Instigator / Pro
Moozer325's avatar
8
Moozer325
1499
rating
13
debates
57.69%
won
Topic
#5521

Provided that the theory of evolution is correct, Altruism is impossible

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Casey_Risk
Tags
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Casey_Risk's avatar
14
Casey_Risk
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Altruism: the act of doing something that has no Benifet to yourself to only benifet others.

Round 1
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#1
I'll start off by clarifying what the heck the theory of evolution even has to do with Altruism.

The Argument in its most basic form is actually quite simple.

Any species that has a motivation to help others for no benefit, or additional harm to themselves will have a less likely chance of survival than one who is motivated only by themselves. 

This seems to work at face value, but then you begin to ask, "But that kind of stuff happens all the time?". 

I gave my grandma a card for her birthday this year. She was the only one receiving anything, and I lost money. I mailed it to her, and (while not expected) received no response, so I didn't even get to see her smile, or have her say thank you to me, so I received absolutely nothing in return. So then why did I do it?

Let me tell you a story about one of my favorite philosophers, Peter Singer. One day, he was walking with his friend when they came upon a homeless person. Peter gives him a dollar, and later, his friend remarks something to the effect of, "This is exactly the kind of thing you say is impossible. That was clearly Altruism, and yet you say it is impossible". But Singer replies that he was not motivated to help the homeless person. He felt discomfort in seeing them in a bad situation, and he also knew he would feel bad about himself if he did nothing to help. By sparing a dollar, he relieved that feeling, and felt good about himself. He was not motivated to help that person, he was motivated by his own emotions.

Okay, that makes sense, but it doesn't prove anything. Maybe there are people who are motivated by helping others, despite their internal emotions. Well this brings us back to evolution. 

Obviously, people do seeming altruistic actions all the time, and it could be possible that we are just motivated by emotions, but why do we even have the inclination to do this, and can you prove that all actions are motivated by these feelings?

Well I would argue that using evolution, you can. 

Like I said before, animals with self centered ambitions have a better likelihood of surviving that altruistic ones. But humans are a social species. If we all have a motivation to help each other, it evens out, and we learn to work together. We have a better chance of surviving together than apart. Yes, there are introverts, but that's why solitary confinement is such a useful method of punishment. 

So helping others helps us all survive, but those actions are still altruistic, right? No, actually. Because they help us all survive, we evolve to want to do them, but since we have internal motivation to do them, then they are not truly altruistic.

In conclusion, you may think you are donating to charity just out of the goodness of your heart, but you are satisfying a biological need, and giving yourself positive emotions, which stem from the evolutionary benefit to make friends. If these internal rewards did not exist, then we would not do these actions, making them not truly altruism.

I yield the floor.

Ps. Sorry for the rush job. I forgot that I had a lot of stuff to do this weekend, so I'm in a hurry to get it out. I'll spend more time on my next one.

Pps. Also sorry for being so late on this one. I meant to post this on Friday, but it didn't go through I guess, or I just forgot to press the button.

Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
Con
#2
Thank you, Moozer, for inviting me to this debate. May it prove to be a thoughtful and interesting discussion!

I would like to point out to the readers two critical words in the title and description of this debate. The first is the word 'impossible', which is a very strong word, and one that tends to get overused, along with 'always' and 'never'. The second is the word 'act' in the definition of 'altruism' that my opponent has provided: 

the act of doing something that has no Benifet to yourself to only benifet others.
Clearly then, to show that the resolution is untrue, all I would have to do is provide some act which one can possibly do which provides benefit to others and no benefit to oneself. But of course, there are a myriad of such acts. We've all heard stories of someone sacrificing their own life to save one or more others, and while that may not be an everyday occurrence, it certainly does happen. Clearly, this doesn't benefit the person who sacrifices their own life, as it ends in their death. So how could it not be altruistic?

My opponent's argument works on two fronts: first, people do things that may cause no apparent benefit to themselves to relieve themselves of mental discomfort. Second, apparently altruistic acts are beneficial for one's species as a whole, so they are still beneficial for the altruist. I'd like to take a look at these arguments one by one.

The first argument relies on the assumption that anything which relieves mental discomfort ought to be considered in some way beneficial. This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, until you really start to think about it. Consider people with Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), who engage in certain routines compulsively in order to help relieve the stress they feel from intrusive thoughts. These routines typically take up at least one hour per day, which detracts from their overall quality of life. Some people engage in physical self-harm to help relieve the pain from intense mental anguish. Eating disorders typically arise from having a low sense of self-worth and a desire to gain control, yet they are clearly detrimental.

