Sure, there's some tempering, just as the slave driver's whip is tempered by the knowledge that dead slaves are worth a lot less than living ones. Hell, a slave driver acting solely on rational self-interest might throw away the whip altogether, and use different incentives, and they would probably even listen to the slaves' concerns and provide medical care - but I don't see them freeing the slaves.
Sure, there's some tempering, just as the slave driver's whip is tempered by the knowledge that dead slaves are worth a lot less than living ones. Hell, a slave driver acting solely on rational self-interest might throw away the whip altogether, and use different incentives, and they would probably even listen to the slaves' concerns and provide medical care - but I don't see them freeing the slaves.
Except in this case, everyone is holding a whip. Or rather, I'm encouraging people to pick up whips of their own.
Whips for everyone! That could be my platform.
Your argument is still talking about a situation where one is not acting in good faith - where a person has chosen to fulfill their rational self-interest in a way that exploits others to their exclusive detriment. Of course that will fuck things up, but those situations lead to slave revolts! And eventually, people realized that slavery was a bad idea. Well, at least, most people accepted it.
You do point to a problem - that of bread and circuses. A clever person will game people to keep them happy enough, while making large gains of their own. King-making, basically, as a form of exploitation. And the only solution is to have people king-make back, using a different stream of social currency. This is why it's important to encourage other people to look after their own aims as well - it gives them a bit of leverage of their own to alleviate being exploited.
But as long as you're willing to give out bread, things can balance out. The problem occurs when you trick people into thinking you're giving them bread, when you're really giving them dirt.
I think the issue is rational self interest seems mutually exclusive to altruism and empathy. Helping others because it helps me only gets you so far. You have to set up some sort of regulation to make acting in good faith actually appealing rather than manipulating someone and then leaving them in the dust.
And what about the people who genuinely are selfish? What if they amass some wealth (from their parents, for instance, who did act rationally and built an empire that the children inherited) and don't want to help anyone else out?
I suppose in that case the masses of people no longer benefiting or getting laid off by the parents' company because the children are mismanaging it could rise up.
Of course you can. You can do it by using the taxes everyone has to pay to fund well-regulated social programs that efficiently and effectively assist those in need (unemployment, for instance).
We don't do a lot of those things though. Notably the efficiently part of it, and probably the well-regulated part of it too.
You can tax people and spend the tax money on homeless shelters, food supplies, foreign aid, charities, etc. So yeah, you in fact can regulate altruism.
I think the issue is rational self interest seems mutually exclusive to altruism and empathy. Helping others because it helps me only gets you so far. You have to set up some sort of regulation to make acting in good faith actually appealing rather than manipulating someone and then leaving them in the dust.
You're right that we need regulations. Societies and subcultures of all sorts have to implement regulations in order to function - we define the rules of behavior because that's what everyone has agreed to.
But you're still assuming that "rational self-interest" means "no rules." It doesn't have to, even though that's how most people seem to implement that. The problem is more that the "self-interest" part takes precedence over the "rational" in most cases. That's why top-level regulations are problematic - we can't actually get people to agree on a principle because there's no rationality to their self-interest.
Why does rational self-interest seem contrary to altruism? What if we create a paradigm wherein altruism IS in your rational best-interest? I point again to reciprocal altruism. It is a perfectly sensible implementation of rational self-interest. Generosity to others is an old survival mechanism in social animals - if I help you out, you'll be inclined to keep me around because you know I'm willing to help you. Likewise, if you help me out, I'm inclined to keep you around for the same reason. And thus we create a web of social connections based on mutual exchange of benefits.
And what about the people who genuinely are selfish? What if they amass some wealth (from their parents, for instance, who did act rationally and built an empire that the children inherited) and don't want to help anyone else out?
I suppose in that case the masses of people no longer benefiting or getting laid off by the parents' company because the children are mismanaging it could rise up.
1. They're broken.
2. They're not playing by the rules. If you're selfish, then you don't actually think that you need other people. Remember how I said that you need to get people to realize that they need other people before the web of rational self-interest works?
3. Outliers are going to exist no matter what. The system can deal with it as long as everyone else is playing fair.
Altruism requires a personal choice. If you take away that choice (to be altruistic) it is no longer altruism.
You may end up with the same end result you are seeking but it will not be altruism that gets you there.
So, the moment you try to regulate altruism you destroy it.
Fair enough point. You can still get the same end result though, and the result is helping people.
And what about the people who genuinely are selfish? What if they amass some wealth (from their parents, for instance, who did act rationally and built an empire that the children inherited) and don't want to help anyone else out?
I suppose in that case the masses of people no longer benefiting or getting laid off by the parents' company because the children are mismanaging it could rise up.
