Is altruism impossible?

[Evales]

Is it possible?

[JoeyKnothead]

Since this good feeling is difficult to detect or measure...problematic to prove...(in every case).
It goes further to indicate MRI testing may shed light, but offers no more info.

I understand falsifiability, but here it gives no indication why this alone would prove me wrong. It could mean "We can measure the good feeling sometimes, and sometimes not".

But even accepting the theory of the universal good feeling, it is difficult to explain, for example, the actions of a soldier who sacrifices his life by jumping on a grenade in order to save his comrades. In this case, there is simply no time to experience a good feeling for one's actions, though a psychological egoist may argue that the soldier experiences good feeling in knowing that he is sacrificing his life to ensure the survival of his comrades, or that he is avoiding the pain associated with the thought of all his comrades dying.

I see a reactionary, even unconsious act, but rooted in the good feeling. Is this where I'm wrong? When I was in the Army we were told not to do this, but obviously it still happens. I still consider this to be an action where the person's sense of right and wrong compels him to sacrifice himself. The sacrifice actually being a good feeling that he or she has risked life or limb to save others.

(I got nothing out of Experience Machine)

If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment.

I see that, but could it be said: "Why did he act that way?" Feels good. - I don't think that's circular.

Sober and Wilson ultimately argue that the psychological evidence and philosophical arguments are inconclusive on this debate, yet they argue that evolutionary theory provides good evidence that psychological egoism is false.

Without further info I don't see this rebutting my position.

I don't think there is enough weight to prove my position wrong. I am honestly trying to see the wrongness in my argument, but I just don't see it.

So I ask, can you refine these points...
Falsifiability, Explanatory Power, and maybe Circularity if the first two don't quite get us there.

[Thought Criminal]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

A better argument would be that altruism is generalized from kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. Nonetheless, that would not undermine its existence, merely explain its origins.

TC

[Beto]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

A better argument would be that altruism is generalized from kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. Nonetheless, that would not undermine its existence, merely explain its origins.

But doesn't the origin invalidate claims of "unselfishness", which is in the definition? Doesn't that create sort of a paradox?

[JoeyKnothead]

I think I've got it! When expressed as a reflexive action, like jumping on a grenade, it's altruism. When expressed as a conscious act, like holding doors open, it's selfish, but honorably so.

Right?

[Thought Criminal]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

A better argument would be that altruism is generalized from kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. Nonetheless, that would not undermine its existence, merely explain its origins.

But doesn't the origin invalidate claims of "unselfishness", which is in the definition? Doesn't that create sort of a paradox?

Only if you think there's a paradox in the fact that the most selfish thing genes can do is create a vehicle capable of unselfishness.

TC

[Evales]

I think I've got it! When expressed as a reflexive action, like jumping on a grenade, it's altruism. When expressed as a conscious act, like holding doors open, it's selfish, but honorably so.

Right?

Yes I believe that you may have something here. Only thing is that the instinctive jumping on the grenade has no conscious thought. I guess this means any conscious thought is selfish (though this is not necessarily a bad thing) TC will slam me for this

[Beto]

Suppose "altruism", as a human perceives it, is simply an evolutionary remnant of a once beneficial behavior, like the one we see on food-sharing monkeys. If "altruism" is instinctual, than it doesn't really exist as an "unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others". It's just an itch we have to scratch.

A better argument would be that altruism is generalized from kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. Nonetheless, that would not undermine its existence, merely explain its origins.

But doesn't the origin invalidate claims of "unselfishness", which is in the definition? Doesn't that create sort of a paradox?

Only if you think there's a paradox in the fact that the most selfish thing genes can do is create a vehicle capable of unselfishness.

You kinda lost me there.

Let me ask this way: an altruistic action is unselfish by definition, right? Can we ever claim the satisfaction of a biological urge is unselfish? I see a paradox between an evolutionary explanation and the dictionary definition.

[Thought Criminal]

Only if you think there's a paradox in the fact that the most selfish thing genes can do is create a vehicle capable of unselfishness.

You kinda lost me there.

Let me try again.

Consider a basic example from game theory. The two of us want to divide up a bowl of popcorn fairly. We agree that each of us is entitled to an equal share, but we don't trust each other to divide fairly.

The algorithmic way of converting selfishness to fairness here is to simply separate the tasks fo division and choosing. If you have to divide but you know I get to choose, it suddenly becomes in your best interest to divide as equally as possible, knowing that I'll grab the larger share if you divide unequally. This is just as true if I wind up doing the dividing, of course.

In this way, our self-interest is optimized by acting as unselfishly as we can. Now consider the case of "selfish" genes wishing only to propagate themselves. Due to the success of tit-for-tat in the iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, creating an organism capable of kin, reciprocal and general altruism can be a very good move.

Let me ask this way: an altruistic action is unselfish by definition, right? Can we ever claim the satisfaction of a biological urge is unselfish? I see a paradox between an evolutionary explanation and the dictionary definition.

We can claim it because, as I just explained, it can be in our interest to be altruistic.

TC

[Beto]

We can claim it because, as I just explained, it can be in our interest to be altruistic.

If it's in our interest, how is it unselfish?

[Thought Criminal]

We can claim it because, as I just explained, it can be in our interest to be altruistic.

If it's in our interest, how is it unselfish?

There is no conflict here. Our interests are not synonymous with selfishness.

TC