|
|
|
|
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 6:49:02 PM | Let me lay down the basic definitions first:
Altrusim: The individual has a moral obligation to help, save, or benefit others or a larger collection of people (community, state, church, family, etc)
Individualism: The individual has a moral obligation to remain independent, self reliant, not defined by a group of which they are a member.
So, here's the question:
Given the basics of human evolution, which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations?
We some from a system which immediately selects against altruism. Nature is ruled by the law of the jungle, kill or be killed, the ultimate in individualism. Only the genes of the fit are to be passed on, the weak perish. Any creature willing to sacrifice itself for the "common good" of the species doesn't pass on their genes, while creatures that look out specifically for themselves (and possibly their offspring) do.
But humans have developed a more complicated social system than any other animal. It's possible to theorize that we wouldn't occupy the top of the food chain i it hadn't been for our communal actions. Hunting, early agriculture, tribal survival, these are all instances where altruism played an important role in human evolution and development.
Which is more important to human beings today? Should we remain focused on the individual or the collective?
Personally, I'm a Libertarian Objectivist, so you know what I think. Me and mine, the rest of you can take a hike.  | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:01:20 PM | | Why not individualism plus altruism? It takes an individual to be altruistic. What has been called the second great commandment, "love your neighbor as yourself." | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:09:54 PM | There can be no doubt that the "community" evolved from the dog eat dog law of the jungle because people working together for the common good resulted in much more efficient production and use of resources. Communities grew within the dog eat dog jungle, displacing competition with cooperation. So cooperation is definitely the way to go. We could consider these communities of altruistic people as individual organisms competing in the jungle for resources with other communities, so the human condition is currently like a hybrid philosophy of both. We have individuals who are altruistic with members of their community, but communities that compete with each other almost as law of the jungle individuals.
Which outcome would be more efficient:
Shrink the communities back into competitive individuals that might even turn on their young to survive?
OR
Grow and merge the communities until there IS only one "community of Man", altruistically working in cooperation with everyone else in the (now global) community?
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I long ago decided which alternative is superior. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:50:25 PM |
Nature is ruled by the law of the jungle, That's an opinion not supported by reality. In this natural hodgepodge we have more examples of organisms in symbiosis and cooperation than we have examples of ruthless competition. You get the "law of the jungle" stuff from propaganda meant to inspire people to clump together in some group against some other group, and it's used to rationalize the behaviors of total jerk-offs when they do dirt to other people. It's true that meat comes from critters, and food is typically got through some sort of destructive process, but at the same time there are bees pollinating flowers, and the like. I'll have to reject both options of your question in favor of a more informed and realistic take on the way life works. In that sense, what people should do is, read more so they don't make the mistake of adopting flawed premises for conjecture about how people are and how people should behave. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 8:36:15 PM |
but at the same time there are bees pollinating flowers
Which is purely self-interest at work. The bees are "paid" for accidentally pollinating other flowers. The flowers gain, the bees gain. Neither intends to benefit the other, each simply takes advantage of a resource available to them. Other plants fool the pollinators completely, and don't actually give them a reward. Some baited "pollinators" cheat the plant by taking what they want and giving nothing back. Some plants actually 'eat' their would-be pollinators.
Altruism only works if it indirectly benefits the individual. In most cases in the natural world, including humans, acts are not selfless. They promote survival of one's own genes by ensuring care of offspring by the extended family, or by helping those genes survive in nieces, nephews, and grandchildren. This is generally done by *non-reproductive* family members: elderly, juveniles, drone or worker castes. There are no altruistic species, and species-wide altruism is unlikely to work. It's the individual which strives to achieve, the individual which reproduces, the individual which carries genetic innovation. It is self-interest which advances the species as a whole, and only limited altruism [or enlightened self-interest] is actually helpful to this. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 8:54:00 PM | I agree with Frog Eyes.
Humans have always been competitive, and there have always been those with the most, and those with the least. This is the way natural selection works, after all.
Those with the most have always, and will always, continue to be superior to those with the least. Again, nature at work. There is no reason to assume that this will change.
For an alturistic pattern to emerge in society, you must convince each and every single member to be altruistic. Otherwise, the many will support the few in a "feel good" dictatorship. The only way to prevent those who have more ability, talent, drive, ambition, etc from rising as high as they can, taking the reigns of the system as they do so, requires us to remove all incentive to perform. As long as there remains a position of power, a position of leadership, you can never have a completely altruistic society.