1. They're broken.
2. They're not playing by the rules. If you're selfish, then you don't actually think that you need other people. Remember how I said that you need to get people to realize that they need other people before the web of rational self-interest works?
3. Outliers are going to exist no matter what. The system can deal with it as long as everyone else is playing fair.
Also very good points. I was genuinely curious, not trying to argue, so I see your point.
Altruism requires a personal choice. If you take away that choice (to be altruistic) it is no longer altruism.
You may end up with the same end result you are seeking but it will not be altruism that gets you there.
So, the moment you try to regulate altruism you destroy it.
There was a panel about this. You alter the game, you alter player behavior and that works as much in Natural Selection as it is in government, just much more complicated.
Altruism requires a personal choice. If you take away that choice (to be altruistic) it is no longer altruism.
You may end up with the same end result you are seeking but it will not be altruism that gets you there.
So, the moment you try to regulate altruism you destroy it.
And now you have nothing but an semantic argument. Congrats.
Are we disagreeing on the definition of altruism?
I disagree that altruism need not be a thing that people say is necessary. In fact, nearly any body of philosophy, be it moral or ethical, will talk about the necessity of altruism. If you practice altruism because someone told you to practice altruism, you're still doing it. Comte has this covered already.
The notion does not arise from nothing. Someone has to instill the idea in you at some point. So if it comes from another person or comes from the government, what's the difference?
There is some difference here Websters: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others Wikipedia: concern for the welfare of others.
the former requires the regard for the welfare of others to be immaculate. It's a troubling distinction though because you have people arguing by that definition that no action is ever altruistic.
What if you change the rules of the game (you know, laws, regulations, tax structures) such that altrustic end-behaviors result even when every individual actor is acting out of pure self-interest?
What if you change the rules of the game (you know, laws, regulations, tax structures) such that altrustic end-behaviors result even when every individual actor is acting out of pure self-interest?
Now THAT is an interesting idea. But isn't that just basically Socialism? Forcing social programs?
I will say this much about rand - She had some philosophical ideas worth discussion. I don't think most of them are actually workable - if you want an example of someone who wants to essentially turn Shrugged and Fountainhead into a political system, look no further than Ron and Rand(Yep, named after Ayn) Paul, and we know how THAT goes.
But by discussing these ideas, there are most certainly things we can learn, no matter if we agree with them or not.
That said - Jesus christ, Ayn Rand was a painfully bad writer, and I didn't enjoy her books, either. As much as discussing her ideas can be fruitful, I'd rather be beaten with a lead pipe than read her novels again.
Any policy is an act of social engineering be it positive or negative. Many people who advocate removing welfare programs believe it will encourage people to become more independent and hard working.
Socialism hardly holds a monopoly on it either. I still can't get liquor on Sunday for a reason. Sin taxes, as well, are a long American tradition.
Now THAT is an interesting idea. But isn't that just basically Socialism? Forcing social programs?
The difference is that rule-level incentives can still afford choice. A company or individual is not obligated to behave in altruistic way X, but is incentivized to do so out of raw self-interest compared to alternative actions.
For example, suppose that there were a "maximum" income level. Say, 5 million dollars a year gross. Suppose that this "maximum" is created by means of the marginal income tax rate becoming 99% at that level.
Sure, the person can make more money (and lose most of it to taxes). But, charitable donations are tax-exempt. So if this person makes money beyond the cap, they have the option to still make use of it (rather than just surrendering it to the government), but are constrained in these uses. They still get a benefit from the increased income beyond this level, but in a different way from raw incoming dollars.
This would likely encourage a great deal of largely charitable public works that happen to be named after very rich people without requiring any government bureaucracy to manage it directly.
(Vastly simplified example, I know, but I can defend this in depth if necessary).
I have always understood altruism to mean helping others with zero direct or indirect benefit to yourself.
Walking past a poor person and dropping money so that they get it but can't tell that you dropped it is altruistic. Handing them money while others watch and then bragging about how altruistic you are is not altruistic.
@Rym - That's not much of a choice because either way you don't get to keep the money.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."
Here endeth another episode of Atheist Uses the Bible to Make a Point
Now THAT is an interesting idea. But isn't that just basically Socialism? Forcing social programs?
The difference is that rule-level incentives can still afford choice. A company or individual is not obligated to behave in altruistic way X, but is incentivized to do so out of raw self-interest compared to alternative actions.
For example, suppose that there were a "maximum" income level. Say, 5 million dollars a year gross. Suppose that this "maximum" is created by means of the marginal income tax rate becoming 99% at that level.
Sure, the person can make more money (and lose most of it to taxes). But, charitable donations are tax-exempt. So if this person makes money beyond the cap, they have the option to still make use of it (rather than just surrendering it to the government), but are constrained in these uses. They still get a benefit from the increased income beyond this level, but in a different way from raw incoming dollars.
