YBGud? - ALTRUISM: CARE FOR NEIGHBOUR

ALTRUISM: CARE FOR NEIGHBOUR

“care for others, which is independent of care for self, sometimes involving significant elements of personal sacrifice. This is typified by the unilateral loving lived out by Jesus and described in his story of the good Samaritan. It is further exemplified by care for the poor, the sick, or the socially disadvant- aged, none of whom can necessarily provide any material reward in recogn-ition of the kindness shown. Critics argue that in spite of appearances, altruistic behaviour is deep down actually self-serving. It ‘gives a buzz’, even though it may seem to be showing priority to another. One response to that is that it’s the helping that counts, all else is side effect – maybe pleasurable, but incidental.”

Illustrative Stories

spur of the moment intervention

Late evening a man was fishing off the promenade at Eastbourne. It had been quite a high tide, but it had turned and was beginning to ebb. There was enough wind to create waves, but nothing really rough and violent. He heard a young couple approaching along a strand of sand that was now exposed. In the course of a few minutes they seemed to be singing, laughing and arguing. Suddenly, the noise turned into cries for help. He looked and saw they were in the water and seeming to be in difficulty. Knowing how dangerous the sea can be, but being himself a confident swimmer, he rushed to where they were and ran into the sea to help pull them out. Just then a huge wave came. It knocked him over; he was caught in the backcurrent as it surged away from the quickly shelving shingle. When he surfaced he was well out of his depth and strong though he was could not get back to the shore. He drowned. In the meantime someone else had thrown life-buoys to the two he’d tried to save. They were rescued.

Sea view

question: though he did look before he leapt, he still came unstuck; is the lesson to be learnt from this "better safe than altruistic"?

long-term commitment

She was a well qualified and professionally experienced nurse in her late twenties. For several years, every time she saw reports on the news from one disaster and starvation after another, she realised how great was the need for people with her skills to help. She generally content with her present working circumstances and she certainly had no illusions that there was any glamour, wealth or physical security in overseas aid work. She recognised too that it might well involve a future without marriage and children of her own. Nevertheless, she resolved that this would for her be the right thing to take on. Both her parents had died within the course of the last ten years, so she had no dependents. Moreover, she had seen how nurses and doctors educated and trained in third world countries were being attracted to the UK by the promise of remuneration undreamt of in their home countries. Though there were clearly risks involved, she was determined to buck this trend and go where the extremes of need were greatest. She applied for a job as an emergency worker with CAFOD and was appointed.

question: is the implication of this stance that some jobs, and some contexts in which they are done, are more morally worth while than others?

Extracts from influential writings

Altruism as a bought and transient phenomenon

“IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE INCREASING HARD-HEARTEDNESS OF MEN, MR J. PEACHAM, MAN OF BUSINESS, HAS OPENED A SHOP WHERE THE POREST OF THE POOR MAY ACQUUIRE AN APPEARANCE THAT WILL TOUCH THE STONIEST OF HEARTS..
PEACHUM to the audience: Something new – that’s what we must have. My business is too difficult. You see, my business is trying to arouse human pity. There are a few things that’ll move people to pity, a few, but the trouble is, when they’ve been used several times, they no longer work. Human beings have the horrid capacity of being able to make themselves heartless at will. So it happens, for instance, that a man who sees another man on the street corner with only a stump for an arm will be so shocked the first time that he’ll give him sixpence. But the second time it’ll only be a threepenny bit. And if he sees him a third time, he’ll hand him over cold-bloodedly to the police. It’s the same with these spiritual weapons. A large board is let down from the (stage) flies and on it is written: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’. What’s the use of the finest and most stirring sayings painted on the most enticing boards if they get used up so quickly? There are four or five sayings in the Bible that really touch the heart. But when they’re used up, one’s daily bread’s just gone. Take that one there: ‘Give and it shall be given unto you’ – how threadbare it has become in the three weeks we’ve had it. Always something new must be offered. We can fall back on the Bible again, but how often can that be done?” From Berthold Brecht The Threepenny Opera (1928) Act 1.

question: how common is the experience of ‘compassion fatigue’ and to what extent does it demonstrate that altruism is a passing whim?

Loving in whose interest?

Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.’

So sung a little Clod of Clay
Trodden with the cattle’s feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:

‘Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to Its delight,
Joys in another’s loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven’s despite.’

Pebbles

William Blake ‘The Clod and the Pebble’ (1794)

question: is there much risk that altruism can be hurtful to the person helped?