Like No Child Left Behind. Slow the advanced kids to the level of the slow ones.
Obviously, humans are not hardwired for this. We only work as a community when things are hunky dorey. When hard times fall, it has usually becomes "every man for himself" rather quickly.
To the scientific anaylsis of the rules of nature: Even symbiotic organisms compete with one another. Our cells all work together, trillions of them performing their sole function, and yet the combined effort is a living animal, which does compete and kill for survival. Lichen must have a patch of space to grow, and if another lichen is after that patch, competition must occur, even between symbiotic organisms.
Symbiosis is like nature's version of a corporation. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 10:38:02 PM |
So, here's the question:
Given the basics of human evolution, which paradigm is the best when viewing the world and situations?
The above is a concept that is known as 'building a strawman'; creating a situation wherein all views other than the ones preferred by the originator are culled or otherwise made verboten in the hope of having others believe this means they cannot be introduced as points of discussion.
In reality, the human structure is an often clumsy thing that shifts wildly from extreme to extreme as humans grapple with overcoming their physiology whilst maintaining some semblance of intellectual superiority (and usually manage little more than increasingly bizarre examples of hypocrisy in the process).
There is no one ideology or philosophy that can address all circumstance and situation equally and without fail. This is why there are a proliferation of both in the world.
There is no one "solution" to any given issue or problem within the human experience because humans are, at best, a bundle of contradictions and competing urges seeking satiation.
Ultimately, there is no 'best' paradigm beyond the one that allows a human to cope, live in health and relative autonomy, and find the most beneficial means by which to cooperate with others while still retaining their natural, human right to exist in peace so long as they choose to exist by peace.
Personally, I find that labels constrain more than they contain and most who use them do so as a means of having to avoid the messy reality that no label sticks well or forever and, if you truly wish to know something to a degree of fullness, the first thing you must do is remove the labels and be willing to be messy. Life is messy and, believe it or not, that's just as much a 'good' thing as it is a 'bad' one (frankly, it's neither; it just is what it is). | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/25/2009 10:46:15 PM | I'm afraid I gotta disagree with you guys; true altruism exists in both the lower animal kingdom and in Man. It is programmed into our genes by evolution and is instinctive.
Aside from the animal kingdom (like spiders who turn their digestve juices inward in an act of "generous" suicide to feed the young and give them a good start in life, to slime molds, to bees that give their lives (and stingers) to protect the hive, etc.) even the lowly human has an altruistic instinct to save the young. How many times have you heard of the "hero" passerby who dashed into a burning building to save a baby he heard crying (sometimes dying in the attempt)? When interviewed they usually say it wasn't an act of heroism, they never gave it a second thought and the danger never even entered their mind. In your own case (if you have kids) would you hesitate even for a second to give your life (if it became necessary) that your child could live?
No, I'd say true altruism exists and it serves the function of better ensuring the survival of our progeny, and quite possibly of our community. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 1:40:29 AM | Describing a philosophical manner in which you believe the world actually functions in terms of behaviour is nothing more than a statement of personal politics. It is a political statement and neither philosophy nor science.
For example: the world is basically altruistic/I am an altruist
All organisms function to satisfy individual needs/I am an individualist
What we are in fact discussing is behavioural protocols, which vary by any case. Qualified research has even debunked animal husbandry in terms of behavioural tendencies among breeds of dog, with findings that under a closed environment all breeds studied maintained the same tendencies toward any given behaviour at any instance (and behavioural traits between breeds were only prevalent where the various breeds were exposed to each other in a common environment). All breeds displayed the same tendencies to bite or shy under duress in a closed environment for example, which was completely random with no predictability among any breed studied, the findings being any breed of dog individually behaves as it sees fit with no particular tendencies beyond physical traits in a common social environment, and culturing.
So far a good portion of the scientific community still views any contention genetics is in any way responsible for individual behavioural tendencies beyond physical traits and medical predisposition; which remains at this time entirely unsupported by succinct evidence by the way, as likened to neo-Eugenics born of Nazism, declared "scientific racism" by the anthropological community and challenged wherever presented with neo-Eugenics emphasis, by the biological community (neo-Eugenics is a pseudoscience which claims behaviour such as criminal tendencies may be predicted by genetic biology, eg. negros are more likely to be alcoholic wife beaters because of something in the blood, arabs are more likely to be terrorists because of genetic brain function, etc.).
