Comparing doing good things for your local community, even in a small way, to doing housework—it’s work, but you benefit from not drowning in crap—seems to get the point across IME. Note that there are no housecleaners to employ. (I’m not sure the police count in the meaning of the analogy I’m using.)
I think David_Gerard is getting at the point that because of interconnectedness, helping others also helps us. Mutual benefit is not the same as altruism, but a stronger awareness or understanding of it can encourage good acts.
If I hoover the living room, my housemates benefit more than I do from less dust, but I don’t have to listen to them sneezing. If I shovel the snow off my neighbours’ front pavement as well as my own, they (who don’t own snow shovels) don’t have to do it, but my post is easier to deliver. Goodwill from the postman goes a long way!The shelter I volunteer at makes some contribution to the safety of this neighbourhood. The money I send each month to a small school in Africa means the children who study there are less likely to be involved in violence which, while seeming far-removed from my life here in the UK, could conceivably have an effect. The idea that everything is interconnected, there are no externalities and the good of another really is to my benefit as well can be a strong argument.
It isn’t altruism, though, as I understand it. Altruism is my doing these things even though the benefit to me is low compared to the benefit if I were to spend my time and energy and money elsewhere. As I also derive significant warm fuzzies and a small amount of good reputation from these actions I cannot claim to be truly altruistic, though I would like to think I am. If this is true of most idealists or altruists, I’m not certain the distinction matters.
My best guess as to how to systematically inculcate altruism is by practical, structured volunteering coupled with discussion. With a bit of luck the warm fuzzies should kick in. In London I thought the Unitarians were fairly strong here but ultimately the community was too small and not theist enough for my other requirements.
I have learned or “caught” warm fuzzies from others being kind to me even when the benefit to them was small. Many of these people are theists but a significant number are not. I submit that if altruism is contagious, then acting altruistically whenever you can may help encourage altruism.
For my own part, I’m inclined to call someone who derives significant warm fuzzies from helping others “altruistic”, by comparison to someone who doesn’t. I’ll grant you that it might be more precise to say that they have altruistic values, rather than that they are performing altruistic acts.
how do we teach or pass on altruistic values outside a religious setting?
if this is difficult or impossible, is it better to convince people to perform altruistic acts even if that runs contrary to their values? Is that possible without an element of dishonesty?
I think religion can be a vehicle for the transmission of altruistic values, but I dislike the way it is often used to bamboozle people into behaving in certain ways (some of which, in more positive cases, are altruistic). I am also wary of some of the other values religion often transmits.
As I said here: encourage people to develop social bonds to a community of secularists among whom altruist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism from displacing those activities.
I doubt religion per se has much to do with altruism. But religious communities are typically tangible and visible and persistent, and that’s important for the transmission of values.
And, sure, encouraging people to perform acts that benefit others, even if they don’t want to, is possible without dishonesty. Force is a popular alternative, for example… either physical or social. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question.
For example, many countries collect taxes from residents and use a significant share of those taxes to provide resources to citizens in need; many taxpayers don’t especially value providing resources to their fellow citizens, but nevertheless pay taxes.
I see a lot of activism that is carried out by groups which, if not specifically secularist, are not explicitly religious, but this tends to be single-issue stuff. Religious communities, in my experience, tend to teach on or examine or respond to every aspect of life (though it is debateable how successful most are, as there is nowadays the problem of people leaving if they don’t like what they hear). Are there secular movements which attempt to be so all-embracing?
I don’t know, but I also don’t think attempting to be all-embracing is necessarily a good idea.
If a community acts altruistically in the contexts that arise to be acted in, then new members of that community will tend to adopt altruistic values, and will in turn act altruistically in contexts that arise to be acted in. That’s true regardless of what those contexts turn out to be.
They don’t ever have to talk about altruism or look for ways to manifest altruism in contexts that don’t seem to require it; indeed, doing so is one way that signaling ends up displacing doing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s values, any more than there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s tastes in food. But talking about food is a different kind of task than cooking or eating, and talking about altruism is different from behaving altruistically.
If a community gives up opportunities to behave altruistically in favor of talking, they communicate the value of talking rather than the value of altruism.
The analogy is community maintenance analogous to household maintenance. You can hire housecleaners, but hiring people for your community can be harder.
