Doin' what comes naturally

Baby and Tiny are strong proponents of the peace through strength doctrine. Above, on alert just under the fence at the top of the drive facing Marginal Street yesterday afternoon, scanning the horizon for aggressors.

"In my experience, most people are motivated by some sort of self-interest when they engage in an altruistic act," writes Dr. Helen in her "Ask Dr. Helen" column at Pajamas Media:

I used to have discussions with a psychoanalyst I knew who said, like Heinlein, that no one really does anything unless it is in their self-interest in some way.

We would agree, as blogged here early and often:

We believe deeply that the denial of "life's dark side in ourselves" is the key to what's wrong with the utopianist world view . . .

It's the tragic view of human nature -- vs. the left's utopian, blank-slate, noble-savage one that denies any such thing as human nature -- that acknowledges the dark side in all of us and tries to design political institutions -- the U.S. Constitution comes to mind -- that channel our potentially destructive human nature into productive self-fulfillment (can you say invisible hand?) that redounds to the good of the larger community.

But what about those firefighters and police officers who gave their lives on 9/11? "Was that altruism, or was there underlying self-interest there that perhaps we don't know about?" asks Dr. Helen. We answered in her comments:

As for those firemen running into burning buildings, I do think it's an evolutionary survival thing having to do with avoiding shame and capturing honor among one's chosen peers. In today's parlance it comes down to "feeling good about oneself."

Approval amongst the members of one's group is all important for the psychological bonding that can mean the difference between survival and extinction, but some groups have more to feel good about than others, especially in this politically correct, self-esteem-without-effort era. We hold within us the potential for both extreme evil and extreme good . . . It all depends upon what we do with our human nature.

Update: One group that has a lot to feel good about are the cats that blog. Indigo hosts Carnival of the Cats #175 at This, That & The Other Thing.

Update II:  Pajamas Media links.

Comments

[goomp]

You tell it like it is. Nurture of a proper kind may help us control our self-interest to the extent that we can live in a civil society, but nothing can eliminate the dark side of human nature. Denial leads to destruction of the society itself. The blathering liberal ignoramus has lethal hate for those who don't accept his view of the world. Does that make his savage nature noble?

[bird dog]

The dark side of human nature is obvious. What amazes me is how civilized we humans have the capacity to be, regardless of motive. But I'll dispute Dr. Helen on the "everything is self-interest" bit. I have seen far too much sacrifice for love in my life to buy that. And if love falls under "self-interest", then "self interest" loses its meaning.

[Teresa]

Let me try this again - lost the whole comment I just wrote...

I disagree - period. I believe that people who are altruistic (let me define: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness" as defined on dictionary.com) don't go around flaunting their acts of goodwill and helpfulness - it's contrary to the definition. Therefore no one knows about it. If you don't know who the people are, you can't study what they do and why they do it.

She points to a study that Steven Landsburg wrote about - showing just how awful people are. I read the article, saw the definition he has for altruism: "personally paying for the privilege of enriching a total stranger"... ummm... come again? Quite a bit different than the standard definition above. The entire premise of the study was fatally flawed from the little I could see. (we won't even mention that the subjects were all college students)

How can something be studied when it isn't being correctly defined? In other words - you throw out the given definition and create one of your own. And if the true definition of altruism is that of helping others selflessly - then whether or not a person gives away money that wasn't theirs in the first place to a person who they only know is in the next room and may not even need any help... what were they studying again? It doesn't look like altruism to me - in any form.

But what's really sad... now the notion is firmly planted isn't it. Anyone who gives anything must be doing it for their own selfish reasons. You want to kill all acts of helpfulness in this country - there's no faster way to do it than to start telling those who want to help - they are a bunch of selfish jerks who wouldn't be doing anything if they didn't get something out of it.

Sorry I don't buy it. That's the problem with sociological studies - and probably why I had such a hard time with the class... they make no sense to me at all. Then again what do I know. *grin*

[Sissy Willis]

Obvious to you and me, B.D., but not to our friends on the left side of the aisle who still can't figure out why we can't all just get along. If self-interest has to do with "selfish genes" -- the ones that make it through the great winnowing process of evolution -- then mother love is the mother of all self-interest.

[eric]

Hello. I am contacting conservative bloggers around the country since I am one as well. I hope this email is not an intrusion.

I came across your site through Pajamas Media since I like that site as well.

Thank you.

eric aka www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

P.S. If you are open to doing a link exchange, I get some pretty decent traffic.