Another important point is that the current model of evolution is not natural selection, but complex evolutionary diversity, which is a very different measure particularly when used to correlate anthropological and sociological assertions. Altruistic behaviour is entirely necessary within a wide demographic of species for rearing young or functioning as a socially cooperative organisation for example. The Omega Wolf cannot be termed anything but a completely altruistic behaviour, it is identified within the pack by its altruistic behaviour. Interestingly there are times it leads the pack, in most circumstances other than hunting and feeding, it is believed to play the most important role of the pack in social bonding (fostering socially cooperative behaviour necessary for species survival) and as herald of the seasonal mating cycles, as well as playing an important role in the development of youngsters.
In any case it has already been extrapolated in the thread that vast generalisations of animal behaviour, particularly summarised within a word or term is simplistic in the extreme and lacks any academic or analytical value. For the most part each and every species has extremely complex behaviour, which is probably package and parcel of being complex life forms.
In terms of healthy human behaviour, of course since we are talking about behaviour, which is an entirely elective subject, we are discussing little more than opinion. Mine is that a healthy mixture of individualistic and altruistic routines are best, like any extremes. Too far one way or the other is inherently limited in terms of perspective.
Upon cursory examination I feel this is reflected in nature among a wide variety of mammals, though individual groups certainly appear to have their regional cultures.
Among Chimpanzees which is a close relative there are distinct cultural tendencies between regional and social groups. In one particular forest in equatorial Africa (duh) two groups live in close proximity, one enjoying a hunter community which actively engages in torture of cohabiting species of monkey for personal amusement as well as finding them a primary food source. This has been documented. The other group just a short distance away lives an essentially altruistic life of eating berries and proliferent copulation, they never stop doing either and mate all year round.
Two completely different cultural and behavioural approaches to surviving a common environment. The hunter group attempts to fend off large cat attacks, for which they are a primary food source using violent outbursts and socially coordinated defensive behaviour. The gatherer group merely ignores cat attacks, making up the numbers with their proliferent, all year round and free for all mating behaviour.
So it seems even nature can't decide which is best, and in human moral terms either could be a problem if taken to extremes. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 2:32:00 AM | | I am not well studied in this area but from what i can see altruism is not a reflection of our society at all. Even though we have created communities and countries they operate much like individuals in groups. If we were altruistic we would have no need for boarders and weapons to protect ourselves. We simply allow others to make decisions for us for our own protection now instead of getting the blood on our own hands as they say. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 8:31:33 AM | "Another important point is that the current model of evolution is not natural selection, but complex evolutionary diversity, which is a very different measure particularly when used to correlate anthropological and sociological assertions." - Vanaheim
Could you please elaborate on how the two are different? I'm not sure that I understand your point. Please PM me if you think that it will distract greatly from the thread, but I think that many here may also find your views informative. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:55:52 AM | | As I understand it, it's about the genes/species surviving, not necessarily the individual. An individual willingly sacrificing his/her own life can help perpetuate the species. I think Dawkins talks about this in The Selfish Gene. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 10:26:35 AM | | It is to my understanding that human beings have evolved far beyond the necessary intellectual capabilities to live comfortably. Altruism and Individualism seem to be concepts created in an attempt to assisting us in understanding the world. Please also keep in mind that humans are social animals. Also, all things in nature have symbiotic relationships whereas human beings seem to be the "odd man out". Simply categorizing behaviours into 2 possibilities seem an oversimplification. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 10:37:06 AM | I am an altruistic individual, I think there is a balance I have achived in my life. I am completely not willing to play the social games and speak my mind but I do care about what happens to others and about my country as a whole. I think all humans work on a scale between total animal and total cerebral. I think this ideology driven way of looking at life causes a lot of strife from both sides.
From my friends that think the one world enlightenment will happen and the every man for himself libertarian wanna be who thinks he is his own man, using the state roads and water and sewer sytems and expecting police and fire protection while crying about paying taxes. We are a social animal that need numbers to survive, you can't be top dog without a pack. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 12:28:12 PM | Let's seperate altruism from cooperation for a moment. Cooperation is necessary for humans to exist and prosper. One reason humans evolved succesfully is that we cooperate. The question then become, what is the nature of that cooperation? Is it based on our individual, rationally choosen values traded with other individuals with rationally chooen values? Or is it based on what others tell us ought be our values for the sake of everyone but ourselves?
