Effective altruism and the Selfish Gene

 

Summary:  

Peter Singer’s philosophy of Effective Altruism is justified by his Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests, which specifies that I should benefit everyone exactly alike, according to their needs, including myself, taking the “point of view of the universe”.  

The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests may be used to justify non-discrimination and justice, because the point of view of these must be impartial in order to work.  The same principle may not be used to justify altruism, because altruism is necessarily egocentric: I give to you, not “just anybody” gives to you.  

I have a moral responsibility (I am the object of a legitimate moral demand) to help needy strangers over the other side of the world.  But I don’t have an obligation to do so, because if I don't, nothing bad will happen to me.  By contrast, there is both a legitimate demand and an obligation for me to help myself, because if I don’t, bad things will happen to me.  So, it is important for me to help myself preferentially over a needy stranger over the other side of the world.  

Why will bad things happen to me if I do not help myself preferentially over others?  The point is not that I *should* help myself preferentially, just that if I don’t, nobody else will, because they are necessarily too busy looking after themselves.  

 

 

I have through all regions wandered;

Still have I none ever found

Who loved another more than himself.

So is one’s own self dearer than another,

Therefore out of love to one’s own self

Doth no-one injure another.

The Buddha  (Narasu, 1993)

 

... altruism becomes applied egotism.

Narasu (1993)

 

... dopamine-related neural pleasure centers in human brains are stimulated when someone acts generously or responds to a generous act.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy – “Mothers and Others – the evolutionary origins of mutual understanding”

 

... we feel a “warm glow”, a pleasurable feeling, at improving the plight of others

Frans de Waal – “The Age of Empathy”

 

... is it right to spend money on entertaining ourselves when we could use it to help people living in extreme poverty?

Singer (2011:vii)  

 

 

The principle of equal consideration of interests

Peter Singer bases his prescriptive theories of altruism and of non-discrimination on the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.  This principle is based on an argument from authority: lots of philosophers have espoused this principle, therefore it must be true.  The principle is best stated by utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick, as “Each to count for one and none for more than one”; and “The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other” respectively.  

 

The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.

Singer (1989:1)

 

... in making ethical judgments, we go beyond our own likes and dislikes.  From an ethical perspective, it is irrelevant that it is I who benefit from cheating you and you who lose by it.  Ethics goes beyond ‘I’ and ‘you’ to the universal law, the universalizable judgment, the standpoint of the impartial spectator or ideal observer, or whatever we choose to call it. ...

In accepting that ethical judgments must be made from a universal point of view, I am accepting that my own needs, wants and desires cannot, simply because they are my preferences, count more than the wants, needs and desires of anyone else.

Singer (2011:11)

 

So – to return to the situation of the finder of abundant fruit, who is deciding whether to share it with others – I might hold that I have a right to the fruit, because I found it.  Or I might claim that it is fair that I should get the fruit, because I did the hard work of finding the tree.  Alternatively, I could hold that everyone has an equal right to the abundance nature provides, and so I am required to share the fruit equally.

Singer (2011:13)

 

 

Altruism and the principle of equal consideration

Altruism is necessarily ego-centred, because it is not “anybody” or “somebody” or “the universe” who is doing the giving.  It is me, myself and I.  Hence, the Principle of Equal Considerations cannot be used to justify altruism, because persons are not equal under altruism.  One is giving, the other is receiving.  

 

Egocentric altruism

All altruism is necessarily egocentric, because it is me who is doing the giving.  What my ego does for myself, it can also do for others.  In effect, I expand the limits of my ego’s operation to include the interests of others who need it or deserve it.  If I have benevolent intentions, then I will aim to benefit these others.  If I have selfish and/or malevolent intentions, then I will aim to exploit and/or harm these others.  

Humans have an evolved drive to help other humans in need, derived from their interdependence: if I depend on you, then if I help you, I am helping myself (Tomasello et al., 2012).  This is thought to have evolved in the ancient context of small bands of people living and surviving together, and so, evolutionarily, it only applies to people in my vicinity.  However, psychology is a flexible thing, and I am likely to feel empathic concern towards, and a desire to help, any human being in need.  

Given that I need to prefer myself, but also that I have an altruistic desire to benefit and not harm others: each person affected by my action is to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them.  I call this formula, “Perfect Compassion”.  

Diagram of Perfect Compassion: egocentric altruism

 

Circles of concern

What is “available” for me to give someone else varies according to how close they are to me in “circles of concern”.  According to this scheme, I am likely to give more to those I depend on the most and am genetically related to the most, because doing this positively impacts my own fitness in some way, whether directly for myself, or indirectly, for my genetic relatives and those I depend on.  

 

Justice, non-discrimination, and the principle of equal consideration

Singer is correct to apply the “point of view of the universe” to the question of discrimination based on identity, since this is ultimately a matter of justice – of treating people impartially.  

Justice or fairness could be defined as giving each person concerned an equal unit of benefit (or harm) per unit of deservingness or need, which has to be judged impartially, without fear or favour or self-preference  

We all have the same need – the need to thrive and survive to the maximum possible extent.  Therefore we are all vulnerable to our needs not being met (Andorno and Boffone, 2014): we are all vulnerable to being vulnerable.  If someone is struggling, and their basic needs are not being met, but I am flourishing – I am flourishing, but they are not.  To restore mutual benefit, I could perform an act of altruism towards them.  

The "should" of non-discrimination and universal human rights is ultimately the "should" of human compassion, that is founded on human interdependence.  

 

Responsibility and obligation – the carrot and the stick

Obligation comes in two parts: legitimate demand (responsibility), and forceful bindingness (which makes the responsibility an obligation).  

Responsibility is a legitimate demand whose legitimacy motivates us to live up to it; obligation is something we must do and cannot get out of.  Thereby I have a responsibility to help needy strangers over the other side of the world: I should do it.  But I must help myself and those close to me.  

 

References

Andorno, Roberto; Cristiana Baffone – “Human Rights and the Moral Obligation to Alleviate Suffering”; in Ronald Green and Nathan Palpant (eds.), Suffering and bioethics, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 182-200, 2014

Narasu, P Lakshmi – “The Essence of Buddhism”; Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, Madras; 1993

Singer, Peter – “All Animals are Equal”; in Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, pp. 148-162; New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1989

Singer, Peter – “Practical Ethics – 3rd edition”; Cambridge University Press, 2011

Tomasello, Michael; Alicia P Melis; Claudio Tennie; Emily Wyman; Esther Herrmann – “Two Key Steps in the Evolution of Human Cooperation – The Interdependence Hypothesis” – Current Anthropology, vol. 53, no. 6, Dec 2012