Is altruism dead?

Nov 17 02:08 UTC 2003

I scare myself in my feeling of contempt for some people in society, I'm 
sure it shows in my attitude, and I don't even realize it. for example. 

I thought to myself, 'if there were a fire in my place what would be the 
few items i'd choose to try to save?' (being that I live alone) my digital
camera, laptop and legal documents (SS card, birth cert, etc). I guess that 
gives you an indication of what you find in life to be important. 

That's not such a hard choice, really. But hypothetically lets say you had 
your most prized (material) possession in room A and an unknown stranger in
room B, and you only have time to rescue one of them. I hate to say it, but
I'd really have to think a long time about it. I would probably rescue the 
stranger, but only because it would make me look bad if I didn't (not to 
mention good samaritan laws). yeah that's me being brutally honest with 
myself.

I'm betting there are alot of people thinking, "well thats not me, people 
are waaaay more important than material possessions". Well, probably a more
realistic senario would be a car broken down on the freeway, how many people
stop on a regular bases to help them out? 

I'm sure everyone has passed them on the road. Lets say its an old lady in
her late 70's (actually should it even matter their gender and age). Most 
who don't stop, probably justify their actions by thinking "well, i'm sure
they have a cellphone and AAA" or "I'm sure a state trooper will be along
here soon anyways" or "They might me a roadside serial killer that i've 
heard about; it would be foolish to risk my life", but aren't you putting 
you life at risk in the 'room A or B' senerio too?

Back in sept 2001, when the WTC was struck, I was almost totally glued to 
my TV for the next few day to see how the events were going to play out. My
memory is fuzzy but I think I remember seeing an AP picture of some guy that 
was playing golf as the towers burned in the distance background a few miles
away.  Looking back i'm not sure if I feel that's such a bad thing. (Even 
though I'm a somewhat agnostic person), it reminds me of the prayer:

God, grant me the serenity, To accept the things I cannot change, the courage 
to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Most people would probably be horrified, saying that I have no compassion to 
think that way. But isn't a paradox, that people are more concerned with 
people who have no chance of escaping vs helping someone brokedown on the 
freeway, or even some thing as mundame as volunteering at a soup kitchen, 
donating blood, giving money to a poor person living on the streets.

Is that a defeatist additude? Where does one draw the line? Is altruism dead?

response 2 of 46:

Nov 17 02:55 UTC 2003

I cannot imagine saving a computer rather than a person.
We once rescued a biker on the highway.  She zoomed past three of us on her
skinny tire bike, trying to do 100 miles in one day.  A medical student.  We
were carrying tent and sleeping bags, etc.  Ten minutes later we caught up
and changed her flat tire as she was not burdening herself with tools.
We have been pulled out of a snowbank in Colorado by a passing car driven by
people originally from Ypsilanti, and out of mud in Ypsilanti by a very polite
young black man who probably has to deal with people being afraid of him.
And given a ride when we were biking in Ann Arbor and it started raining hard.
(It helped to have a 2 year old along).  We have also picked up interesting
hitchhikers.  One of them was surprised to find out I spoke his language
(Czech) and decided to continue with us for three days.  

If I were to rescue possessions it would be photographs.

response 4 of 46:

Nov 17 03:45 UTC 2003

I'm not as cynical as Rand.  I still think it is ok to aspire to 
altruism, even if it is a harmless self-delusion.

response 6 of 46:

Nov 17 04:58 UTC 2003

Everything we do is because it satisfies a need inside us.  The only 
alternative you have to agreeing with that statement is to state we do 
things at random, without any contributing cause.

"Altruism" doesn't mean you don't feel good or get some other benefit; 
it means you are trying to help others rather than yourself.  It's 
okay to feel good or be happy when you do things for others, and still 
call it "altruism".  You'd be a very strange person -- you'd have to 
be insane -- if you really didn't derive any benefit at all from doing 
things for others.

It seems kind of pointless, to me, to define words to mean something 
that can't ever exist or happen.  The Ayn Rand definition of altruism 
is as useless in communicating as is talking of "dry water" 
or "descending upward" or "happy despair".  It seems to me she 
strained the word out of shape and then pointed out it didn't mean 
anything any more.  I don't agree with her on that.  If I hand a bum 
on the street $20, it's altruism.  He's not going to do anything for 
me.  If it makes me happy, that doesn't invalidate that I was nice to 
the person.

response 8 of 46:

Nov 17 11:48 UTC 2003

More and more they are finding that a lack of empathy is hard wired brain
chemistry.  Experts found the differences most striking when looking at
the brains of serial killers.  But it can also be picked up in children
with specific disorders, like mild autism.  

A child can be taught to initiate appropriate social responses.
Don't know if they've had much success with adults.

response 10 of 46:

Nov 17 15:47 UTC 2003

It's not lack of empathy. It's lack of enough resources to feed oneself and
all the charities that are asking for money.

response 12 of 46:

Nov 17 18:10 UTC 2003

If it were just me, and the stalled car had three very big men, I 
wouldn't stop to help. True, I'm making an assumption which could be 
very wrong, but it's called self preservation.

As for eprom's example, I don't know what I'd save. I'd like to say 
the stranger in the next room, but I know it really depends on what 
my "prized" possessions are at that time. For eg, I'd save my cat 
before a total stranger. Sad, but true.

response 14 of 46:

Nov 17 19:29 UTC 2003

My, you are the appreciative one.

response 16 of 46:

Nov 17 20:12 UTC 2003

"helping" behavior has been studied a lot by psychologists and 
sociologists. A lot of interesting things about helping. For instance, 
if there are a lot of people around, there is diffused responsibility 
and thus the liklihood that help will be forthcoming is reduced. Think 
about it. Imagine your scenario where you can save your possessions or 
you can save a person but there are also a dozen other people around 
who also can save the person. Wouldnt that make you even more likely to 
dive to save your stuff?

It is the same with the road scenario. If it is a busy highway, there 
is diffused responsibility. I have passed lots of people in urban 
areas. But, if I was driving out west in the desert and there was 
nothing around for miles, I probably would stop. 

response 18 of 46:

Nov 17 20:21 UTC 2003

I think this is the wrong item Rane, but I don't remember if it fizzed 
with the acid. 

response 22 of 46:

Nov 18 09:22 UTC 2003

I have notied people are more inclined to help at accidents - or at 
least check things out - compared to situations that might end them up 
in hazardous situations. That's why people don't interfere in fights.