I could go on, but I think my point is clear -- there are many actions people take to reduce their levels of mental discomfort, but if merely doing so is something that ought to be considered beneficial, then OCD compulsions, self harm, and much more would be considered 'beneficial'. Personally, I don't think this definition works, and it ought to be discarded for something better. Without this definition, however, the first argument fails.

Now, consider my opponent's second argument, that altruistic acts benefit the human species as a whole, so they aren't really altruistic. While this idea makes a certain amount of sense, there are some problems with it. First, even if it is true that one can benefit humanity as a whole by doing things that only benefit others, this doesn't mean that it will actually come around to benefit the altruist. When humanity in general is helped, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single human is aided. Furthermore, and this ties into the point I was making earlier, this argument completely fails to address the existence of people who sacrifice even their own lives for others. Yes, this does help humankind, but it clearly does not help the individual human, so it would make little sense to call it non-altruistic.

Conclusion
My opponent makes a very interesting argument that makes us question the source of our motivations for doing things, but it fails to provide an adequate definition for what is beneficial, and it doesn't cover all acts that are, in fact, altruistic. As a result, he hasn't been able to meet his burden of proof.

Thank you for reading. I yield the floor.
Round 2
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#3
Thank you con for accepting this debate. 

Definitions

I'll first start off by clarifying my definition of beneficial for you. 

Clearly then, to show that the resolution is untrue, all I would have to do is provide some act which one can possibly do which provides benefit to others and no benefit to oneself.
That's not exactly what I meant, but it's pretty close. I would say you must find an altruistic act that has been done, not just one in theory. If an action Is possible in theory, but not in practice, I would still define that as impossible. SUre, you can imagine me jumping 20 feet high, but it sure isn't possible. Is that okay?

So by beneficial, I mean anything that the person being benefited defines as beneficial. If I have OCD, and having everything in order makes me feel better, then it is beneficial to me. It's the person's definition that counts, does that make sense?

Loss of life in Altruism

Clearly then, to show that the resolution is untrue, all I would have to do is provide some act which one can possibly do which provides benefit to others and no benefit to oneself. But of course, there are a myriad of such acts. We've all heard stories of someone sacrificing their own life to save one or more others, and while that may not be an everyday occurrence, it certainly does happen. Clearly, this doesn't benefit the person who sacrifices their own life, as it ends in their death. So how could it not be altruistic?

Just because someone paid the ultimate price, or gave very much to do something, doesn't mean they got nothing in return. You don't need to have just a net balance against the person doing the action, the action just has to have absolutely no benefit to the doer, which I think is reflected in my definition: 

Altruism: the act of doing something that has NO Benefit to yourself to only benefit others.
So even if someone lost their life saving someone else's, that doesn't mean that they didn't gain anything. First of all, when these things happen, there is not always a guarantee that the supposed "altruist", will die. They may not know how dangerous it is to jump on to the train tracks to save someone who fell. Obviously, the desired outcome is for both people involved to survive, so many times the person doing these acts is trying to keep themselves alive and well, so if that is truly the desired outcome, it is not altruism. Even though there is severe risk involved, the doer can still stand to gain something, and is working towards an outcome where both people gain something. Even if they know the risks, they are still working towards an outcome that benefits them, at least somewhat, by relieving the anguish they may have felt at the death of a loved one, and giving themselves a good feeling for having saved someone. You can say that more good has been done to the person who was saved, but at least some good was done to the person doing the saving, making it not altruism by the definition I have provided. Thus, in cases where death is not guaranteed, altruism cannot be possible.

But let's imagine a scenario where death is assured, and the person still chooses the option of saving someone else's life by sacrificing their own. Surely the altruist has nothing to gain from this action, right? 

Not necessarily. This person could prefer dying earlier to living without the person being saved. They could also be fine dying with the feeling of knowing they saved someone they loved. But that's not really the point anyways. Evolution tells us that it's not just that it could be this way, but it must be this way. I could go on describing what reasons someone could have for doing this action, but if we agree with Darwin, then there must be a reason for doing this.

