Words that need to be erased from dictionary: “altruism”.
I do not remember any situation where using this word resulted in anything useful.
It seems to me that in practice the word is used as a wannabe-sophisticated synonym for “good” with the extra connotation that something is truly good only if you hurt yourself in the process. Doing win/win things is not altruistic; it’s dirty, low-status. Even feeling good about helping others is suspicious; maybe your true reason is not wanting to help others, but wanting to feel good about helping others, you selfish asshole!
When this word joins the debate, the attention is taken away from the amount of good that is produced, as that is completely irrelevant for deciding whether an act is “altruistic” or not. The important thing is to signal that you are not seeking profit, that your intentions are pure. If you create 1000 utilons for others and 1 utilon for yourself (such as “feeling happy that the world is a nice place”), it is not altruistic. If you create 1 utilon for others and −1 or −2 utilons for yourself, it is altruistic. Therefore, somehow, the latter is better than the former.
Ask yourself whether you would rather live in a society where people regularly create 1000 utilons for others and 1 utilon for themselves (i.e. people who are not altruistic), or in a society where people regularly create 1 utilon for others and −2 utilons for themselves.
I am not saying that if you can create 1000 utilons for others and −1 for yourself, you shouldn’t do it. It would be nice if you do. Especially if this is a social norm, and others do it too, so at the end of the day you usually still end up with positive total utilons. But the focus is on the +1000 utilons; that is the goal. That −1 utilon for yourself is just an unfortunate cost; if you could achieve the same outcome without paying the cost, that would be better (but no longer altruistic). Optimizing for altruism is the wrong goal. You should optimize to do good.
“Pure altruism” is one of those concepts that are stretched beyond its domain of applicability. An altruistic person is someone who derives more satisfaction from improving the welfare of others than the society’s average, without expecting an extrinsic reward. There is no more to it than that. By definition, any society will have the whole spectrum of altruism and selfishness. Going any further makes the concept less useful, so don’t do it, invent a different concept for the domain you are interested in.
Note also that it’s very hard to distinguish (especially in others) someone who’s altruistic because they derive satisfaction by improving welfare, or if they want to appear altruistic, so people will treat them as if they want to improve welfare. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter—actions, even with poor motivations, are often the important part of actual welfare improvements.
Words that need to be erased from dictionary: “altruism”.
I do not remember any situation where using this word resulted in anything useful.
It seems to me that in practice the word is used as a wannabe-sophisticated synonym for “good” with the extra connotation that something is truly good only if you hurt yourself in the process. Doing win/win things is not altruistic; it’s dirty, low-status. Even feeling good about helping others is suspicious; maybe your true reason is not wanting to help others, but wanting to feel good about helping others, you selfish asshole!
When this word joins the debate, the attention is taken away from the amount of good that is produced, as that is completely irrelevant for deciding whether an act is “altruistic” or not. The important thing is to signal that you are not seeking profit, that your intentions are pure. If you create 1000 utilons for others and 1 utilon for yourself (such as “feeling happy that the world is a nice place”), it is not altruistic. If you create 1 utilon for others and −1 or −2 utilons for yourself, it is altruistic. Therefore, somehow, the latter is better than the former.
Ask yourself whether you would rather live in a society where people regularly create 1000 utilons for others and 1 utilon for themselves (i.e. people who are not altruistic), or in a society where people regularly create 1 utilon for others and −2 utilons for themselves.
I am not saying that if you can create 1000 utilons for others and −1 for yourself, you shouldn’t do it. It would be nice if you do. Especially if this is a social norm, and others do it too, so at the end of the day you usually still end up with positive total utilons. But the focus is on the +1000 utilons; that is the goal. That −1 utilon for yourself is just an unfortunate cost; if you could achieve the same outcome without paying the cost, that would be better (but no longer altruistic). Optimizing for altruism is the wrong goal. You should optimize to do good.
“Pure altruism” is one of those concepts that are stretched beyond its domain of applicability. An altruistic person is someone who derives more satisfaction from improving the welfare of others than the society’s average, without expecting an extrinsic reward. There is no more to it than that. By definition, any society will have the whole spectrum of altruism and selfishness. Going any further makes the concept less useful, so don’t do it, invent a different concept for the domain you are interested in.
Note also that it’s very hard to distinguish (especially in others) someone who’s altruistic because they derive satisfaction by improving welfare, or if they want to appear altruistic, so people will treat them as if they want to improve welfare. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter—actions, even with poor motivations, are often the important part of actual welfare improvements.
What do you want? What will you do to make it so?
When you know the answers to those questions, the questions of this post are dissolved.