Having only begun to read this, I wonder — Singer seems to be conflating altruism with cooperation. The way I use these words, they are distinct; notably, altruism does not involve the concept of reciprocation or synergy, whereas cooperation generally does.
(This seems to be the sense in which “altruism” is commonly used by both many who praise altruism, and many who reject it. Wikipedia: “Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self [...] with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect.”)
Singer describes his examples of bird warning calls, gazelles stotting, and wolves sharing food as “altruism”, where I would tend to see them as cooperative acts; specifically, acts done with at least some expectation of reciprocation when reciprocation becomes possible: as the song says, “today for you, tomorrow for me”.
One reconciliation of these ideas may be altruism as a form of acausal cooperation ….
Hi fubarobfusco. I think Singer is using the term ‘altruism’ to mean what evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists mean by it, i.e., “a type of helping behavior in which an individual increases the survival chance or reproductive capacity of another individual while decreasing its own survival chance or reproductive capacity” (Peter Gray, Psychology).
Sure, that makes sense — but it is distinct enough from its usual use in discussions of ethics and morality as to be confusing. Almost any social behavior beyond the most short-sighted and sociopathic could be considered altruistic by that notion, including a lot that we might usually regard as self-interested … but then again, we could expect that if we are a species evolved to take advantage of acausal cooperation.
Thanks!
Having only begun to read this, I wonder — Singer seems to be conflating altruism with cooperation. The way I use these words, they are distinct; notably, altruism does not involve the concept of reciprocation or synergy, whereas cooperation generally does.
(This seems to be the sense in which “altruism” is commonly used by both many who praise altruism, and many who reject it. Wikipedia: “Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self [...] with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect.”)
Singer describes his examples of bird warning calls, gazelles stotting, and wolves sharing food as “altruism”, where I would tend to see them as cooperative acts; specifically, acts done with at least some expectation of reciprocation when reciprocation becomes possible: as the song says, “today for you, tomorrow for me”.
One reconciliation of these ideas may be altruism as a form of acausal cooperation ….
Hi fubarobfusco. I think Singer is using the term ‘altruism’ to mean what evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists mean by it, i.e., “a type of helping behavior in which an individual increases the survival chance or reproductive capacity of another individual while decreasing its own survival chance or reproductive capacity” (Peter Gray, Psychology).
Sure, that makes sense — but it is distinct enough from its usual use in discussions of ethics and morality as to be confusing. Almost any social behavior beyond the most short-sighted and sociopathic could be considered altruistic by that notion, including a lot that we might usually regard as self-interested … but then again, we could expect that if we are a species evolved to take advantage of acausal cooperation.