Altruism is based on the concept that the values of others are always superior to the values of our own. Altruism means we exist for the good of the group, not for our own happiness.
I believe the nature of man is to cooperate through trading of values, whether those values are material goods, ideas, or concepts. It is through our productive and creative work that we create things that are both of value to self and value to others. We do not create "for" others but to trade with others. It also means I won't do something that violates my own self interest -- means I won't betray my values. If a man fights for his freedom, this is not altruistic because that freedom is of value to him -- even if he loses his life in the process. If a man fights for the freedom of others, even then, it's not altruistic because he's fighting for the concept or idea that he values.
So the real question is -- do we believe in cooperative values-based individualism or altruism? | |
|
| |
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 1:17:53 PM | Kadmus: Individualism, because people are innately self-serving.
QuietJohn: Because people are selfish, and would want to pass on their genes in an attempt to fulfill a sense of immortality. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 1:51:51 PM | Basically the dichotomy presented is false. Obviously both are true, one might become more or less obvious in any given situation in any given organism.
Altruism helps the individual by providing it with the necessary environment to survive, especially in humans the social environment, which provides our adaptable brains with important stimulation. We are highly interdependent on each other, and since we are omnivorous beings we need many plant and animal species to survive. To be ruthlessly individualist would be disastrous to that individual by placing it outside the ecosystem and the community on which it depends.
Individualism helps the community and the ecosystem by allowing the individual to express their own genetic makeup, which alters only so much within their lifespan. If the individual sacrificed everything for the group, the group would be made up of weak individuals unable to survive on their own. Since everyone must pull the bulk of their own life, as well as aid others in the group, having strong individuals is an asset for everyone.
Balance is key in the dynamics of a community and of the ecosystem in general. Waves of one type might dominate at one point or another, depending on the tendencies of the group to either expand, remain stable, or disintegrate. Each individual must takes its cues from without (the culture or behaviour of its local group) and within its own DNA and individuality. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:02:15 PM | I am a non-violent anarchist. I recently read a blog post on another popular site ...
"the measure of a man is how he treats people who can do him absolutely no good"
I rather like this. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/29/2009 2:31:15 AM |
There is no one ideology or philosophy that can address all circumstance and situation equally and without fail
Agreed.
Yet from an understanding that all circumstances are interelated experiences from each individuals perspective, and if every one could, in theory, learn from the reflection of the experience, all circumstances, no matter how they are judged, are worthy.
that's just as much a 'good' thing as it is a 'bad' one (frankly, it's neither; it just is what it is).
yea, guess it depends on your perspective. Of course some might see it just "as it is" :-) | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/29/2009 5:11:40 AM | The inner techniques we employ (as part of our grooming of a self esteem that is capable of continuing to grow) are only labeled when we see similar actions in others then suddenly examine a few of our own with the same detachment.
Altruism is a description that has a positive push but without some reward ( be it only the reflected glory of climbing on the pedestal and celebrating the momentary deviating from our gene driven selfishness) it " ain't gonna happen" ..
at some level the real laws of energy generation and consumption require at least a good feeling or else movement toward some yet unseen objective ( thats the kind that sometimes makes us shudder later)
I will not argue against whatever makes it more pleasant to live close enough to occasionally see my neighbors and sometimes even converse.. but there are reasons why you have only a few really good friends.. understanding the roots of that and consciously selecting behaviours that sustain a mutually pleasant shared reality still is to your own benefit..pretending it isn't forms a part of the personal sleight of hand we all employ( see - self esteem- building and grooming) | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/29/2009 6:06:03 AM |
"Another important point is that the current model of evolution is not natural selection, but complex evolutionary diversity, which is a very different measure particularly when used to correlate anthropological and sociological assertions." - Vanaheim
Could you please elaborate on how the two are different? I'm not sure that I understand your point. Please PM me if you think that it will distract greatly from the thread, but I think that many here may also find your views informative.
I'm sorry I haven't been in the thread for a while.
Natural selection I will assume we're all basically familiar with. Nature selects positive survival traits for a more productive gene pool, and kills off those who are inappropriate evolutionary adaptations. This is shown to be inaccurate.
