I don't think of altruism as being completely selfless. Altruism is a drive to help other people. It exists within all of us to more or less extent, and it coexists with all of our other desires. Wanting things for yourself or for your loved ones is not opposed to altruism.
When you accept that - and the point Henry makes that it isn't zero sum - there doesn't seem to be any conflict.
No one seriously considers that altruistic action lacks personal interests for the agent. The altruistic agent acts to obtain emotional rewards. These are of various types, and this debate, unfortunately, doesn't appear much in this forum; and it should because if we don't develop the question of altruistic motivation, we will have difficulty in order to increase the number of altruistic agents.
My personal opinion is that the best way to develop altruistic motivation is to consider altruistic action in the context of a lifestyle—a virtue—of zero aggression and one that stimulates impulses of benevolence, empathy, rationality, empathy... We need "saints." A lifestyle of "saintliness" can be more attractive than mere altruistic action motivated by a deontological sense of duty (à la Kant, à la Seneca) or, worse still, by the feeling of guilt for not doing everything possible to remedy the suffering around us.
And don't take capitalism seriously. What creates wealth is science and technology, not capitalism.
Now, I understand, personal interest need not necessarily be selfish!! so, every action has a quid pro quo; the gain is either material or emotional. We dont encourage this angle of looking at the motivation, because we need to increase the number of altruistic agents, and saintliness, and being saintly involves self interest.
Kindly let me know, is this our line of thought?
I don’t believe effective altruism is entirely selfless, just as Nietzsche likened the sun’s giving—yet he ultimately went mad. We practice altruism on the foundation of ensuring our own survival; in other words, we prioritize self-interest before aiding others. This isn’t selfishness—it’s a form of self-care.
From a biological perspective, our ancestors sought advantage and avoided harm, surviving in the wilderness. The dangers of survival forged an instinct for self-preservation, an unavoidable trait that persists to this day. Psychologically, effective altruism can stimulate dopamine secretion in the brain, generating pleasure and a sense of reward. When this reward fades, people might anxiously question whether they’ve been altruistic enough—but at its core, this reflection is still a form of altruism.
As you said, energy is neither created nor destroyed—or perhaps the same applies to the profits generated by capital. No matter how high global GDP climbs, the economy remains a cycle: the money donated to the impoverished eventually returns to me in some form, and I, in turn, spend it, sending it back into circulation. So, if we don’t overanalyze it, altruism ultimately benefits the self. Holding onto some assets doesn’t make us selfish—it’s a necessity. Prioritizing oneself is also a way of practicing self-love.
I am new to this forum, though some of my friends are here, and they keep updating me about the work and the discussions.
This question has been on my mind for a long time; they suggested that I make it a post.
In my understanding, altruism is being completely selfless, which means that we do not possess anything, as we are not selfish enough to generate wealth or say something to belongs to us.
If nothing belongs to me, then how can I give?
Going by the basics of economics, especially capitalism, any wealth created is arbitrage, as energy is neither created nor destroyed; we only make a belief that there is some value addition, and we charge for that. So, when we create wealth, we take from others, and now we are going to give back; this can be philanthropy, and there can be no altruism in this, as by being selfish, we create wealth.
The above post involves Philosophy, Psychology, and economics, and we can delve much deeper into this. I would now rest with the basic paradigm and wait for this to open up further to take the discussion forward.
If you find some unused ground, plant some seeds, grow flowers, cut the flowers, and make a beautiful bouquet, what did you “take from others”?
Lots of wealth is not “zero-sum” like you describe, but creates new value/beauty/usefulness from thin air and sunlight.
Wealth creation is not inherently bad. In fact if it improves average quality of life around the world (which has happened overwhelmingly since the Industrial revolution) then it’s overwhelmingly good.
It is our perspective to see something as useful, beautiful, or otherwise.
A forest is beautiful in the eyes of an animal, or some of our natural humans.
The mass of the world does not change from the time it is created, it is only the perspective that has changed, with Industrial revolution, we have lost the nature and converted it to the so called useful things, and as we all know, energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, it is naturally a zero sum game.
While energy cannot be created or destroyed at the level of the universe, this doesn't mean it's a zero sum game from the perspective of life on Earth. There is a huge amount of energy available in the form of atomic energy, solar energy, tidal energy etc that is simply going unused. If humans use this, no-one loses out.
Useful or otherwise from the perspective of an Individual, even before the first human being appeared, all vegetables, fruits, and the rest of the resources were there; do we call it a waste?
We don't because we were not there?
Even if human beings cease to exist, all this will continue. Is it not just our perspective? Why do we think everything is around us?
I agree that we shouldn't only care about the perspective of humans. But if humans aren't around then much of the potential energy on Earth will simply go unused (unless another technologically advanced species evolves or visits Earth from elsewhere). So yes, this would be a waste.