This would likely encourage a great deal of largely charitable public works that happen to be named after very rich people without requiring any government bureaucracy to manage it directly.
(Vastly simplified example, I know, but I can defend this in depth if necessary).
I feel like you've offered that solution a few times before, and all I can do is agree with it because the details make a lot of sense and I don't know the free market arguments well enough to play devil's advocate effectively.
Have you submitted this idea in any other public forums? The details make sense.
What if you change the rules of the game (you know, laws, regulations, tax structures) such that altrustic end-behaviors result even when every individual actor is acting out of pure self-interest?
Same difference, really. Altruism is about results, not motivation.
I'll caveat that by saying that I think pretty much all of life is about results, not as much about motivation.
Comments
Whips for everyone! That could be my platform.
Your argument is still talking about a situation where one is not acting in good faith - where a person has chosen to fulfill their rational self-interest in a way that exploits others to their exclusive detriment. Of course that will fuck things up, but those situations lead to slave revolts! And eventually, people realized that slavery was a bad idea. Well, at least, most people accepted it.
You do point to a problem - that of bread and circuses. A clever person will game people to keep them happy enough, while making large gains of their own. King-making, basically, as a form of exploitation. And the only solution is to have people king-make back, using a different stream of social currency. This is why it's important to encourage other people to look after their own aims as well - it gives them a bit of leverage of their own to alleviate being exploited.
But as long as you're willing to give out bread, things can balance out. The problem occurs when you trick people into thinking you're giving them bread, when you're really giving them dirt.
I suppose in that case the masses of people no longer benefiting or getting laid off by the parents' company because the children are mismanaging it could rise up.
We don't do a lot of those things though. Notably the efficiently part of it, and probably the well-regulated part of it too.
But you're still assuming that "rational self-interest" means "no rules." It doesn't have to, even though that's how most people seem to implement that. The problem is more that the "self-interest" part takes precedence over the "rational" in most cases. That's why top-level regulations are problematic - we can't actually get people to agree on a principle because there's no rationality to their self-interest.
Why does rational self-interest seem contrary to altruism? What if we create a paradigm wherein altruism IS in your rational best-interest? I point again to reciprocal altruism. It is a perfectly sensible implementation of rational self-interest. Generosity to others is an old survival mechanism in social animals - if I help you out, you'll be inclined to keep me around because you know I'm willing to help you. Likewise, if you help me out, I'm inclined to keep you around for the same reason. And thus we create a web of social connections based on mutual exchange of benefits. 1. They're broken.
2. They're not playing by the rules. If you're selfish, then you don't actually think that you need other people. Remember how I said that you need to get people to realize that they need other people before the web of rational self-interest works?
3. Outliers are going to exist no matter what. The system can deal with it as long as everyone else is playing fair.
You may end up with the same end result you are seeking but it will not be altruism that gets you there.
So, the moment you try to regulate altruism you destroy it.
The notion does not arise from nothing. Someone has to instill the idea in you at some point. So if it comes from another person or comes from the government, what's the difference?
Websters: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
Wikipedia: concern for the welfare of others.
the former requires the regard for the welfare of others to be immaculate. It's a troubling distinction though because you have people arguing by that definition that no action is ever altruistic.
But by discussing these ideas, there are most certainly things we can learn, no matter if we agree with them or not.
That said - Jesus christ, Ayn Rand was a painfully bad writer, and I didn't enjoy her books, either. As much as discussing her ideas can be fruitful, I'd rather be beaten with a lead pipe than read her novels again.
Socialism hardly holds a monopoly on it either. I still can't get liquor on Sunday for a reason. Sin taxes, as well, are a long American tradition.
For example, suppose that there were a "maximum" income level. Say, 5 million dollars a year gross. Suppose that this "maximum" is created by means of the marginal income tax rate becoming 99% at that level.
Sure, the person can make more money (and lose most of it to taxes). But, charitable donations are tax-exempt. So if this person makes money beyond the cap, they have the option to still make use of it (rather than just surrendering it to the government), but are constrained in these uses. They still get a benefit from the increased income beyond this level, but in a different way from raw incoming dollars.
This would likely encourage a great deal of largely charitable public works that happen to be named after very rich people without requiring any government bureaucracy to manage it directly.
(Vastly simplified example, I know, but I can defend this in depth if necessary).
Walking past a poor person and dropping money so that they get it but can't tell that you dropped it is altruistic. Handing them money while others watch and then bragging about how altruistic you are is not altruistic.
@Rym - That's not much of a choice because either way you don't get to keep the money.
Here endeth another episode of Atheist Uses the Bible to Make a Point
Have you submitted this idea in any other public forums? The details make sense.
I'll caveat that by saying that I think pretty much all of life is about results, not as much about motivation.