate Score:29
Arguments:16
Total Votes:29
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (11)
 
 No (5)

Debate Creator

HGrey87(750) pic



Is Altruism?

What do you think? Do people do good things for good reasons, or is there ultimately a selfish motive behind every act?

And no, the title isn't grammatically incorrect ;)

Yes

Side Score: 19
VS.

No

Side Score: 10
3 points

Altruistic behavior, as I understand it, is doing an action that betters the community or species on a whole without regard for one self. For instance with certain animals like meerkats, they have a sentry who's responsibility is to warn the colony of predators. The act of barking out the alarm helps the community escape but draws attention of the predator to that sentry meerkat and potentialy dooms that meerkat.

Generally i would say that people aren't altruistic because almost every action by humans is for some internal goal but their is at least one notable exception and i'm sure there are more.

Take the case of a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. I honestly don't think that soldier is looking for recognition or a reward for what they did. In this case they are actually putting their life at risk for the community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100759.html

Side: yes
2 points

I'll start this off with a challenge: Explain to me a scenario of altruism, and why you're sure there are no selfish motives behind the action. I try to shoot it down, we call each other names, everyone has a good time.

Side: yes
1 point

Say you hate someone, you see they are about to drown and you are by yourself in a boat with no one around. The drowning person you hate cannot see who it is in the boat, and the accelerator is stuck, so you cannot stop and say hi or anything.

Also you are a deaf mute, who lives in a cave, and never communicates with anyone, infact, you have not talked to anyone in years, and are never planning on talking to anyone ever for any reason.

Also you are a complete aetheist, with no belief in any type of afterlife. You don't believe in Karma, or payback, or what goes around comes around.

On top of all that, you have terminal brain cancer and are going to die anyway as soon as your boat with the broken accelerator runs out of gas.

You throw the drowning guy that you hate and who can't see you, a life preserver as you speed by. You don't feel any joy from it, and your heart doesn't grow 10 sizes like the grinch who stole christmas.

That is a completely altruistic act.

It's only possible to be truly altruistic if there is 0 expectancy and 0 actual reward, and you have a disdain for whatever or whoever you are helping.

So theoretically, I think it's possible. But whether it is really possible is much more debatable. But I felt like arguing on the yes side for some reason.

Side: yes
2 points

The title's grammatically correct, but vague. Is altruism...good...bad...happy...sad...what?

But yes, there's no truly altruistic act done that doesn't satisfy some basic primitive selfish desire, even if it's just "because it makes me feel good".

Side: yes

Absolutely correct! And if it's not feel good, it's to look good or to be noticed.

Side: yes
2 points

"Is X" means, "Does X exist?" It's just a way of saying something in a needlessly roundabout way for its own sake.

Side: yes
Avedomni(78) Disputed
1 point

While it may be true that performing an altruistic act results in feeling good about oneself, that does not imply that an individual performed the act in order to feel good. The pleasant sensation is a byproduct of the action, not necessarily the motivation.

When gauging whether an act is altruistic, it is necessary only to consider the motivation behind the act. If the motivation is to benefit another, then the act is one of altruism. That there are secondary benefits to the actor (eg, "good feelings") does not negate the altruistic aspect of the act.

Side: yes
1 point

While your argument is understandable, keep in mind that humans have an exceptional talent for self-deception. One of the main applications of this is cognitive dissonance, one effect of which is that we rationalize our actions with ostensible thought processes in accordance with our preferred self-image.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes, altruistic behavior exists. And the quintessential example to this would be, through out all of nature- well most of nature, a mother. A mother should care for her children and look out for them at all times. She has no gain in the matter, other than the satisfaction that she is sending good children out into the world. I wish I could say the same for fathers, but they tend to abandon their children more than women do and some species in the animal kingdom have males that eat their young! (like bears).

Don't forget that mother's day is sunday. :) I didn't think of this argument because of mother's day, but vice versa.

Side: yes

Yes I think people do things that are for reasons only known to themselves and can be selfish or not. They make you feel good and even better if you've helped someone along their path in life. Feel good that doen't do good is fruitless to me. Is Altruism selfless? Yes and no.

Side: yes
3 points

The complex interactions that occur in nature make it extremely difficult to say with any certainty whether altruism truly exists. We all see, hear about and know about examples of interactions in nature that would appear, on the surface, to show truly atruistic behaviour. Great examples have already been given of things that would at first appear to be altruistic, such as the alert given by Meerkats.

What is our reference point for considering if an act is altruistic? Is it an act performed without any benefit to the agent? Does the agent have to be conciously aware of any possible benefits it may receive for its altrustic act? This distinction is important, and I believe it to be the major problem with the definitions of altruism.

