Can altruism exist without empathy?

[R_1]

Basically what the title said. The idea of altruism without empathy is doing altruistic actions without ever sharing emotions of others i.e unable to feel pain/suffering of others, but rather following a code. Especially, when it's from a person supporting a cause that will never affect them (regardless of how bad it could get like in Poland), for example, an asexual man (without ever performing reproduction) with no people in their life (that means no women being part of their main life) supporting abortion rights. It seems that people believe that it isn't possible at all.

[Destranix]

Luck of others indirectly benefits to own luck. (Simply seen by that ultimate goals of people often are quite similiar and thatreaching them would be quite easier if people worked together.)

 

That way, altruism is just another form of egoism eventually.

[Ceebs]

Wouldn't that still be cognitive empathy? Cognitive empathy is the ability to understand how someone else feels and what they might be thinking. Affective empathy is when you really feel emotions yourself because of someone else's emotions, when you actually share in their feelings. I generally experience the latter only with people I really love, or perhaps in certain extreme circumstances that evoke strong emotion for me, but that doesn't mean I don't have plenty of cognitive empathy in other situations.

[AavaMeri]

I fully think that empathy isn't strictly needed for altruism. Even less is it necessary to be sympathetic, aka. experience the emotions of those who you want to help. Like:



I've also experienced (and was surprised of) a kind of "competitive" or "optimizing" or "gaming" side of charity work. I see it as a challenge or puzzle that is intriguing to solve, and when well solved, everyone wins. "What is the best way to help these people with this amount of buck and effort, while also maybe helping environment?" Combined with recycling and hunting bulk sales, it's a fascinating combo. ("I don't use this backpack anymore and it's kinda worn out, can I repair it so that it can be useful to a homeless person?" or "This store sells a bulk of food with 'best before' date approaching, could a shelter use it?") I kinda get a "yay!" feeling when I manage to match best deals with most urgent need.

I also see that helping the people in worst positions is generally beneficial to the whole society and world. A lot of anguish comes from improper living conditions, so when a person is freed from that anguish, they can become a productive member of society. Useful members of society --> Better society --> Better life for all. And also, helping poor people from their holes is easier than bringing the same amount of happiness to rich people, so it's maximum happiness increase per buck.

So my charity work is kinda like...

[Lilibulero]

I think empathy can get in the way of altruism. I was watching some casualty programme on TV the other night and it occurred to me that if the doctors didn't just get on with it, they'd be blubbing in a corner, unable to help.

[Epitaph]

I think so. But it all depends on the person and scenarios. I've got nobody in my life and I half-support abortive rights. I have no feelings on the matter, just thoughts and conclusions to follow.

 

I might exist in an interesting state to comment on altruism due to my levels of emotional disconnection. I can feel empathy for some people, feel what they're feeling. It's stronger the stronger my bond is to them. But if I have no bond, I don't feel anything for certain people. I will still help if I can, because I have my own code of sorts.

 

But to truly be altruistic is unlikely because of the fact that we experience emotion. I may act altruisticly in instances, but this is based on the fact that I used to have emotions and that I used to feel things. These memories provide the basis for why I act, think, and do what I do. So to say I'm a hundred percent altruistic just wouldn't fit.

[Tetus]

Kind of a weird question as framed.
 

I think it is possible to want other people to be safe and happy for their own sake. Like, if you had two buttons in front of you, one of which would make a random person’s life better and another which would make it worse, with a guarantee that this wouldn’t impact your life in any way, I’d go for the “better” button.

 

I think that is probably a pretty obvious answer though: that is, I don’t think I’d choose that button because I’m uniquely altruistic (I’m sure most people would choose the same), so maybe I’m not understanding the question.

[Ceebs]

52 minutes ago, Lilibulero said:

I think empathy can get in the way of altruism. I was watching some casualty programme on TV the other night and it occurred to me that if the doctors didn't just get on with it, they'd be blubbing in a corner, unable to help.

This is definitely true when it comes to affective empathy if a person becomes so overwhelmed by their own emotions that they're incapacitated by them. You can't be of any assistance to someone else in that state and it may even come off as quite selfish. Of course, a person can still have affective empathy and maintain control of their emotions too. But cognitive empathy is particularly useful when it comes to helping others. That's the sort of thing that can give a doctor a really good 'bedside manner' or make a person a great therapist -- they're understanding, compassionate and calming, and also able to guide the situation in a productive direction and help the other person because they're not wrapped up in their own feelings.

[Black Tourmaline]

Spoiler

 

 

[Ceebs]

^^ Was not expecting a Bob Marley song under that spoiler lol.

[ElloryJaye]

It's possible to have abstract principles that cause you to help or support someone else even if you don't care about them personally.  For instance, an asexual man might support abortion rights because he believes it's unethical to force a person to use their body as life support for another person against their will, or because he believes the right to self-determination is a good thing generally.

[Ceebs]

A thing that I've found interesting is that my local rock station has been running ads lately from the Canadian Mental Health Association that simply explain in about 30 seconds what empathy is and why you should strive to have it. I've never really heard ads like that before, even from the CMHA. It's not that they're asking for donations in the ad or promoting some sort of awareness day/week/month or a particular programme they're offering. It's just like... explaining empathy. I've wondered what the motivation for it is. Has the pandemic made us all crabbier and less kind to each other? So much fighting on the internet these days or heated political situations that we need a reminder on how to be respectful despite our differences?

[Lilibulero]

2 hours ago, Telecaster85 said:

they're understanding, compassionate and calming, and also able to guide the situation in a productive direction and help the other person because they're not wrapped up in their own feelings.