Altruism as a cover for self-gratification

“Psychoanalysts believe that rescuers’ acts derive from self-centred unconscious motivations. For example, for certain civilians, the act of rescue enabled them to express their rage against the Third Reich. Saving the lives of Jews provided them with the narcissistic gratification of outwitting their oppressors and then pleasure of having a person or persons totally dependent on them. Most analysts would argue that self-gratification rather than altruism underlay rescuers’ deeds. Anna Freud, for one, felt that there was no such thing as altruistic motivation. To her, people who help others receive the benefit of a personal gratification from their helping behaviour.

Unconscious motivations certainly played a role in turning a bystander into a rescuer. Yet intangibles such as personal gratification and enhanced self-image were small rewards indeed for the vast risks these people undertook.”
From: Eva Fogelman Conscience and Courage. Rescuers of Jews during the
Holocaust Cassell 1995, p: 158.

question: how plausible is this kind of explanation? In what ways, if any, does it qualify the importance of altruism?

Psychogenetic self-interest can give way to disinterested altruism

“..even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight – our capacity to simulate the future in imagination – could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long term benefits of participating in a ‘conspiracy of doves’, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”

Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene OUP 1976, final paragraph.

question: how realistic is it to accept, firstly, that we are biologically and culturally conditioned to be self interested, and, secondly, that we have the capacity to conspire not to be?

Morality is legitimately self-rewarding

“Our aims include first demonstrating that, in practice, living for others is rewarding, is motivating, can be described in a real sense as living for oneself, that the dichotomy between living for oneself and lliving for others is generally false, and second that when an individual has adopted a ‘considerate style of life’ and there is a conflict between his own lesser interest and others’ greater interest as he recognises them, the habit of consideration will generally provide the motivation for him to act in the others’ general interest….An education in the considerate style of life is not one which relies exclusively on rationally persuading schoolboys and schoolgirls to accept that it is right to treat others as ends in themselves, to treat them with consideration. It is not even that which goes further and educates the children in what consideration is in many situations. Effective education is learning to care; also, and most important, it demonstrates the considerate style of life in action and motivates children to adopt it because it is a rewarding and attractive way in which to live.”

Peter McPhail et.al Moral education in the secondary school Longman 1972, pp:16-18

question: if other considering behaviour is a self rewarding activity, does any personal satisfaction felt from considering the interests of others tarnish the act involved?

Even death’s text message is love!

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne (1624) from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions 17.

question: Is awareness of death really an invitation to altruism or, contrary to Donne, a lure to selfishness?

Biblical References

The Loving Torah

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18.

question: does this only apply to ‘neighbours’ who are from your own family or country?

Love Unilaterally!

⁴³You have heard that it was said, ’Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’
⁴⁴But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
⁴⁵at you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
⁴⁶If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? Matthew 5:43-46.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. Luke 6:32

question: does this mean that love should be unreservedly universal?

The Deepest Obligation

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Romans 13:8-9.

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Galatians 5:14.

question: if laws are intended to provide a framework for loving, what changes in law would you make (dropping some? adding others?) to promote more love?

The Really New Way of Doing Things

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 2 Corinthians 5:14-17.

question: loving may be one-sided and ignored, and the lover may be punished; isn’t Paul’s encouragement for people to imitate the life of Jesus simply foolish?

The Humanist Road is Theologically Loaded

This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another...Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God...If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 1 John 3:11, 4:7,20.

question: is the implication of this that a humanist (‘a lover of humanity’) cannot by definition be an atheist, nor an atheist a humanist?

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®.

question:

Expositions from Theologians

Reinhold Neibuhr

…An individual may sacrifice his own interests, either without hope of reward or in the hope of an ultimate compensation. But how is an individual who is responsible for the interests of his group to justify the sacrifice of interests other than his own? The moral obtuseness of human collectives makes a morality of pure disinterestedness impossible. Moral Man and Immoral Society (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1932 + 1960) p 272
So it is that the Agape of Christ, which the New Testament regards as the final-norm of human life, would seem to have an even more problematic relevance to the structure of human society than to the structure of individual existence. Can the idea of sacrificial love be anything but an embarrassment when the community’s need of social harmony, justice, and peace are considered? The justice of the community requires a careful and discriminate judgement about competing rights and interests. The admonition to be heedless of the interests of the self introduces confusion into such discriminate judgements. In the collective relationships of mankind ruthless aggression must be countered by resolute defence; and the impulse of dominion must be resisted, if slavery is to be avoided. A sacrificial submission to a ruthless antagonist may mean a noble martyrdom if the interests of the self alone are considered. But if interests other than those of the self are sacrificed, this nobility becomes ignoble ‘appeasement’.
Faith and History (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1949) p 184.

question: Does this mean that whilst the individual should behave altruistically, there is no should obligation on the larger group/society?

