From: mlloyd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:46:14 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <Bx8ty5.HoK@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>altruism: *unselfish* regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.

Ah yes.  This definition thread.  I really see it as that - a primarily
definitional problem.  I think the positions Jon and Muffy take are
distinctly different, but I think the edge to the discussion is generated
in the main by different use of words.  Whether I can clarify anything I
don't know, but as it says somewhere around Matthew 5, "Blissed out be
the peacemakers, for they shall be called Sprogs of the Big Boss"
(Mondo English Version).

Personally (selfishly? *grin*) I'd like to see a slightly calmer
discussion of the issues, as I see myself as being "in recovery" from the
(rather English) excesses of Jon's side.  I hope I can get away from that
without going to the excesses on Muffy's.  Fortunately, both people seem
to agree that being "too selfish" or being "too altruistic" is possible,
and bad.  The issue seems complicated by Muffy's point that there is a
contradiction inherent in altruism (the fact that doing things which are
not "good for you" is good for you).  I agree, but I still think the
a-word has some worth remaining once that is acknowledged.

>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>It seems that you are saying that we have the
>>choice of either being "altruistic" or being "selfish."  Is there
>>nothing in between?  I certainly think that there is, and that a nice
>>balance of being concerned about yourself and being concerned about
>>other people is much better for people than either of these extremes
>>that you seem to be saying are the only options.
>
>No, I never said that. It's a continuum, of course. And of course it's
>healthy to find a balance between being concerned about yourself and
>concerned about others. But last week you were saying it was harmful
>to be concerned about others at all.

Indeed, it is a continuum, and a balance is healthy.  However, I don't
think Muffy said it was harmful to be concerned for others.  She said
she doesn't believe (in some sense) in altruism.  I agree, at least in so
far as the paradox above exists.  Doing something nice for somebody else
did not seem to be what she objected to (although I'm sure she'll correct
me if I'm wrong).  She objected to a particular scene with an acknowledged
power differential.

I can attest (on conversational evidence) that Muffy does not think oral
sex, performed by a woman on a man, is a bad thing.  She also does not seem
to be saying that acting in the primary interest of another is a bad
thing.  However, I think what she has said points up an important
distinction in motivations for altruism: benefit against duty.  If you are
altruistic so that you benefit from the things you do for another, then
altruism becomes a circular word (even if some of us prefer to use it).
If you are altruistic for reasons of duty, then there is good cause to
query the actions, and the motives.  Doing good "just because one should"
can be very harmful.  That is what I see myself as recovering from.

>>>So you think altruism should never be attempted?
>>Yes.
>
>So you think people should stay at the selfishness end of the spectrum? I
>thought you said people should find a balance, surely that involves trying
>to be more altruistic, less selfish?

Only if you agree that altruism is a sensible word to use: thus there is
a communication problem.

>>>You never help people, or only if you think you will gain something yourself?
>>Yes.
>
>Ugh.

Can I also see this as a language problem?  One side presumes this is
selfishness, and that is judged bad.  The other presumes to do otherwise
is self-denial, and that is judged bad.  Neither need be true.

[some lost...]
>>instances of such things are destructive to the person doing them.  As
>>for the non-destructive things, people do them and then, rather than
>>feeling good because they now live in a slightly better world, they get
>>all self-satisfied and smug because they are so self-sacrificing.
>
>NOT TRUE and I resent being called self-satisfied and smug.

I undertood this "they" to refer to those who define the benefits of
altruism *without* acknowledging the bettering of the world; that is,
they are working by the "duty" motivation.  Such people, in my
experience, are prey to smugness.  In fact, I can confess as much.

>This thread was originally about relationships. I think the best way to
>conduct relationships (at least, for me) is to be unselfish and giving.
>If the other person is unselfish and giving back, everything is fine. I
>don't see what's so destructive about that. Doesn't anyone else conduct
>their relationships this way?

Very good question.  It rather depends on what you mean by "unselfish".
That word can often be code (at least for people like me, who once
caught the virus of evangelical religion) for self-abasement.  It
sets off my alarms over denial of personal needs.  Purely at face value,
it need not.  Still, I know that I have tended to be far too "unselfish"
(in that coded sense), and still am not good enough at sticking up for what
I want and need.  My current perpective is that that is damaging; going
for the easy life, where I sublimate what I want to avoid confrontation
of needs, is eventually harmful.  

Of course, the other extreme, of giving nothing that I do not readily
wish to give, is equally likely to destroy a relationship (and rather
quicker, to boot).  I am quite sure that as I try to change from the
harm I mentioned first to a better balance, I will and have made some
mistakes of this second type.  (A small soc.bi cabal will probably guess
what I'm thinking of there, but I'd rather not wash that linen in 
public).

So my own answer (to your question on whether mutual unselfishness is
the best goal) is to say that it depends on whether this "unselfishness"
is honest with itself.  To give away is good ("for so shalt thou have it
heaped back upon thee, in spades"; MEV again).  To fail to reach for what
you want, though, is very bad.

It's tough ground.  I don't know where the balance lies.  I do, however,
believe strongly that neither Jon nor Muffy are that far out in the danger
zone.  Different sides of the middle, perhaps, but hopelessly at fault?
I doubt it.

Hugs all round
Mike

PS Should anyone wish to email a response, I prefer not to deal with netmail
at this account.  If you could aim for mlloyd@westmark.stanford.edu,
which should be back up RSN, or mlloyd@sor-2.stern.nyu.edu, I'd appreciate
it.  If any knowledgeable person could tell me of a reply field or
similar that will fix that for me, that'd be good too.  A .forward
will not do.
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- c g+ k+ s m- e? |"Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and        | Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion            |     - Bruce Cockburn
    "It's only knock and knowall, but I like it" - Genesis (the first one)
Newsgroups: soc.bi