This.

[The French Unicorn]

Yes. Empathy and altruism are different things.

[dwest]

I have hesitancy that altruism even exists. There are some things that lend itself to this idea more than others, a mother (or less so a father) putting themselves in harm's way, at great expense, for their infant child. Though I would write that off as an old genetic predisposition, when things are 'working right'. Most of the things people describe as altruistic often come with some benefit, albeit not great benefits - but still not selfless. Like pay, with a doctor or emergency response person, status as a good person, typical brain response of feeling good by doing good, but there are very few (if any) things that humans do consciously at their own expense for others. And right now I can't really think of any beyond raising children (which I would still argue as biology being the biggest motivator here versus conscious selfless action, but may still count).

The example given: Voting for, or speaking out for, abortion rights doesn't, generally, put someone into an expected selfless expense situation. The risk of 'losing' anything at all by being an asexual man who votes for or speaks up for abortion rights is pretty darn low. I'm sure there's some cultures where you might be beaten, imprisoned or killed as a standard response, but in most modern societies often the worst that would happen is being called a name.

All that said. Empathy isn't required to do things for other people that benefit the recipients (as well as you, likely).  

[ElloryJaye]

16 minutes ago, dwest said:

Most of the things people describe as altruistic often come with some benefit, albeit not great benefits - but still not selfless. Like pay, with a doctor or emergency response person, status as a good person, typical brain response of feeling good by doing good, but there are very few (if any) things that humans do consciously at their own expense for others. And right now I can't really think of any beyond raising children (which I would still argue as biology being the biggest motivator here versus conscious selfless action, but may still count).

There are many, many cases of random passers-by working to help those injured or trapped by disasters while they wait for emergency services to arrive.  This offers the people helping no benefit, always costs time and can cost money, and is not risk-free.  Maybe some of them will get a dopamine hit from it, but I doubt anticipation of that is why they're pitching in.  (If you asked, they'd probably just say it was "the right thing to do".)

 

[what the face]

34 minutes ago, dwest said:

 

I have hesitancy that altruism even exists

 

If one’s view is limited to altruism only as an ideal, your hesitation may be right.

 

Another view:  We humans exist far from any perfect ideal state.  
At any moment any one of us can think and act with altruism and/or empathy (just as we can behave with greed or hate).

 

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

[dwest]

48 minutes ago, ElloryJaye said:

There are many, many cases of random passers-by working to help those injured or trapped by disasters while they wait for emergency services to arrive.  This offers the people helping no benefit, always costs time and can cost money, and is not risk-free.  Maybe some of them will get a dopamine hit from it, but I doubt anticipation of that is why they're pitching in.  (If you asked, they'd probably just say it was "the right thing to do".)

 

Interestingly this article:
Why and How Do We Help? | Psychology Today
Talks about this in a way. There's a biological response, and probably empathy, and the more closely one identifies with the group that is in danger, the more likely we will help.

I think I'd change my thoughts on this to only conscious altruism, instead of biological altruism, being questionable. So, the not know part is probably where I'd call that line. If they don't know, it's probably some kind of hard-wired motivation that overrode the risk assessment for group survival dynamics. Though I'd have to now clarify as well that, empathy is probably required for biological altruism, but not necessarily for conscious altruism (if it exists).

So, I'm convinced that biological altruism exists after reading the article above and other research (but that one was the best summary).
 

30 minutes ago, what the face said:

If one’s view is limited to altruism only as an ideal, your hesitation may be right.

 

Another view:  We humans exist far from any perfect ideal state.  
At any moment any one of us can think and act with altruism and/or empathy (just as we can behave with greed or hate).

 

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I agree that people are flawed, that's where I think we find the beauty of humanity.

A solid .5-1.5% of the human population doesn't experience empathy or has such highly limited empathy as not being recognizable as empathy.
I don't think altruism is inherently good. I also don't think selfishness is inherently evil/bad. There are plenty of selfish things that lead to greater good, that help others, that are designed and intentional to help, and people ought to take care of themselves first in many situations so they can help others, and thus selfishness is not inherently bad. And there are plenty of times when non-professionals seek to help in situations they are not trained for and make them worse, causing harm, and delaying the resolution which may even cause deaths.

"Perfection is uninteresting." - Me

[what the face]

Spoiler

 

The Good-Bad binary is

    uninteresting to me.

 

Mostly good with shades of bad(ass)ness,

partly lit not entirely in shadow,

closer to fine than foul,

     all fascinate me.

 

 

 

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

I take the psychological hedonist position...altruism doesn't exist.

[GingerRose]

On 5/5/2022 at 5:56 AM, R_1 said:

Basically what the title said. The idea of altruism without empathy is doing altruistic actions without ever sharing emotions of others i.e unable to feel pain/suffering of others, but rather following a code. Especially, when it's from a person supporting a cause that will never affect them (regardless of how bad it could get like in Poland), for example, an asexual man (without ever performing reproduction) with no people in their life (that means no women being part of their main life) supporting abortion rights. It seems that people believe that it isn't possible at all.

Our second greatest limit in ethology (opinion, but I think language comes first), we know the mother ostrich feigns injury to attract predators to her instead of her kin. Yet, we don't know if she feels empathy for her young to be in danger or is it purely instinct. We know from neurological studies that ostriches have the brain complexity to feel deep emotions but we don't know when it's occurring.

[Guest]

oh you're only allowed to be altruistic if you ptiy others or expect them to be thankful.