If we define altruism as an act performed by an actor on a subject where the subject is benefited and the actor is unaware of any recipricated benefits, then we can say that altruism does occur. The Meerkat example would fall within this category of altrusitic behaviour. Whether or not a concious decision is made by a Meerkat to put itself in danger is irrelevant to whether or not its act is altruistic, and I would assume that the Meerkat wouldn't have an intellectual capacity capable of understanding possible reciprications. However, there certainly would be reciprications that the Meerkay would be unaware of that could mean that the act is not altrusitic depending on how strict our definition is.

Let us now define altruism as an act performed by an actor on a subject where the subject is benefited and there are no recipricated benefits, whether known or unknown, and analyse the Meerkat situation again. Obviously, true altruism seems to go against the theory of natural selection. If the genes that have the best chance of reproducing are those passed on to the next generation, how did these altruistic genes actually make it into the gene pool? Evolutionary kinship theory now introduces recipricated benefits that the Meerkat is unaware of. I won't go into this point too much, but consider the relationships between Meerkats in a clan and the probabilities of Meerkats sharing the same genes. A gene that causes a Meerkat to put itself in danger to save a large group of other Meerkats would infact be aiding its own propogation if the probability of the other Meerkats containing the same gene was at a certain level. Putting your own carrier in danger to save two other carriers makes sense. So, does this gene cause the Meerkat to perform an altruistic act? No, the gene enhances its own propogation by sacrificing itself.

What I've explained isn't the be-all and end-all of altruism, but it provides a good explination to allow you to understand the complex and unforseen interactions that occur in nature, and why in nearly all cases apparently altruistic behavious has selfish roots. Natural selection doesn't cater for altruism. Genes that go out of their way to put themselves in danger without any chance of reciprication die out.

To me, there is no true altruism in the sense of my second definition. Every action performed is for the purpose of surviving and propogating your genes. However, altruism with unknown beneficial reciprications are rife in nature. Is Altruism? Yes and no, depending on your definition.

Side: No
ta9798(316) Disputed
2 points

Altruism is complex and depending on one's definition possibly rare but in a sense altruistic behavior is merely a mechanism to spread genes in a species.

Animals don't know they are reproducing to increase or enhance their gene pool. It is instinct. If the animal instinctively preforms an action which hinders its chance of reproducing but allows at least two siblings to live and mate then its action contributes to the gene pool.

Another example: White-fronted Bee-eaters, when they are young will often stay at the nest to help raise the young. They delay their reproduction or don't reproduce at all, and many will die before they can reproduce but they help get food for the newly hatched to survive. This is an instinctive behavior(that the white-fronted bee-eater does not understand the reasoning for) that helps increase the survival rate of the vary young and increase the potential of mating and thus spreading of the species' genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-fronted_Bee-eater

I did not mean to make is sound like in nature animals choose to preform altruistic behaviors. I think largely they are unaware of the reasoning and it is the genes that "want" to propagate that influence this behavior.

This, however, I don't think is the same for humans. I think people can consciously preform actions which would harm them for the survival of others.

You mention that the definition of altruism is problematic and i agree. Altruistic behavior by humans isn't the same as altruistic behavior by non-humans.

Side: yes

If you are in a crowded movie theater and you realize that there's a fire (but no one else does because they are engrossed in the movie) and you're sitting on an isle seat (but far away from the exit). You can make it to the exit and then yell, "Fire" but instead (since you're altruistic or dumb), you yell "fire" immediately (thus making sure that you'll never reach the exit as you are killed in the ensuing stampede) ;)

Now, I don't know if that was grammatically correct but try to shoot it down, call me names, and let everyone have a good time. ;)

Side: No
2 points

But but... why did the guy let everyone stampede him? That's still pretty selfish. His standing there or laying there probably made everyone have a harder time getting out. Someone probably tripped! And his stupidity caused him and another person to die from smoke exhalation. :-)

Side: No
1 point

I think Joe's right. If you warn others before securing your own safety, that's altruistic. Especially if doing so hinders your ability to secure your safety. Also, because the scenario fits the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Altruism

Side: No
2 points

It is grammatically correct and to answer your question,

Altruism isn't. Period. The guy at the movie theater? Either way he would have run out. The soldier? has sworn to protect his country and is under oath to do the necessary things to ensure that protection, even sacrificing himself. The soldier (again)? could maybe want to be remembered as a hero, or is so F*ing sick of war that he just wants to end it.

Everything in life has a price, and Altruism is the price of being recognized as a charitable person. Society will tend to overlook a motive if a donation or action is large/important enough.

If you would like me to fill in the blank of your title I'd say: Nothing Is Altruism.

Side: No