[ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths, or Confused/Moody

[Lee Corbin]

Damien writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>>I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose
>>behavior is exemplified by
>>
>>      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
>>          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
>>          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
>>          about your less than generous behavior)
>>      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
>>          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
>>          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
>>          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
>>          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
>>          or even would be able to hold it against you
> 
> This is truly bizarre. (a) You really think it takes a "genuine 
> altruist" to honor a contract and to do so routinely?

Given the proviso that there will be *no* repercussions
whatever to the actor, the answer is Yes. This has to be
so (my claim goes) because someone truly acting only in
his own self-interest would have no motive to honor the
contract. Classic defection scenario.

> For that is the understanding between you and the waiter.
> [This is something it takes an Aussie a while to grasp,
> since tipping is or used to be frowned on in Oz and waiters
> were paid extra so bills go up a bit]

Yes, I'm listening to where Orwell describes the same thing
in Loyalist Spain. Leaving tips (or, as in the case of the egalitarian
smorgasbords, even being waited upon) is seen as dividing the
people into classes. I know I was very uncomfortable as a teen
being waited upon by adults in my pals and I went into a coffee
shop. It felt quite wrong.

> (b) You really think it takes a "genuine altruist" to act in accord
> with a principle that, if generally acted upon, eases everyone's life, 
> reduces everyone's tension, decreases the chances of costly
> accidents, etc.?

That is exactly so. Now, to be sure, "cooperating" by driving on the
same side of the road as most people do is very much in one's self-interest,
obviously. Here "what is good for everyone" coincides with what
is good for the (selfish) individual. I do mix "selfish" and "self-interested"
here in a way that I hope does not cause confusion (for there is an
important distinction, but it's rather tangential to the present discussion).

Normally those who are infinitely selfish, i.e. have no other interest
other than self-interest, will abide by the usual principles. This is 
because society regularly mets out punishment to those who do not.[1]
In fact, it is rather hard to come up with situations that expose genuine
self-interest at work. I observe, for instance, that with respect to my
very closest friends, everything I do is in my own self-interest. For,
should I not do everything I can to continue to cultivate them, even 
going out of my way in cases where it's not in my short-term self-interest
to do so, I weaken our bonds, and can expect that I will benefit less from
our relationship. Ironically, it is normally the case that complete strangers
are the ones who benefit from whatever selflessness I have.

Now if I did think about it, well, maybe I could perceive cases where I'd
be nicer than "necessary" to my best friends, but none springs to mind
easily. I do note that I am kinder to my mother than can (so far as I
can see) be explained by self-interest. It was *only* by vividly 
imagining the case of the VR Solipsist, on which I posted here many
years ago, that I was able to convince myself that some of my behavior
is purely altruistic, because behind most of my behavior, as well as
behind most everyone's behavior, there almost always lies an
element of self-interest, though it's quite often deeply hidden,
and the person is not aware of it.

Lee

[1] What word am I looking for here? Neither "mets out punishment" nor
"meets out punishment" score many google hits.