The theory of Evolution

Now, consider my opponent's second argument, that altruistic acts benefit the human species as a whole, so they aren't really altruistic. While this idea makes a certain amount of sense, there are some problems with it. 
I'm not saying that actions are not altruistic because they benefit all of us, my point is that what goes around, comes around. If you were not directly helped by helping others, then there is no reason to do it. Helping others means they are more likely to help you, and even if you didn't have that ulterior motive consciously, the theory of evolution means that you have to have in unconsciously, making it not altruism.

First, even if it is true that one can benefit humanity as a whole by doing things that only benefit others, this doesn't mean that it will actually come around to benefit the altruist. When humanity in general is helped, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single human is aided.
But evolution mandates that most of the time it will come back around. Even if it's not all the time, the end goal is for others to owe you, or at least feel compelled to like and help you.

Conclusion

Not only does evolution mandate that there be ulterior motives to seemingly altruistic actions, but even actions where the doer sacrifices their life can be explained by a internal reward system made by evolution to help your survival. If we as humans do actions that seem to be completely altruistic, then they cannot be. If someone practiced actions that truly had no benefit to themselves, they would die out. 

I yield the floor.
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
Con
#4
Thank you, Moozer.

Definitions
My opponent pushes back against my claim that I would only need to provide one example of a possible altruistic act to disprove the resolution, saying:

If an action Is possible in theory, but not in practice, I would still define that as impossible. SUre, you can imagine me jumping 20 feet high, but it sure isn't possible. Is that okay?
However, my intent has never been to provide an example of something which can merely be imagined. Even if something has possibly never been done before, if it clearly can be done, and fits the definition of altruism, then it ought to count. A human jumping 20 feet vertically unaided is clearly impossible, but if we were debating whether it is possible to beat the current world record for the high jump, and I provided evidence showing that it is at least possible to beat it, then the fact that it hasn't been done yet doesn't disprove my case. Remember, the resolution contains the word 'impossible', which sets a very high bar. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that altruism has never been done before; merely that it can't be done. If I can show that it at least can be done, I ought to win this debate.

However, I must also point out that I don't even need to do that. Pro has the primary burden of proof in this debate, so even if I can't prove that altruism is possible, if I can at least show that my opponent's arguments are insufficient to prove that it is impossible, then I ought to win this debate. With that, I return to my rebuttals.

Redefinitions
My opponent has completely dropped my argument regarding how the word 'benefit' is defined, a crucial part of my argument. I would like to repeat part of it here:

I could go on, but I think my point is clear -- there are many actions people take to reduce their levels of mental discomfort, but if merely doing so is something that ought to be considered beneficial, then OCD compulsions, self harm, and much more would be considered 'beneficial'. Personally, I don't think this definition works, and it ought to be discarded for something better. Without this definition, however, the first argument fails.
This line of reasoning is relevant given an argument made by Pro in round 1:

Let me tell you a story about one of my favorite philosophers, Peter Singer. One day, he was walking with his friend when they came upon a homeless person. Peter gives him a dollar, and later, his friend remarks something to the effect of, "This is exactly the kind of thing you say is impossible. That was clearly Altruism, and yet you say it is impossible". But Singer replies that he was not motivated to help the homeless person. He felt discomfort in seeing them in a bad situation, and he also knew he would feel bad about himself if he did nothing to help. By sparing a dollar, he relieved that feeling, and felt good about himself. He was not motivated to help that person, he was motivated by his own emotions.
The argument here is that if some action relieves some amount of mental discomfort, then it ought to be considered a benefit. However, if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, we find that we would have to accept many things as 'beneficial' despite clearly being harmful.

One may argue that something could provide a benefit, yet still not actually be beneficial. However, if we take this argument at face value, and recall the particular definition of 'altruism' used in this debate, then we must consider the hypothetical situation wherein someone does something which provides no benefit whatsoever to themself, and isn't actually beneficial to anyone else either, but does provide some trivially small benefit, just not to the doer of the action. Under the definition used in this debate, this would be considered altruism. But that's clearly absurd! It goes against all logical intuition concerning what altruism even is in the first place. Since our definition of 'altruism' is fixed, it is this definition of 'beneficial' which must be incorrect. We must assume that anything which is beneficial also provides a benefit.

Of course, OCD compulsions, self-harm, etc. -- the things I mentioned earlier -- are all decidedly not beneficial. I don't think that's a controversial statement. However, it can easily be demonstrated that they do ease mental discomfort somewhat, even if it's counterproductive in the long run. Therefore, we can't consider 'easing mental discomfort' to be an inherent benefit. However, if we don't, then Pro's argument for why altruism is impossible completely falls apart. It must be considered a faulty argument, and one which doesn't prove their case.

