Altruism
Nandulal Thibeault
PSY/490
May 11, 2015
Louis Wolner

Altruism From an atheist’s perspective, altruism is impossible. There can be no such thing a selfless act because all behavior is rooted in subjective frameworks that are projected onto the external world. The belief that the highest good a person can do is self-sacrifice is a personal belief, and the drive to adhere to this belief is self-serving. To not adhere to such a personal belief would cause cognitive dissonance, and the many clever ways that humans avoid cognitive dissonance have been made evident (Chapanis & Chapanis, 1964). Gandhi preaches about detachment from the fruits of action in his translation of the Bhagavad Gita. Doing good works in service to others without attachment to the fruits of your actions, or expecting anything in return, is a working definition of altruism. However, I argue that is impossible to be detached from the fruits of your actions, because we cannot escape the nature of the unconscious. Psychological knowledge has made it clear that charity, altruism, and random acts of kindness are superficial; at their root is a selfish endeavor. Psychology has exposed the inner life of the brain. Human behavior is no longer attributed to souls, spirits, or other supernatural forces. In the rigid, skeptical, and reductionist corners of academia, free will and personal responsibility have been replaced by a deterministic perspective. Psychological principles such as behaviorism, cognitive dissonance, and hedonism have undermined traditional beliefs about charity, altruism, and acts of kindness. From an evolutionary psychology and functionalism perspective, all behavior can be reduced to an evolutionary function. All evolutionary functions can be attributed to an individual or collective drive to replicate DNA. So from such a perspective, altruism could be considered a beneficial function of tribal cohesion. From a hedonistic perspective, which is associated with both behaviorism and evolutionary psychology, all behavior can be reduced to the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. That which does not promote DNA replication brings pain; that which does promote DNA replication brings pleasure. Therefore, we give either because it is more painful not to give, or because it is pleasurable to give; there is no such thing a selfless act. However, the field of psychology is not incompatible with a belief in free will and a spirit. The future of psychology should incorporate an appreciation for spiritual beliefs. If there is an after-life, my negation of the possibility of a selfless act would still apply. Service to others and self-immolation performed in conjunction with a belief that such behavior is factored in to a judgment after death are in violation of a premise of altruism: actions must be performed in the absence of self-gain. My random act of kindness was to put wood preservative on the end grain of a pressure-treated wooden post that had recently been installed on a handrail in my neighborhood. The homeowner, or whoever did the job, did not know that crosscuts on pressure-treated wood must be coated with wood preservative. I drive by that house almost every day and it pained me to see exposed and untreated engrain on a doulas fir post. The homeowner will never know it was me who preserved his wood from rot. However, I received satisfaction out of performing the task. If we perform a thought experiment, we can adjust the details of this story. Is there any way, in light of the arguments I have presented, that I could have done such an act selflessly or in a fashion of self-sacrifice? I think not. Every action is tied to a chain of events that if predictable, will influence a person’s choice of action. Because humans are endowed with the faculty of empathy, there is no such thing as a selfless act. We are connected with every other being via mechanisms in the brain that are only absent in psychopaths. It could be argued that if a psychopath, incapable of empathy, performed a random act of kindness, it could be considered an authentic act of altruism. I argue that even this psychopath’s action is rooted in a subjective motive, either conscious or unconscious. Perhaps it was to satisfy curiosity, or it was an unconscious biological reflex. Fundamentally, the psychopath’s action was rooted in an inherent and subjective drive. This perspective has profound implications that are tied to every human experience. People should be constantly asking themselves, “Am I a good person, or do I just think I am a good person?” The implications of my personal deductions are in accordance with an endeavor to increase the happiness of humanity from an atheistic, theistic, or agnostic perspective. Whatever the motive may be, random acts of kindness create net happiness for all involved. Psychology is the backbone in the global effort to understand what makes us happy, and how to make it happen.

References
Chapanis, N. & Chapanis, A. (1964). Cognitive Dissonance. Psychological Bulletin, 61(1), 1-22.
Ghandi, M. (2010). The Bhagavad Gita According to Ghandi. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books.