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.
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.