When questioned most people give the layman’s answer; altruism = kindness. But does it?
The importance of language
Skinner spoke often and prolifically on the importance of
correct language use. Words have meanings - they refer to perceptual units in reality
(See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand for an excellent, if
not too technical, look at epistemology and word usage) that are concrete and
distinct from other percepts. These words are referring to concepts that
different from all other concepts. Sadly there is a trend in modern language to
use words pragmatically, as mere placeholders for whatever the speakers feels. This may be all well and good in
normal day to day language but it can be deadly when used in the sciences. Words
are specific and we have to bare this in mind.
So what does Altruism
mean?
Altruism is a distinct philosophical view of morality that
states, at its primary, man should sacrifice in all things. Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the most important
philosophies in modern history, was an advocate of altruism. His philosophy basically
prescribed self-sacrifice. Now, when questioned, most people do not believe
such things. For example we can’t sacrifice our food, or our air, or our money we would die. It’s impossible to
consistently sacrifice. At its logical extreme self-sacrifice means suicide.
Luckily this view is rarely held by people. Most people accept some degree of
self-interest as necessary for survival. In and of itself this is not a
problem. The problems arise when people use the term altruism to mean kindness.
The importance of
kindness
Our society functions in part because of good will. When we
help a friend, when we hold a door open, when we volunteer our time, or sit
down and help our child with their homework we are being kind. Being good. I
know of no philosophers (save perhaps Nietzsche) who don’t advocate some kind
of kindness (heh): and for good reason. Kindness has survival value. It helps
us build companies, institution and services. It keeps the world turning in a pleasant,
civilised manner.
The problem
The problems come when a Psychologist or policy makers talks
about Altruism as though it means Kindness. This is referred to as an intellectual package deal. Consider the
following example; a policy maker wishes to encourage kindness amongst school
children by instituting lessons on co-operation, sharing etc… in the
legislation this is referred to as Altruism
training. The teachers are instructed to teach altruism as currently
described as being kind, sharing etc… there are no complaints (after all
altruism means kindness and kindness is good!) so off they go. Soon, however,
the government decides that Altruism can now be expanded to include mandatory “voluntary
service” (something now instituted in schools in America) as a function of
Altruism. Since no one bothered to properly define altruism in the first place
this is accepted (perhaps begrudgingly) because to deny it is to explicitly
deny altruism – something most people are unwilling to do.
Now this may seem like an unlikely example but note this has
actually happened – and continues to happen. Let me be clear I support the fostering of pro-social skills.
I think kindness is a good thing. I disagree, however, with altruism. It has
demonstrably no survival value to an individual and in the countries where pure
altruism has been mandated by law (Mao’s China, USSR, Cuba etc…) it has led to
nothing but ruin. Not to mention the complete breakdown of law and order, whereas
conversely countries with a more self-interested model (the modern West) tend
to have higher rates of charity, kindness and good will from strangers. The
take home message is Altruism does NOT equal kindness.
Why does this matter
This seems like a pernickety point mired in technical
details but the words we use have a direct impact on the way we act and think.
We all know about the fabled “Catholic guilt”, the notion that Catholics,
taught quite aggressively, that self-interest is bad tend to feel constantly
guilty. A direct contra-position to what they are supposed to feel. It’s not
because self-interest is incompatible with kindness, but, surprisingly, that Altruism
is incompatible with kindness. When we work on policy, or behaviour change, or
anything that involves people we need to be clear that kindness is the
pro-social behaviour we want not altruism,
because kindness has defined limits and can be successfully quantified whereas
Altruism becomes a blank check for systemic abuse of peoples good nature for
malicious ends.
Final thoughts
A further reminder, I am NOT against kindness and so on.
Nothing makes me feel better than helping out a friend in need. But that doesn’t
mean I should accept the whole package of self-sacrifice as a way of life, and
nor should anyone. A civil society can and will (I am ever the optimist) be
forged around the ideas of good will and kindness. They are essential to our
continued improvement and survival but to get there we need to uncouple the
idea of Altruism = kindness.
No comments:
Post a Comment