Complex evolutionary diversity is the extrapolation of Chaos Theory to correlate with other scientific theory, which was actually discovered by mathematicians attempting to reverse engineer an astrophysic model at the time. It essentially means any evolutionary system fosters such diversity as to prohibit prediction by its complexity. Natural selection is predictive, only those traits directly associated with survivalistic adaptation are likely to survive evolutionary process, Complex evolutionary diversity is unpredictable, several traits survive evolutionary process for no reason whatsoever.
It is evidenced in math, in astrophysics and by the archaeological record.
In Natural Selection for example, or Darwinism we work entirely upon anthropic principle, a very poor scientific argument. It says HS Sapiens is a continuation of linear hominid development because, well we are here and they are not.
Palaeontological examination of hominid development in fact tells a completely different story, that it is not linear at all and HS Sapiens appears to be a distinct and possibly blind branch which wasn't at all adapted to the environmental conditions of the time (in fact it was deviant from them, HS Neanderthalensis was correctly adapted and demonstrably linear, moreso it is blind luck the planet decided to end the ice age and change, which certainly wasn't a biological event), and there is absolutely no physical evidence which challenges the contention. There is physical evidence which supports it.
Luck made modern man survive, Neandertal was correct linear progression. In other words we survived by being a mistake, which should've died out ca.25,000BCE and the nature of our mistake was not produced by any adaptive evolution, and yet it is ancestral to earlier hominids like H Erectus. Multiple hominid lines, our survival traits were unpreductive until ca.25,000BCE yet we'd been around since 180,000BCE and have other cousins like HS Archaic. Just wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the hand of God in the form of a little geophysics post-fact. After we were here.
The theory of natural selection is a problem being anthropic in principle since it makes a claim of dictating a predictability which simply does not exist when you have to put your money where you mouth is, feed in the data and do the math. This is as true for any evolutionary system for which you apply the theories, from a galactic model to biology.
What Natural Selection is good for is rudimentary evolutionary theory. It is the same thing as Newtonian physics, often as far as engineering courses go with theoretical physics. If you're not planning a career directly related to the subject and don't mind being strictly erroneous in academic terms, it gives a short, approximate understanding generally. It's like saying, hey, the world works by cause and effect.
Well yes it does, but very complex and only predictable to a finite degree. There is a point where all bets are off. I could start real controversy elaborating on just how far this statement goes within the scientific community too. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/29/2009 9:14:13 PM | I should make a morning clarification on my above post, which was made late at night when I was tired and I agree is confusing.
I am talking about natural selection as a central basis for evolutionary theory only. Natural selection of course is integral to complex evolutionary diversity along with its anthropic connotations. The key focus is predictability in evolutionary adaptation, or even logic.
Another nice reference of the archaeological record is a successful species of Icthyosaur, around for much longer than us which had almost suicidal biological adaptations related to deep water diving, but the creature could not possibly cope with the pressures involved if it actually attempted it. Another one of nature's oops which were a successful species, with entirely useless evolutionary adaptations. Entirely speculatively, it probably had a high mortality rate during adolescence however and not due to natural predators. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 24 | |
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 1:35:15 PM |
Altruism only works if it indirectly benefits the individual.
Damn, FrogO
It's good to read your thoughts old friend, you nailed this one with a nice aphorism.
It makes me think of altruism and individualism as two aspects of a common evolutionary dance, forever spinning 'round the other, ...never touching, never too far apart. Two factors that explain both the distant past, present, and future patterns of changing societies.
I am also struck by how the two extremes map out Western partisan political defaults. | |
|
| Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/30/2009 2:22:45 PM |
Altruism only works if it indirectly benefits the individual.
That's really only a half-truth. I think it would be more accurate to say that altruism can only exist as an evolutionary adaptation if it benefits the organism's progeny.
An altruistic act is by definition, selfless, and sacrifice certainly does not benefit the individual making it. It may (and usually does) benefit the group, but probably (almost certainly) didn't evolve from doing so directly, unless one considers the increased incidence of the progeny of altruistic individuals as incidentally beneficial to the survival of the group, with its consequently higher ratio of "altruists" to "self-servers."
In that sense then, altruism in no way benefits the individual making a selfless sacrifice, even indirectly, but the individual does indirectly benefit the group by being altruistic. As I see it, that's about the only way altruism could really evolve to exist in the first place....but I'll concede I may have overlooked other options. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
