 |
 |
You are confusing cooperation with altruism. ________________________________________ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Orr [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 19 October 2010 19:16 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: MOTHS, GREENS AND CORPORATE NEON Michael, I disagree with your basic contention that scientists consider altruism as irrational. They will all be familiar with the behaviour of the social insects where co-operation is singularly the dominant theme. Okay, insects are a life-form a long way from ourselves but at least they demonstrate that if we were to learn to be as self-sacrificing as they are then Utopia would prevail - at least within the nest. Of course, the battles and wars between social insects can be bloody indeed and are often fought to the 'last man standing'. But this also is pure altruism in action, but with the nest as the 'significant other' and not the species. No difference with humans here then! If one is uncomfortable with the social insect model, we have fairly recently discovered a mammal, the "naked mole-rat", which mimics the relationship patterns with the social insects quite closely, with a king and a queen a few dozen "workers". And this is not a million miles from the relationship pattern holding in wolf-packs where only the alpha male and alpha female are allowed to mate. But the pack operates exceedingly co-operatively most of the time because it is so much more effective than individual or pairs of wolves in 'defence and attack'. My father taught me to be kind to animals from when I was about four. I found being kind to animals very rewarding. But it wasn't until much later that I became conscious that I was "serving a transcendent good". I would contend that the educational process I went through, courtesy of my father, was just that, building on an innate tendency to serve the greater good that is 'in our genes' - by virtue of the evolutionary path humans have had to follow. That 'consciousness of serving a transcendent good' may then come to later reinforce the innate tendency and the cultural/educational process gives me no problem. Brian Orr On 18 Oct 2010, at 13:45, Michael Northcott wrote: > The modern concept altruism - Plato, Aristotle, Christ, Augustine, > Aquinas never use the term - rests on a logical error which is that > actions towards others that involve effort or sacrifice on the part > of the self are intrinsically at odds with the interests of the > self. While there are individuals who are exceptional in their > tendency to put other interests above their own they tend to argue - > if they are able to rationalise their motives - that they are > serving a transcendent good - such as justice or love - commitment > to which they share with the other since both participate in a moral > order that is given and not merely rationally constructed. Their > identification of their interest with that good and hence with the > good of others - and not an irrational preference for disinterested > action - is what drives them. The reason so many modern scientists - > natural and political - have become concerned to explain altruism is > because for them it is irrational. This reflects the influence of > classical economics on modern western, and especially Anglosaxon, > culture. In my experience many nonwesterns - Malaysians for example > - don't think like this unless they have spent a lot of time being > trained by Western economists to abandon their own cultural > conceptions of self-other relations, and hence of why action towards > the common good, or on behalf of another, is rational. For another > example Japanese economics is very different to Anglosaxon in its > account of the relative duties of firms to employees and shareholders. > > The paradox and the tragedy is that in the Anglosaxon world as > modern economic accounts of rationality as selfish - and of the > associated account of the self as unencumbered, unattached and > unsituated - have grown in cultural power action for the common > good, or the good of others, appears both irrational and as contrary > to the interests of the individual. As a theologian I would refer > back to the teaching of Christ that 'those who save their life will > lose it' to make the point that this is a modern innovation in the > Western tradition. But even empirical economists sometimes are > sometimes driven by evidence to admit that volunteering on behalf of > others in service of a transcendent good actually makes those who > participate in it happier: see Francesca Borgonovi, Doing well by > doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and self- > reported health and happiness. Social Science & Medicine 66 (2008) > 2321e2334. > > Arne Naess devoted many words to contesting the modern concept of > self interest and arguing that when individuals spend more time in > the 'wild' or climbing mountains they find it possible to recover an > account of self-interest that includes others, nonhuman and human. > His Spinozist point was that this extended account of self-interest > is neither novel nor irrational. For Moses, Plato, Christ, or more > recently Gandhi or Leo Tolstoy, thinking like a mountain is not > counterintuitive. > > Michael Northcott > > > On 18 Oct 2010, at 13:08, harriet wood wrote: > >> Isn't it >> a question of how to define altruism >> the problem of not knowing what other species "think" >> >> Apparently altruistic behaviour can benefit the group, species or >> local ecosystem, as can selfish / aggressive behaviour. >> >> Harriet Wood >> >> >> >> On 18 October 2010 12:47, Barker, Tom <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> I’m afraid I don’t have time to elaborate. It is not altruism, >>> though it >>> might look like it at first glance; it’s survival. >>> >> >> >>> >>> So I'm sticking with my contention that altruism is a key >>> component of the >>> cement that binds tribes, and wolf packs, together. The trick for >>> us is to >>> tap into that while linking it to the intellectual concept that >>> the whole of >>> the human race is our tribe. >>> Brian >> > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.