Maybe we should have a definition of altruism. I would say altruism is an action that costs the actor more than it benefits him. That is the definition that I have been working from (I’m sure if people disagree they will let me know). The key for our discussion whether altruism exists may be whether the costs and benefits are weighed from the subjective perspective of the individual actor or from an objective perspective. Because it is the actions of the individual actor under any given circumstance for which we are concerned, I believe that a correct analysis of the viability of altruism as a concept requires analysis of the costs and benefits from the individual actor’s subjective perspective. From that perspective and under that paradigm I restate my belief that altruism generally does not exist (I will not say that it is impossible to have exceptions to every rule).

The fact that an actor takes an action at any point in time means that she thinks that the action is in her subjective best interest and that it benefits her more than it costs her. This seems self evident to me—that is why she takes that certain action and she can take no other. However, undoubtedly different people value things to different degrees. Therefore, the apparent and perceived random, irrational, or altruistic behavior comes from the fact that individual No. 1 may value A higher than B whereas individual Nos. 2-100 value B higher than A. Consequently, if an individual chooses A she may be perceived as “altruistic” by the majority of society because from an objective perspective her choice costs her more than it benefits her (assuming her choice also benefits one or more other people). So for purposes of discussion, as an example, let’s say individual No. 1 invents new and useful software and puts it into the public domain without utilizing copyright or patent protection. Most people would probably say that action costs her more (primarily from unrealized revenue generation) than it benefits her and is in fact an altruistic action. In my opinion, however, that is still not an altruistic act because she subjectively believes, based upon her values, needs, etc., that the choice benefits her more than it costs her, even if she is aware it costs her more from a monetary perspective. This subjectively perceived benefit can come from many sources, as mentioned before, expectations of rewards in another life, recognition from society, delayed monetary benefit, or even self fulfillment, which benefits subjectively, in that individual’s perspective, outweigh the costs, such as unrealized immediate monetary gain.

Therefore, I can buy into altruism from an objective perspective in that an individual may benefit others by acting in a manner that does not benefit her as much it costs her from an objective perspective (although I believe even that is rare). I continue to believe, however, that it is not truly altruistic from the individual’s subjective perspective because based on that individual’s subjective beliefs and values the action benefits her more than it costs her. Admittedly, this may be a distinction without a difference except for an academic discussion in a law school class.

-- BrettJohnson - 28 Sep 2009