In Response to "Altruism?"

This is in response to a friend and coworker's blog post, relating to a discussion we'd been having at work. Head there first if you want a baseline. Head there anyway. :D Her blog is wonderful and she's a fantastically thoughtful, convicted, and passionate person. It's way too much fun getting into debates with her and the others in the "Fun Room" of Cedar Fort. ;)

“ . . . I think people mistake or incorrectly apply the definition of altruism. It seems like people think of it as meaning you don’t care at all  (temporally or eternally) about the personal reward you get. If I had to use the word “altruism,” I would define it as doing the right thing for the purest, best reason.

“I would take Merriam-Webster’s use of the word “unselfish” in the first definition (“unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others”) to mean at that moment. At that moment, you don’t care about your own temporal needs and desires. “At that moment” could refer to that moment, that event, that day, or your whole life on Earth. However, we cannot become so good that we desire no reward. It’s not possible, even for God. He does good things because the end result brings him joy. The difference is how we focus on the reward.

It’s not possible to be good for no reason. It’s a logical fallacy. In order to have a reason, we must have a motivation. To have a motivation, there must be an end goal. Our end goal is a reward: happiness. Even achieving our goal is itself a reward. We always, whether consciously or unconsciously, desire a reward. The joy we get is already a reward on Earth, plus there will be blessings given in heaven. . . .” 

I think we mostly agree, but I approach the idea of altruism from a slightly different angle. Perhaps it is primarily a semantic difference? I think to start with, we're interpreting the definition of the word itself slightly differently.

“Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) defines “altruism” thus: 

“1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

“2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.”

” 

Well, by those definitions, humans frequently perform acts that are "not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species." Without having any sure knowledge of blessings or even existence beyond the grave, men and women have willingly sacrificed themselves in any and every sense for the benefit of another; often for complete strangers. How could this be anything but altruistic, as defined by Miriam-Webster?

Also, note the or--"is not beneficial to or may be harmful . . ." So by the strictest interpretation of the word, methinks, you can experience some satisfaction in a deed well done, and still define it as altruistic if you had to sacrifice something of yourself to see it done. Sacrifice, blessings, selflessness, self-fulfillment . . . these concepts do not negate one another. They can, and should, coexist quite happily. It's only when you define "altruism" in the most extreme terms--with the idea that any benefit to one's self, however unlooked for, negates the possibility that an act was "selfless"--that "true altruism" becomes "impossible." That, however, is not at all how I would define "true altruism." I agree most with your "In the moment" interpretation, and would submit that that is the truer understanding of the concept.

I truly do believe a person can be sincerely altruistic, in the sense that the motivation for doing the good work is a higher concern for the other person's happiness than for one's own. Sure, my well-being is important to me, and that isn't going to change. But your well-being is more important to me, and so I will perform this "altruistic" act for you. Sure, your happiness makes me happy, and that's nice. But it's not the result of my happiness that I'm motivated by. It is your happiness. Sincerely. I do not agree with the idea that my motivation is somehow subconsciously based in self-concern--at some level, no matter what--and that I'm just delusional if I think I care about you more than I care about myself. The human animal is capable of more than mere self-preservation, even when one's perspective is stretched to the eternal scheme of things, where blessings will be bestowed and all righteousness rewarded, and all that.

The fact that doing something "for no reward" can be, ultimately, "the most rewarding," is not inherently contradictory. It is, in my mind/understanding, simply gospel truth. If you're choosing the right and doing good things, you cannot avoid blessings--nor indeed should you want to. That would be plain unhealthy. . . . In fact, that brings up another type of motivation: those who "do the right thing" as a form of self-punishment, working toward forgiveness but refusing to ever acknowledge that it could be possible for their godforsaken soul . . . that's a particularly confusing version of "altruism," I think, and perhaps the most selfish of all . . . but that's completely tangential to my current point. ;) And, as you pointed out, that mode of thinking is definitely contrary to God's will for us, as he commands us to actively and intentionally seek after blessings.

But does a positive outcome for you mean you were somehow selfish in choosing to do the good thing? Does the fact of a later, perhaps unexpected reward--or even an immediate reward of "warm fuzzies" or what have you--automatically negate the altruism of the moment? No. Sure, on the sliding scale of reasons for doing good, selfishness exists as a motivation. The "good" of my earlier "good, better, best" quip you referred to. But real unselfishness also really does exist.

I also believe God is truly altruistic. He has absolutely everything. And yet he puts everything he cares about--including, and I imagine primarily, his own children--at ultimate risk . . . why? for THEIR benefit. OUR benefit. Does our success make him happy? Definitely. Just as our failure and our rejection of him brings him sincerest anguish. Sounds to me like a not-entirely-pleasant experience, which invites one half of the Webster definition of altruism . . . perhaps the lesser half.

Our progression provides him with the truest form of Joy, as the progress of our own children provides us with a shadow--a powerful, beautiful, exciting preview--of that same joy. But does he do this to and for us for the sake of his own experience of that joy? I might be presuming much, to "know the mind of God," but I would say that is not his motivation. He is motivated by true and sincere love for us and such a powerful desire for us to have as much Joy as he has, that he cannot help but put himself--and, in his divine understanding, us--in a position to experience pain in order to promote our ultimate well-being. He is absolutely behaving in a way that is harmful to himself but that "benefits others of [his] species."

Altruism, in my mind, is about the heart. It is about why you do the things you do, regardless of what blessings you do or don't receive, in this or any phase of existence. It's the motivation more than the result that defines altruism. And so, as I see it, the truest joys in life, and the greatest rewards, walk hand in hand with the truest form of altruism. They are so far from mutually exclusive.

But, again, I think we really agree on everything important, here. We're just debating the semantics. :)