By assisting others, you’re ultimately helping yourself

Monday, October 26, 1998

By assisting others, you’re ultimately helping yourself

HELPING: Perform good works knowing that they will all come back
to you

By Iain Cunningham

Recently, a column by Matthew Gever, titled "Aiding others does
more harm than good" (Viewpoint, Oct. 22), appeared in the Daily
Bruin challenging the widely perceived virtues of altruism. It,
among other things, made the rather bizarre (and yet strangely
provocative) comparison of Mother Teresa, whom many would consider
the ideal of human altruism, and Hitler, who is, of course,
notorious as a very, very bad guy. Gever tried to make the point
that regardless of altruism’s universal praise, its practice
actually tends to do more harm than good. He also suggests that we
would be better off as a society if we just gave in to our
instinctive self-interests.

This philosophy struck me as nearly identical to much of Ayn
Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. In fact, Gever states, "… your
life is your own. No one else is entitled to it. Working for others
accomplishes nothing." This is practically a mantra in Rand’s
"Atlas Shrugged." I like it. I think it’s a great principle. It’s
too bad it doesn’t work.

The flaw in Randian Objectivism is that it discounts how
interdependent we are. Human beings are born with a limited
morality. Namely: goodness is what is good for me. This nascent
morality, which is actually just self-preservation, doesn’t need to
be taught of course; it’s present in each of us from the day we’re
born. But we do develop a higher sense of morality. We learn the
virtues of honesty, loyalty, and, yes, altruism, even when they are
seemingly in contrast (as they often are) with our own
self-interest. The trick is in understanding how we get there. And
how do we justify honesty when our 4-year-olds ask why not to
steal? Why not to lie? Why not to abandon people or commitments
when it is convenient?

Especially if we know we won’t be caught.

Often, we give the wrong answer. We say something abstract such
as, "It’s the right thing to do." Or we get a little closer by
talking about the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be
treated.

But, these ideas seem so lofty. A developing morality needs to
build on already accepted ideas. The real reason we are honest,
loyal, and even altruistic, is that we eventually come to
understand that it all goes back to self-preservation.

Human beings err, and you cannot be sure that you’ll get away
scot-free. You can’t discount the consequences of lying, deserting,
or being selfish in the face of others’ need. You should be honest,
not because it is the right thing to do, but because you’ll get
caught and no one will trust you anymore.

You should be loyal, not because it satisfies some noble ideal,
but because you will need someone someday too, and people have
memories. You should be these things because it is important for
your own self-preservation, not for other people.

We come, or should come, to understand that you do altruistic
things for your family because you are part of your family, and
what is good for your family is good for you. We come to understand
that we sacrifice for our larger groups (friends, cities, states,
countries) because we are a part of these things, and what is good
for them is good for us as well.

Sometimes humans choose to make the ultimate sacrifice, an act
which by definition means there can be no more sacrifice. Humans
choose to do this because they understand that being part of a
whole means that there is something greater than yourself. All of
us reading this today have benefited from this ultimate sacrifice.
Sometimes, it is necessary.

Understanding this progression of morality ­ and how all of
it rests on the idea of self-preservation ­ plays with the
definition of altruism. If altruism is defined simply as
self-sacrifice, then perhaps none of these actions can be included.
After all, what I’ve tried to show is that all these virtues are
done because, in the end, it benefits the doer.

But I suggest that there is no such thing as pure altruism.

It is hard to imagine a voluntary action that brings nothing
good back to the actor, tangible or not. And it would be a rather
narrow perspective to think that only tangible results count. Some
of our most selfish actions are meant to bring us intangible
good.

When Gever praises self-interest and claims we would all be
better off without altruism, he misunderstands what altruism is
really about. Altruism isn’t a bad thing, and there are reasons we
practice it. Of course, that’s only if you believe it exists.

Cunningham is a fourth-year cognitive science student. E-mail
him at [email protected].

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]