Excellent essay. It’s unusual to find a psychological interpretation of altruistic behavior in this forum dedicated to altruism. Altruism is a pattern of behavior conditioned by individual motivation.
Since the EA community is aligned with utilitarianism, it is clear that the fundamental question would be how to increase the number of altruistic agents.
There seem to be situations or conditions in which people are more likely to behave altruistically.
and
Role modeling is a form of social pressure that may help to develop altruists. People are more likely to volunteer (for instance, to join a blood drive) if they see volunteering modeled for them
An important motivator for altruistic acts are self-generated internal rewards (...) For example, people feel satisfied by meeting goals (...) You can take satisfaction at becoming the sort of person you admire (...) You can empathically adopt some of the relief felt by those you help.
To build the virtue of altruism, altruism needs to be part of your character. Your character is composed of the sorts of choices you habitually make.
My objection to your general approach is that you ignore what appears to be a process of moral evolution that has led to an increase in the number of individuals interested in altruistic behavior. The very existence of the EA community seems to be evidence that this evolution is taking place: it would be the first social movement based strictly and rationally on the development of a prosocial behavioral trait. This does not happen by free will (in reality, nothing happens in human beings by free will) but as a consequence of cultural conditioning that is taking place in today’s world.
Thus, simply listing individual approaches that promote altruistic behavior is impractical, among other things because it ignores the social nature of human existence. If, for example, you believe in a lifestyle based on family happiness, you are unlikely to practice much altruism, since your family will always be your priority. Conversely, organizing a lifestyle based on altruistic behavior (something for which there are certain historical precedents) could greatly increase the number of motivations for altruistic behavior.
In any case, as utilitarians, what matters are the results: does a purely individualistic view of altruistic motivation seem promising from the point of view of increasing altruistic action? It doesn’t seem so.
The empirical evidence suggests that altruism correlates with human flourishing on several dimensions.
So a lifestyle based on altruism is not far-fetched.
Modeling altruism as something that is self-rewarding can encourage altruism in others (especially people who have been discouraged by a joylessly puritanical idea of altruism)
Here’s the mistake: why have puritan (or “renunciant”) movements existed historically if they are so discouraging? What is the concept of “joy” for each individual in their personal and social circumstances?
The answer is that they (“puritans”) have always been discouraging for the majority of people living a conventional lifestyle. But our current lifestyle (in the “enlightened West”… so to speak) is already discouraging for the conventional lifestyle in Afghanistan, for example.
The idea of developing a lifestyle based on altruism is, moreover, compatible with the hope that individual motivations for altruistic behavior will develop. From a cost-benefit perspective, debating the issue and undertaking initiatives related to the possibility of developing a “Puritan community” centered on altruistic action is enormously profitable (it costs nothing).
In the last five years, the signatories of the GWWC Pledge have grown from five thousand to ten thousand. At this rate, it will take a century to change the world (of course, no one knows if there will be an exponential increase in the short term). In contrast, we have precedents of social movements based on benevolence and altruism that experienced almost explosive growth. Of course, they also quickly died out, and of course, they were not equivalent to social movements based on rational and enlightened principles. Perhaps the time has finally come to take the remaining steps.
Any inquiry into altruistic motivation is enlightening not only about this phenomenon of human behavior, but also about the human condition itself, in which antisocial and prosocial behaviors coexist in a conflict that has marked the evolution of the civilizational phenomenon itself.
Excellent essay. It’s unusual to find a psychological interpretation of altruistic behavior in this forum dedicated to altruism. Altruism is a pattern of behavior conditioned by individual motivation.
Since the EA community is aligned with utilitarianism, it is clear that the fundamental question would be how to increase the number of altruistic agents.
and
My objection to your general approach is that you ignore what appears to be a process of moral evolution that has led to an increase in the number of individuals interested in altruistic behavior. The very existence of the EA community seems to be evidence that this evolution is taking place: it would be the first social movement based strictly and rationally on the development of a prosocial behavioral trait. This does not happen by free will (in reality, nothing happens in human beings by free will) but as a consequence of cultural conditioning that is taking place in today’s world.
Thus, simply listing individual approaches that promote altruistic behavior is impractical, among other things because it ignores the social nature of human existence. If, for example, you believe in a lifestyle based on family happiness, you are unlikely to practice much altruism, since your family will always be your priority. Conversely, organizing a lifestyle based on altruistic behavior (something for which there are certain historical precedents) could greatly increase the number of motivations for altruistic behavior.
In any case, as utilitarians, what matters are the results: does a purely individualistic view of altruistic motivation seem promising from the point of view of increasing altruistic action? It doesn’t seem so.
So a lifestyle based on altruism is not far-fetched.
Here’s the mistake: why have puritan (or “renunciant”) movements existed historically if they are so discouraging? What is the concept of “joy” for each individual in their personal and social circumstances?
The answer is that they (“puritans”) have always been discouraging for the majority of people living a conventional lifestyle. But our current lifestyle (in the “enlightened West”… so to speak) is already discouraging for the conventional lifestyle in Afghanistan, for example.
A “puritan” lifestyle can, however, be very attractive to a significant minority. And how do cultural changes occur, if not from within minorities?
The idea of developing a lifestyle based on altruism is, moreover, compatible with the hope that individual motivations for altruistic behavior will develop. From a cost-benefit perspective, debating the issue and undertaking initiatives related to the possibility of developing a “Puritan community” centered on altruistic action is enormously profitable (it costs nothing).
In the last five years, the signatories of the GWWC Pledge have grown from five thousand to ten thousand. At this rate, it will take a century to change the world (of course, no one knows if there will be an exponential increase in the short term). In contrast, we have precedents of social movements based on benevolence and altruism that experienced almost explosive growth. Of course, they also quickly died out, and of course, they were not equivalent to social movements based on rational and enlightened principles. Perhaps the time has finally come to take the remaining steps.
Any inquiry into altruistic motivation is enlightening not only about this phenomenon of human behavior, but also about the human condition itself, in which antisocial and prosocial behaviors coexist in a conflict that has marked the evolution of the civilizational phenomenon itself.
Thanks for your view.