That Which Goes Around
My opponent would likely argue that, even if everything I just said is true, the process of evolution by natural selection proves that altruism is impossible regardless. My best attempt to steel-man Pro's argument is as follows:

  1. Organisms which are better adapted to their environments survive better and reproduce more. [This statement is just part of the theory of evolution; it is a given in this debate]
  2. Humans, being a very social species, have evolved to prioritize group survival over individual survival, meaning that it is part of our human instincts.
  3. Therefore, when we as humans do things to help each other out even when there is no clear benefit to the one providing help, it is because we are acting on our evolutionarily programmed instincts.
  4. Because these instincts are there to help ensure group survival, they help us as well, even if only indirectly, so they aren't truly altruistic.
  5. Conclusion: altruism is impossible.
The problem with this argument is that the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the premises, making it invalid. Remember, for a logical argument to be valid, there must be no situation in which the premises are true and yet the conclusion is still false. Really, the independent premises here are (1) and (2). Everything else follows from these statements. (1) is a given and I won't dispute the truth of (2), but (3) is not a sound deduction. It doesn't necessarily follow that everything humans do to aid each other is purely instinctive, and it doesn't make much sense to assume that either, as human socialization is quite complex. (4) is also not a sound conclusion, for reasons which I have already explained. For one thing, there's no guarantee that a given helpful action will actually come around again. Something that helps humanity as a whole doesn't necessarily help every individual human, even the one who is doing something to help humanity.

My opponent acknowledges this, but argues:

But evolution mandates that most of the time it will come back around. Even if it's not all the time, the end goal is for others to owe you, or at least feel compelled to like and help you.
However, this is irrelevant, because even if I take this argument at face value, it's still true that what goes around doesn't always come back around, and that's devastating to my opponent's case. Remember, Pro is trying to prove that altruism is actually impossible. If even he can't deny that good deeds don't always come back around, then point (4) fails to be true. Since points (3) and (4) are both false, (5) is not a sound conclusion. My opponent's argument fails.

Note as well this argument I made in my opening round which Pro has failed to address:

Furthermore, and this ties into the point I was making earlier, this argument completely fails to address the existence of people who sacrifice even their own lives for others. Yes, this does help humankind, but it clearly does not help the individual human, so it would make little sense to call it non-altruistic.
This point, being uncountered, also refutes argument (4), and shows that (5) is not a valid conclusion. My opponent has failed to prove his case, which he was tasked with doing in this debate.

Conclusion
My opponent's case has relied on two lines of argument, but they are both faulty and rely either on redefining the word 'benefit' to be overly broad or making unsound assumptions concerning the evolution of humans. When we correct these errors, we find that Pro's arguments all fail. He has been unable to fulfill his burden of proof.

Thank you again for reading! My opponent has the floor once more.
Round 3
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Pro
#5
I've said most of my points for now, so I'll wrap this up quick.

Note as well this argument I made in my opening round which Pro has failed to address:

Furthermore, and this ties into the point I was making earlier, this argument completely fails to address the existence of people who sacrifice even their own lives for others. Yes, this does help humankind, but it clearly does not help the individual human, so it would make little sense to call it non-altruistic.
This point, being uncountered, also refutes argument (4), and shows that (5) is not a valid conclusion. My opponent has failed to prove his case, which he was tasked with doing in this debate.
Modern society could not have come to be without us all working together, which sometimes takes some small sacrifices from all of us. Even though our world today is far from perfect, and there are many living in extreme poverty, it has increased the quality of life at least a little for each person, and by lots for others. Sacrificing little things for the good of the group does help you because it builds a culture of helping, and it makes it easier to work with other people to get things done that help all of the group. 


However, this is irrelevant, because even if I take this argument at face value, it's still true that what goes around doesn't always come back around, and that's devastating to my opponent's case.
But the motivation still remains that you want it to come back around. 

 but (3) is not a sound deduction. It doesn't necessarily follow that everything humans do to aid each other is purely instinctive
Why would it not be? We act on our emotions, and what brings us the greatest pleasure, so if helping others at our expense gives us pleasure, then we will do it. What good is adapting to do certain things instead of others if we sometimes just don't do them?