Keith Ward

“Jesus’ teaching is clear: we must love all people, even those who oppose our most cherished ideals. We should care for their good and seek to understand what they desire and pursue. Often we will still have to oppose others; they will remain our enemies. Yet we should not cease to care for their good, and we should never regard them as less than human…
There is accordingly no excuse for failing to love our enemies. And we must see clearly what love requires. It is not just a negative thing. It requires of us that we do something positive. A minimum requirement of loving someone is that we understand how they see things, what they want and what they hope for. We do not have to agree with them, by any means. But we cannot seriously claim to love them if we are not even interested in what they think and why they think it, in their experiences and perspectives on the world. So we cannot be uninterested in, or afraid of, the beliefs and values of our ‘enemies’ and opponents. We have a duty to understand them, and the reasons for them, as well as we can. There is no place for caricature and ridicule in Christian love. There is a lesson here for the modern Church, as we meet those of other faiths and belies. What we have to proclaim to them is a liberating message of love and freedom, not a repressive huddle of fearful and spiteful minds, nor an arrogant assumption of superiority.” The Rule of Love. Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount Darton, Longman and Todd 1989, pp 79 + 85.

question: does this mean that even the simple act of trying to understand someone or something is an expression of love?

Parallels in other cultures

Altruism

Buddhism

The diverse teachings of the Buddha all outline various methods for training and transforming the mind. Historically, however, a traditional classification of certain practices... developed in Tibet and was known as lo-jong, [10] which means mind training, or thought transformation... One of the principal characteristics of lo-jong practice is the overwhelming emphasis it places on overcoming our grasping at a solid ego identity and the self-cherishing attitudes based on this apprehension of self. This self-cherishing attitude obstructs us from generating genuine empathy towards others and limits our outlook to the narrow confines of our own self-centered concerns. In essence, with thought transformation, we seek to transform our normal selfish outlook on life into a more altruistic one, which, at the very least, regards the welfare of others as equal in importance to our own, and ideally regards others’ welfare as much more important than ours.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JHB/jhb94218.htm ‘Humanistic Buddhism in Tibetan Tradition,’ by James Santucci, Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism Vol. 1 (2000) pp.129-38.

Buddhism

His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

"Nirvana may be the final object of attainment, but at the moment it is difficult to reach. Thus the practical and realistic aim is compassion, a warm heart, serving other people, helping others, respecting others, being less selfish. By practising these, you can gain benefit and happiness that remain longer. If you investigate the purpose of life and, with the motivation that results from this inquiry, develop a good heart - compassion and love. Using your whole life this way, each day will become useful and meaningful."

"Every human being has the same potential for compassion; the only question is whether we really take any care of that potential, and develop and implement it in our daily life. My hope is that more and more people will realise the value of compassion, and so follow the path of altruism. As for myself, ever since I became a Buddhist monk, that has been my real destiny - for usually I think of myself as just one simple Buddhist monk, no more and no less."

http://www.geocities.com/buddhism2001/compassion.html ‘Compassion.’

Confucianism

While the essence of morality is the limitation of self-interest, Confucius is clear that this does not mean complete denial of self. We have already seen a hint of this with Analects XV:23, which begins with the character for "self" and ends with the characters for "others" (or "persons"). If what you don’t want for yourself, you shouldn’t [do to] others, then you would like others to do for you what you would indeed like for yourself. We see a similar word structure, and stronger implication, at Analects VI:28, "If you desire to establish yourself, also establish others."

http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm ‘Confucius, K’ung-fu-tzu, or Kongfuzi,’ by Kelly L. Ross Ph.D.

Islam

It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.177 ‘Qur’an Chapter 2: Al-Baqara (The Cow),’ M.H. Shakir translation. (Islam)

Judaism

Charity is traditionally thought of as relating solely to helping fellow man, to relieving the burden of neighbors in trouble. But it is not so: charity is considered by the rabbis to be more than aid and assistance. It is, in every sense, a religious act, a way of relating to God, by whose "charity" we survive. Giving charity fulfills one of God’s commandments. Giving is not an extraordinary event, but a common one expected of every Jew.

