Over the two years I've been here at GMU, I've gotten into several discussions with classmates debating if altruism matters. My take is that it matters immeasurably. Their stance is typically that altruism often does more harm than good (for those who read my blog, please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing our discussions).
In support of my view, here is a quote Tyler Cowen just posted from the book, England: An Elegy:
The English were well known for their disposition to provide help in emergencies. This disposition went to the heart of their conception of society, as a duty-bound relation between strangers. Their charitable behaviour was a way of emphasizing that strangers are just as important as friends -- because all of us, in the end, are nobodies. By devoting yourself to the distressed stranger you make it clear that you too are a stranger in this world. You reaffirm the distance between yourself and others, by showing that the motive that binds you to society is one of impartial justice and objective duty. The charitable relief of strangers was simply another aspect of English reserve.
That is from Roger Scruton's over the top but nonetheless fascinating England: An Elegy; he portrays the English as a people who have substituted morale and teamwork for intimacy. If you are looking to understand why so many parts of the world find it difficult to adopt either capitalism or free political institutions, this is one of the very best places to start. The English recipe is by no means the only way to go, but from Scruton one gets a good sense of just how much cultural background is needed to sustain liberty.
My take is that I believe notions of altruism and justice are necessary precursors for establishing well-functioning legal and political systems which in turn allow for functioning markets to emerge. Without these as a foundation, I don't believe free-markets and liberty are be sustainable. Nobel Laureates F.A. Hayek and James Buchanan agree with me on this. (Or maybe I should say I agree with them...)
See my previous post on Greed Is Good? for many more of my thoughts on this. Be sure to scroll down into the comments section to see some of our discussion on the issue.
In defense of my classmates, let me also say that there are many times in which efforts to do good to others often lead to harmful consequences if done without feedback and correction. Read Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed for an excellent look into this issue.
3 comments:
I really doubt that we have an area of substantive disagreement on this - I think it's just semantics. As I mentioned to you before, I prefer the Randian definition of altruism, which is "care for the other without concern for the self" (and, notably, Rand always made exception for "emergencies"). As I read the Scruton passage, it is all about how an Englishman conceives of himself and his place in the world (and, notably, his discussion is limited to "emergencies"). I think we spoke about this notion the other day, the idea of projecting a consistent persona into the world - following the Golden Rule, essentially. I would like people to help me in emergencies, and not for them to go much out of their way to help me during normal times. Thus, that's what I do for them.
The problem is that I think "going out of your way to help others in normal times" is precisely what most people mean when they say "altruism". Then again, Wikipedia seems to want it both ways:
Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. ...In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics.
How the Golden Rule can be construed as "selfless" is beyond me. The Golden Rule is what the person himself makes it. If you never want any help, the Golden Rule says never to give any help.
But, there is a separate Wikipedia entry for "Altruism (ethics)":
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
Yeah, that's the "altruism" I know and loathe. So... If "altruism" means the Golden Rule, I'm an altruist. If it means "living for the sake of others", I'm not.
Jason,
Thanks for the comments and sorry for the tardy response on this. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a holistic definition of altruism that I feel sufficiently encompasses it.
I'd certainly agree that the Golden Rule is the best guideline for moral behavior. As a Christian, I am partial to these two definitions:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12)
"Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:31)
Broadly conceived I think these two principles guide to the same actions and are limited in application by the knowledge problem. I think altruism is a strong compliment and not a contradiction to the market. Market transactions are great for dealing with impersonal transactions. Altruism is good for navigation through personal encounters, relationships, and times of crisis or areas with imperfect markets. It is most effective when applied to those around you. (That is not to discount the role of altruism in larger contexts, but I do think it is often prone to scaling issues.)
I'm cautious about defining altruism too narrowly (or too broadly) and I do think it benefits society as a whole to maintain and cultivate conceptions of hoping for and working towards the welfare of others. (What Adam Smith would call “sympathy”.) In earlier days, altruistic acts were typically confined to communities where people knew one another and specific needs. Today with greater wealth, mobility, and technology, we have the capacity for doing greater good, but also face greater limitations based on our knowledge of those in need.
I've been involved with many organizations that engage in altruistic endeavors and find most of them are successful at doing good for others. One of the best examples I can think of is Give Kids the World (GKTW) down in Orlando which works with many companies and hundreds of volunteers to give terminally ill kids (and their families) whose last wish is to see Mickey Mouse a free week-long trip to Orlando. Airlines give them free tickets, the rental car companies give free rental cars, all the parks (Disney, Sea World, Universal, etc.) give free admission to all the parks and special treatment while they are there, and there are volunteers from all over Central Florida that contribute thousands of hours of time each year. I volunteered down there on a weekly basis for 7+ years. As far as I know, none of the companies who help use their support for any kind of advertising. I know there are economic argumentations for why corporations shouldn't try to be socially responsible and be profit maximizers instead, but I have to take off my economist hat here and applaud everyone involved with GKTW. The families who visit are often at the point of desperation and many of the kids pass away shortly after their visits.
Give Kids the World is one of the best examples of an altruistic organization that I know of. I also know many missionaries who have dedicated their lives to serving others, embedding themselves in areas they think are most in need of physical and spiritual help in order to try to overcome the knowledge problem. I have a difficult time conceiving of this in a negative light.
I do think it is important to stay aware of and away from what I will call "cheap altruism". I would define this as acts that serve the purpose of making us feel good about ourselves rather than those that actually help others. But I'd also say that care must be taken in avoiding things of dismissing the actions of others simply because they make us feel good about ourselves. From an ethical standpoint, the focus of altruism should be about helping people rather than about whether or not there is resulting self-gratification.
I understand the vagueness of the phrase "helping people", but I mean it in the following sense. Does your act add to the immediate or long-term welfare of the individual(s) in a way that creates no negative incentives or long-term harm?
Altruism is often not as clear-cut as many of us would like it to be, but I think it is an important aspect of society, relationships, and of personal character.
I'm working through much of this as I write. I appreciate your feedback as it is helping me clarify my own thinking. Do you have any further thoughts?
~ Brian
P.S. -- Incidentally, reciprocity (limited altruism) has been shown to be a better holistic strategy in repeated games than pure self-interest. [PDF]
As an ethical theory, I believe altruism would say not to maximize your own payoff, but to maximize the payoffs of others. Thus in, say, a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game, altruism counsels unconditional cooperation. Whereas, an ethical theory of self-interest counsels whatever strategy yields the highest payoff to yourself, whatever that may be.
Post a Comment