Conclusion

We as human beings are motivated by an internal system of rewards and punishments that is built by our evolutionary benefit of helping others. This system is the reason that we do anything, whether it be eating one food over another, or saving someone's life. Because of this, it makes no evolutionary sense or us to do anything that has absolutely zero possible benefit to ourselves, making altruism impossible.

Thank you for accepting this debate Casey. I still maintain my position, but you made me look at things from a different angle. I had a lot of fun.
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
Con
#6
Thank you, Moozer, for this debate. It has been a very interesting and thought-provoking one! It's interesting to me that I've been introduced to Peter Singer's philosophy through it, as I keep on getting recommended a video on YouTube about his controversial ideas, but I never got around to actually watching it. Now, after this debate, I think I'll have to! This debate has definitely made me think about how altruism ought to be defined. However, I believe I have already won. Let me explain why.

Dropped Points
My opponent has completely dropped my point about how 'benefit' ought to be defined and how it completely undermines one of his main points in his opening. This is critical, because the working definition of 'altruism' in this debate is all about providing benefit for others without providing benefit for oneself. I have already shown that, for any reasonable definition of 'benefit' given the definition of 'altruism', Pro's anecdote about Singer and the homeless man does not demonstrate any actual benefit to Singer, yet it's clear that the homeless man benefited. As Pro has completely dropped this argument, his entire case relies on his argument that evolution entails the non-existence of altruism. Indeed, even in the first round, Pro seems to believe that not even his argument from psychology is sufficient to demonstrate that altruism is truly impossible (emphasis mine):

Okay, that makes sense, but it doesn't prove anything. Maybe there are people who are motivated by helping others, despite their internal emotions. Well this brings us back to evolution. 
Clearly then, if Pro's argument that evolution entails the impossibility of altruism fails, then his whole case remains unproven. Unfortunately for Pro, that is the truth of the matter here. Allow me to demonstrate why.

On the Origin of Altruism
Pro does not object to the form of the argument I presented, thus accepting that the steel-man I created accurately represents his argument. Again, I repeat to the voters that if any of the points I listed are untrue or cannot be validly deducted from the premises, then the whole argument is faulty and the conclusion remains unproven. This is vital, as Pro has the primary burden of proof in this debate. If he cannot prove his case to be true, then I necessarily ought to win. And I believe I ought to win here, as I have already shown that points (3) and (4) cannot be soundly deducted from the premises. Pro has responded to my arguments, saying in regards to my argument against point (3):

 but (3) is not a sound deduction. It doesn't necessarily follow that everything humans do to aid each other is purely instinctive
Why would it not be? We act on our emotions, and what brings us the greatest pleasure, so if helping others at our expense gives us pleasure, then we will do it. What good is adapting to do certain things instead of others if we sometimes just don't do them?
Again, I feel the need to point out that an argument is only valid if there is no situation in which all the premises are true and yet the conclusion is still false. I shall leave it up to the voters to decide if they believe that, given the theory of evolution by natural selection is true, it is necessarily true that anything we as humans do to aid each other is purely instinctive, and there is no situation in which we could aid others when there is no clear benefit to ourselves where we are not acting on evolutionarily programmed instincts. However, I will simply say that I don't think this has been sufficiently proven to be true.

I have also argued against point (4) throughout this debate by pointing out that what goes around doesn't always come back around, and that sometimes people will even sacrifice their own lives for the sake of others. Both of these examples prove that there are situations where statement (4) isn't true, which means that (5) is not a sound conclusion from the premises. Pro's only counter-arguments are that the motivation for a good deed to come back around remains, and that small sacrifices for the greater good create a culture of helping. However, these arguments miss the point I was actually making. Remember, altruism in this debate is defined as an act that benefits others and does not provide a benefit for oneself. Pro's arguments fail to demonstrate how the scenarios I brought up fit this definition of altruism. Therefore, his whole argument from evolution falls apart, and his case is left with no legs to stand on.

Conclusion
Throughout this debate, Pro has tried to make arguments from psychology and evolution to explain the motivations behind why we, as humans, do what we do, and how this means that our apparently altruistic deeds aren't really such things. However, these arguments have relied on untenable definitions and counterfactual statements. When we examine these arguments more closely, we find the fatal flaws that show that Pro's case doesn't stand up to scrutiny. My opponent has been unable to adequately prove his proposition that altruism is impossible to be true. Therefore, please VOTE CON!

Thank you for reading, and thank you again, Moozer, for the debate!