Comparing doing good things for your local community, even in a small way, to doing housework—it’s work, but you benefit from not drowning in crap—seems to get the point across IME. Note that there are no housecleaners to employ. (I’m not sure the police count in the meaning of the analogy I’m using.)
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your last comment. Would you please try other words or phrases?
I think David_Gerard is getting at the point that because of interconnectedness, helping others also helps us. Mutual benefit is not the same as altruism, but a stronger awareness or understanding of it can encourage good acts.
If I hoover the living room, my housemates benefit more than I do from less dust, but I don’t have to listen to them sneezing. If I shovel the snow off my neighbours’ front pavement as well as my own, they (who don’t own snow shovels) don’t have to do it, but my post is easier to deliver. Goodwill from the postman goes a long way!The shelter I volunteer at makes some contribution to the safety of this neighbourhood. The money I send each month to a small school in Africa means the children who study there are less likely to be involved in violence which, while seeming far-removed from my life here in the UK, could conceivably have an effect. The idea that everything is interconnected, there are no externalities and the good of another really is to my benefit as well can be a strong argument.
It isn’t altruism, though, as I understand it. Altruism is my doing these things even though the benefit to me is low compared to the benefit if I were to spend my time and energy and money elsewhere. As I also derive significant warm fuzzies and a small amount of good reputation from these actions I cannot claim to be truly altruistic, though I would like to think I am. If this is true of most idealists or altruists, I’m not certain the distinction matters.
My best guess as to how to systematically inculcate altruism is by practical, structured volunteering coupled with discussion. With a bit of luck the warm fuzzies should kick in. In London I thought the Unitarians were fairly strong here but ultimately the community was too small and not theist enough for my other requirements.
I have learned or “caught” warm fuzzies from others being kind to me even when the benefit to them was small. Many of these people are theists but a significant number are not. I submit that if altruism is contagious, then acting altruistically whenever you can may help encourage altruism.
For my own part, I’m inclined to call someone who derives significant warm fuzzies from helping others “altruistic”, by comparison to someone who doesn’t. I’ll grant you that it might be more precise to say that they have altruistic values, rather than that they are performing altruistic acts.
That makes sense.
Assuming altruism in general is desirable:
how do we teach or pass on altruistic values outside a religious setting?
if this is difficult or impossible, is it better to convince people to perform altruistic acts even if that runs contrary to their values? Is that possible without an element of dishonesty?
I think religion can be a vehicle for the transmission of altruistic values, but I dislike the way it is often used to bamboozle people into behaving in certain ways (some of which, in more positive cases, are altruistic). I am also wary of some of the other values religion often transmits.
As I said here: encourage people to develop social bonds to a community of secularists among whom altruist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism from displacing those activities.
I doubt religion per se has much to do with altruism. But religious communities are typically tangible and visible and persistent, and that’s important for the transmission of values.
And, sure, encouraging people to perform acts that benefit others, even if they don’t want to, is possible without dishonesty. Force is a popular alternative, for example… either physical or social. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question.
For example, many countries collect taxes from residents and use a significant share of those taxes to provide resources to citizens in need; many taxpayers don’t especially value providing resources to their fellow citizens, but nevertheless pay taxes.
I’d quite forgotten about force.
I see a lot of activism that is carried out by groups which, if not specifically secularist, are not explicitly religious, but this tends to be single-issue stuff. Religious communities, in my experience, tend to teach on or examine or respond to every aspect of life (though it is debateable how successful most are, as there is nowadays the problem of people leaving if they don’t like what they hear). Are there secular movements which attempt to be so all-embracing?
I don’t know, but I also don’t think attempting to be all-embracing is necessarily a good idea.
If a community acts altruistically in the contexts that arise to be acted in, then new members of that community will tend to adopt altruistic values, and will in turn act altruistically in contexts that arise to be acted in. That’s true regardless of what those contexts turn out to be.
They don’t ever have to talk about altruism or look for ways to manifest altruism in contexts that don’t seem to require it; indeed, doing so is one way that signaling ends up displacing doing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s values, any more than there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s tastes in food. But talking about food is a different kind of task than cooking or eating, and talking about altruism is different from behaving altruistically.
If a community gives up opportunities to behave altruistically in favor of talking, they communicate the value of talking rather than the value of altruism.
Incidentally, none of this is unique to altruism.
The analogy is community maintenance analogous to household maintenance. You can hire housecleaners, but hiring people for your community can be harder.