QUESTION: THE HERO GIVING THEIR LIFE FOR STRANGERS PROVES PEOPLE CAN BE SELFLESSLY GOOD BUT SOME DISAGREE. DOES HUMAN NATURE ALWAYS HAVE A SELF-INTERESTED ULTERIOR MOTIVE OR NOT? IS SELF-GIVING FOR ANOTHER A MYTH?
If the answer is yes then it may be the way we are.
A psychological egoist is a person who is out chiefly for themselves or solely
but who does not harm and nature has made them self-interested. A psychological
altruist is about others chiefly or solely. There is disagreement on whether
human nature is one or the other. The minority view that an egotist is a person
who inherently engages in selfishness that harms others and that we are all
psychologically egotist can be safely passed over.
If the answer is yes it may be the way we are formed by the tough realities of
life.
If the answer is yes it may be simply what we turn ourselves into. We are
good at turning parts of our brains off at times.
Some think your brain can make you altruist one minute or egoist the next.
PROBABILITY
We see three possible answers. Everybody agrees that we can be egoist sometimes.
All this leans in favour of the hero not truly being a hero.
ASSESSMENT
Altruism sees egoism as the wrong and immoral approach. If you are an altruist
you end up with no right to call anybody an egoist for it is antialtruist to
accuse somebody without evidence. No evidence is available for you cannot see
human motives. The altruist can call you a misguided altruist.
Suppose an altruist hypothetically can use the egoist word. As altruists are to
put on the best interpretation possible it follows that you must never call say
a murderer or bank robber an egotist but an egoist. Or a misguided egoist if you
like for anybody can do the right thing the wrong way.
Altruism totally contradicts itself. If you cannot define any behaviour as
egoist or egotist in the real world then how can you define altruist? It turns
into a mere word without any descriptive force. Altruism is bigoted if it wants
to paint everybody as altruist so it is just useless fairy dust. For that it is
selfish. It is pride for it is a person pretending to be better than what they
are when the better is anything but good!
So altruism has nothing real to say to you if you choose to declare that you and
everybody else is an egoist. It has no real authority to say anybody did
something altruistic there. It steals that authority.
WHY DO YOU SHOW THAT HUMANS ARE NOT ALWAYS SELFISH BY ALWAYS USING EXTREME
EXAMPLES?
Hard cases make bad laws. A lesson is in that. Believers in altruism point to
extreme situations like heroes dying terribly to save a stranger's baby to try
and show that altruism is possible. Hard examples of altruism only show that we
are only sure it appears then - but what about other times? If it only appears
in extreme situations then is it really anything inspiring or is it an example
of insanity or something?
Those who say we can do altruistic deny they are psychological egoists. However,
if they think we are altruistic so rarely and only in big matters such as the
one given they are still virtually psychological egoists!
Why are ordinary situations not as helpful for establishing altruism? Because it
is so easy to do good to others and convince yourself and them that you do it
for them not you. But in fact you may be taking advantage of how they cannot see
your motives. You may do it for praise, to feel good, because you want something
to do, because you feel guilty, because you want good luck, because you want a
reward from God or because you feel if you do this people will do good for you
so you have to set an example. Wanting approval from God or another is wanting
approval as a reward.
The case of the hero who gives their life to save a baby would be considered
proof that we are not predominately egoistic. People take huge risks with their
lives like when they race cars. Risking is not necessarily unselfish. It can be
totally selfish. To die because one wishes to be a hero even if just in their
own mind would be extremely selfish despite outward appearances. They have no
time to think. They are not being themselves. They need a lot of time to make a
big decision about their lives and deaths. What one is doing is selfish in the
sense that one needs to believe that one should be happy for if one does not
then one can't believe others should be happy either. Unhappy people make others
unhappy.
What you assume is more important than what you prove in this case. Why? To
prove that somebody is a murderer is not possible unless you assume that people
murder in the first place. So assumptions and proofs can work together. So you
have to assume the hero might still be selfish.
If altruism really describes what human nature is like then why do you need
extreme examples to prove it? The answer is because you are trying to convince
yourself that you and others really can be and are altruistic. You don't truly
believe they are. You are a hypocrite. The examples at best might show we are
altruistic in extreme situations but that does not mean we are ever altruistic
any other time. Big altruistic acts might only prove that we are altruistic in
big things. But we could have nothing but egoistic motivation for all the other
things we do. A man who won't steal a hundred pounds might steal a pound.