…in Judaism, the term for charity is tzedakah, which derives from tzedek, which means "justice."

God gave limited resources to people. Some garner a greater share, some a lesser share. But since all are created equally in the image of God, there is a duty that devolves upon the "haves" to give of their substance to the "have-nots" in order to effect justice and to enable the have-nots to survive, as they themselves do.

http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Day_to_Day_Judaism__Charity.asp ‘Day to Day Judaism: Charity,’ by Rabbi Maurice Lamm, professor at Yeshiva University’s Rabbinical Seminary. (An extract.)

Judaism

R. Elazar said: The doing of charity is greater than all the sacrifices; as it is written [Prov. xxi. 3]: "To exercise righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." The same says again: The bestowing of favors is greater than charity; as it is written [Hosea, x. 12]: "Sow then for yourselves righteousness, that you may reap the fruit of kindness." If a man sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat from his sowing, or not; but if a man reaps, he is sure to eat of it (and so it is with charity, sometimes it is useful, sometimes not, but kindness is always so).

R. Elazar says again: Charity is rewarded only according to the kindness with which it is done; as it is written: "Sow for yourselves righteousness, that you may reap kindness."

The rabbis taught: In three things is the bestowing of favors greater than charity: Charity is only with money, but the bestowing of favors is either with one’s money or with one’s person; charity is only to poor men, but the bestowing of favors is to poor and rich; charity is only for the living, but the bestowing of favors is both for the living and the dead.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t04/suc06.htm ‘Babylonian Talmud, trans. Michael Rodkinson Book IV: Vol. VII and VIII, Tract Succah, Chapter IV, 1918.’

Sikhism

Compassion (Daya) generates feeling to help and serve others. Service to mankind is service to God because the spirit of the Infinite resides in every soul.

Charity (Daan) means giving away things without any expectation or reward. It is compassion, which generates charitable disposition among men. Charity, in Sikhism, is invariably associated with tranquillity, humility and disinterestedness. It should not be construed or confused with begging. Begging, as a means to earn daily bread, is strictly taboo…

Sharing: The principle of Wand Chhakna – to share with others who are less fortunate and unable to help themselves – propounded by the founding Guru – is one of the cardinal fundamentals of Sikhism which underlines the ethical rule for rendering self-less service where needed for the good of the society. Thus the Gurus were not only responsible for persistently impressing upon their adherents high ethical principles but also for paving the way for bringing about social reform in the society.

http://www.sikhreview.org/july2002/altruism.htm ‘Ethical Basis of Sikhism,’ by R.M. Chopra, scholar of Oriental law.

Status of Authors of Above Articles

Rabbi Maurice Lamm: "Chair in Professional Rabbinics at Yeshiva University and president of the National Institute for Jewish Hospice in Los Angeles -- previously served for more than a decade as dean of the Southern California Orthodox Community. Rabbi Lamm is widely known as the author of five books, particularly for THE JEWISH WAY IN DEATH AND MOURNING which has sold some 260,000 copies, and for THE POWER OF HOPE. As director of the Gindi Program which is affiliated with Yeshiva University, Rabbi Lamm is a professional consultant to young rabbis serving in their first pulpits. He is also a resident scholar for professional development retreats where community leaders, pulpit rabbis, Jewish educators and Jewish communal workers generate new ideas and problem-solving methods."

http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Day_to_Day_Judaism_Kindness.asp

Kelly L. Ross Ph.D. (Philosophy): Kelly Ross graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles with a B.A. in Classical and Middle Eastern History, Languages, and Philosophy in 1971; in 1974 he gained an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii at Manoa; and in 1985 graduated from the University of Texas with a Ph.D. in Philosophy. From 1987 to the present Ross has taught philosophy at Los Angeles Valley College, California.

http://www.friesian.com/ross/.

Dr. James Santucci: Professor of Comparative Religion, James Santucci gained his Ph.D. in 1971 in the Department of Asian Civilizations at the Australian National University, Canberra. Now, working as a member of the Comparative Religion Department of California State University, Fullerton, Santucci teaches primarily Buddhism, Hinduism, New Religions, and World Religions. Among his publications are Hindu Art in South and Southeast Asia (1987), An Outline of Vedic Literature (1976), The Cave Temples of India: A Photographic Exhibit. September 4-November 4, 1990 (1990), and America’s Religions (1997), which was co-authored with Benjamin Hubbard and John Hartfield.

http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/santucci.htm.