The altruist uses the extreme situation in a mercenary way to convince
themselves that people are selfless. That is disgraceful! If altruism is a lie
then to use somebody dying while saving others to make it look good and
believable is reprehensible.
The extreme situation drives it home that we are not fully free to do what we
want so we feel overpowered by it and thus go along with it and give our life
for another. There is a sense of escape. You want out and you want to be as big
as the threat and you do that by aligning with it.
YOU ARE SAVING A BABY
Saving a random baby from a fire gives lessons about how suspect human morality
is.
A house is burning fiercely and the baby is trapped inside. You know that if you
get in you are unlikely to get out alive and will suffer severe burns and a life
of horror if you survive at all. You burst in to get the baby.
If egoism is true you will not act to help unless something tells you there
could be something in it for yourself. If it is 99% for the baby and you need
the 1% of self-interest to act that shows how much this is about you and you are
in denial if you call yourself altruist.
Whether you succeed in saving the baby or not, your act will be admired. Why do
you admire your act? Why do others admire it? It is because you feel strongly
about helping the baby. You will not be admired if you made yourself do it
though you didn’t want to.
It is not your fault at that moment in time if you are not inclined. You don’t
have time to think and feel better about it.
Thus you should be praised for acting.
Should you be praised more for acting against your inclination?
The answer is yes for it means you have a bigger struggle than those who want to
do it in order to do the right thing.
Will you be praised as much for it as you would be if you wanted to do it? No.
People will not suggest that wanting to do good matters than doing the good.
They will not equate good done because you want to as just good. Good by
definition does not care what you want. Right is right.
Doing good and wanting to is two goods not one. Which then would be the main
thing for them? The good. The wanting is in second place.
Those who praise you for wanting to help are in fact insulting and judging you.
They treat you as an emotion more than a person. They care more about the
emotional inclination to help the baby than the baby. If you care about the baby
they indirectly then judge you for caring. People can seem good and have warped
values.
You don’t want the baby to be in pain or die. What if you want to think of
yourself as good and that leads to the desire to help the baby? It seems that a
self-centred motive leads to an other-regarding motive. But how other-regarding
is the other motive? If you were really that caring you would put the other
regarding motive first. You would just care because of the baby if you really
cared. You are still giving a mixed message. You make it both about you and the
baby. It is more about you for you have to care about yourself before you get
any interest in helping the baby.
OBJECTION
It seems mad to argue that a man who risks his arm to get food for a starving
family is being as self-interested as one who risks his arm to fill his coffers.
We need to see this clearly for we all feel an impulse to evaluate this by the
results. He is not made unselfish just because a family is fed.
Wanting to do something for another means the wanting is yours and you suffer
not doing what you want so it is about you. Your intention is to fulfil yourself
by using another. This reasoning is said to be a tautology. “John wants to help
x and wanting makes it self-centred therefore John is self-centred.” But that is
not a tautology or a circular argument at all.
First it makes sense.
Second it is true that wanting is you having to fulfil the side of our nature
that does not want to be alone.
Third if you want a reward of 100 dollars, you want just the same. Wanting is
wanting whether it is for another person to be okay or wanting a 100 dollars.
The object of the want makes no difference. An eye is an eye no matter what it
sees.
Whatever action we perform we understand and experience it as self-regarding as
in responding to our will. In other words, there is something self-regarding
about doing your will. Your will is your will regardless of whether you are
acting to benefit yourself or another person. Your sight is your sight whether
you look in the mirror or at another person. Same idea.
FINALLY
The extreme examples cannot tell us if the human race in general is altruistic.
Nor do they prove that the acting individuals are altruistic. The examples show
that altruism is suspect. There is no proof that everybody being into egoism all
the time is an error. That in itself does not mean that it is false. It means
that it might be true. It means we have the right to assume it and encourage
others to. If psychological egoism is wrong then why do we need extreme examples
to refute it such as a soldier blowing himself up to save the life of another
person? The examples are sledgehammers - believe he was a hero and not seeking
something for himself or you are bad person and a cynic and slandering a good
man. That such bullying is present says the refuters have something to hide.