Proving humans act naturally out of altruism and not self-interest

[Skyhilist]

I'm arguing with a libertarian and some other (fairly reasonable) that capitalism is not human nature and that mutual aid is in fact a factor of evolution.

They've asked me to prove this conclusively without just abstract evidence. I've already mentioned primitive communism but they say it won't/can't be the same now since we live in modern times.

Does anyone have any tips I could use to conclusively prove the point that collectivism is in fact human nature?

[Skyhilist]

Also he's claiming the "theory of the mind" which has allowed people to lie and cheat others has been there since the beginning. I've not heard this argument so not really sure how to counter it.

[helot]

Also he's claiming the "theory of the mind" which has allowed people to lie and cheat others has been there since the beginning. I've not heard this argument so not really sure how to counter it.

The Theory of Mind is where people, usually starting around 5 years old, develop the ability to attribute thoughts, feelings etc to others. To claim its purpose is to lie and cheat is to completely misunderstand it. That's like saying the purpose of using metal is to make weapons. Of course developing a theory of mind makes it so you can lie and cheat others but also to empathise. It's an incredibly useful trait for social animals.


As for whether or not capitalism is part of human nature i think thats a ridiculous debate. Humans aren't fixed entities that are only capable of a small variety of behaviours. People do engage in some of the most selfless and selfish acts imaginable.

Let us suppose, though, that there is a definite human nature and let us also suppose that its expressed perfectly in a society with war, exploitation, oppression etc. Why then should social institutions foster this kind of anti-social behaviour? We should be organising society in such a way to counter act it.

It's just a ridiculous argument. Not really worth your time

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, according to this (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_cooperation_russian_anarchist_prince_ peter_kropotkin_and_the.2.html)


Today, hundreds of papers come out annually on animal cooperation in nonhumans, and many of these papers show Kropotkin to be something of a prophet.

Which I have an easy time believing. But why do self-interest and cooperation have to clash? It's clearly in humanity's self-interest to cooperate, and that extends down to the level of the individual human. Are we also competitive? Yes, of course, and that's not always a bad thing.

[Skyhilist]

Well, according to this (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_cooperation_russian_anarchist_prince_ peter_kropotkin_and_the.2.html)

Which I have an easy time believing. But why do self-interest and cooperation have to clash? It's clearly in humanity's self-interest to cooperate, and that extends down to the level of the individual human. Are we also competitive? Yes, of course, and that's not always a bad thing.

Good point. But the rationale between why they will clash is basically

"Humans act naturally according to self-interest, and communism wants them to be altruistic, which is against human nature and therefore wont work since people wont help each other like they should under communism and would be selfish instead, making communism a system unfit for humans."

[bcbm]

Good point. But the rationale between why they will clash is basically

"Humans act naturally according to self-interest, and communism wants them to be altruistic, which is against human nature and therefore wont work since people wont help each other like they should under communism and would be selfish instead, making communism a system unfit for humans."

communism doesn't require altruism at all. the 'primitive communism' argument is actually apt here because if people not helping each other is against 'human nature,' then why was this the dominant form of social organization for the majority of our time here on the planet? even after the advent of class society humans working together and helping each other has always been the norm, not the exception, especially among those at the bottom who frequently find their self-interest in cooperating with others to achieve a more livable existence. a communist future would simply be the application of this on a much larger scale; by cooperating in the interests of humanity we all benefit rather than the 'self-interest' of capitalism where most of us get a race to the bottom in terms of wages, health care, food and everything else while a tiny minority live beyond opulence.

[magicshoemonkey]

Do you mean solely among humans, or do other species count? Because if you can include other species, this is really just mutualism in biology (there's a wikipedia article if you want to look it up). That would include things like the bacteria in the intestines which helps digest food or the birds that eat the bits out of crocodile teeth.

If you just mean humans, primitive communism really is the best example from an evolutionary standpoint, I suppose; I don't know how a whole lot of data could be gathered to prove that, say, homo erectus worked together with other members of the species, and I suppose the person you're arguing with would just say it doesn't apply to modern times (really useful retort, that).

In modern times, well, a construction company works together to build a skyscraper; they couldn't accomplish that if they did not work together. Like the above poster said, altruism isn't required for people to work together toward a goal, and it's really naive on your opponent's part to try to reduce all human action to either selfishness or altruism, anyway.

So, if your question is more about motivation, like why humans act in a certain way, and these people are arguing that it's because of self-interest and you're trying to respond that it's altruism, I think that's a waste of time to argue about. Not that it's a useless debate, but the problem with the claim that, say, all moral behavior is actually out of self-interest is that you can't really prove that with examples, since it's an argument about human motivation, something that's really deep within the psyche. If you point to a case of altruism (a bystander running into a fire to save a child, for instance) they will just say it was really, deep down, because he/she wanted to be a hero out of self-interest. It's a no-win argument.

[Comrade #138672]

"Altruism" emerges from very complex interactions between all kinds of self- interests.

Altruism is only problematic for individualists.

[human strike]

I'm a communist exactly because I'm self-interested.

[Crabbensmasher]

If your looking for scientific evidence to prove your point, then I think you'd want to look at the nature vs nurture debate and the various studies done to understand it. The topic has been covered by everyone from John Locke up to modern sociologists. There have been many studies on twins and social isolation cases dating back to the '60s to try and determine what's "inherent" in humans, and what's learned behavior. By looking at some of these, I'm sure you'll get a good understanding of the topic.

[Brutus]

It is quite simply a matter of practicality. If one were to cooperate with another person, they would get more done than two men working alone. And look at the bond between a mother and a child- would she not do anything to save the child? Christianity, which the majority of libertarians follow, at least the ones I know, promotes altruism- which is a handy fact if they're Christian.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Self interest doesn't make you an asshole unless you're a sociopath. Everyone does everything out of self interest. The mistake of the libertarian is assuming that material gain is always a persons main priority. Sometimes getting rid of the guilt that often comes with selfishness is more important than the objects they would have to give up.

[Devrim]

I'm arguing with a libertarian...

Why? Really why do you bother?

Anyway, probably the best place to look for evidence for this argument would be in one of the added chapters in the second and subsequent additions to Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene.

I think that the book is often misunderstood by many, who often haven't read further than the title, and have thought it a right-wing tract about selfishness. It is not at all. The idea of the selfish gene is an analogy and he says he could have equally called the book 'The Cooperative Gene'. You can download the book for free here (http://bookos.org/book/1129023/2cf09d).

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I'm arguing with a libertarian and some other (fairly reasonable) that capitalism is not human nature and that mutual aid is in fact a factor of evolution.

They've asked me to prove this conclusively without just abstract evidence. I've already mentioned primitive communism but they say it won't/can't be the same now since we live in modern times.

Does anyone have any tips I could use to conclusively prove the point that collectivism is in fact human nature?

Humans do act in their own individuals self interest. When I wake up in the morning I don't think about whether or not someone I know has had a shower, a cup of coffee, or will get to work on time, I think about myself, because I am me. That isn't at the expense of other people.

Don't argue that humans are altruistic, because they aren't. Argue instead that humans' self interest is best fulfilled by collective cooperation. This is hard-wired into our species by evolution.

[cyu]

I wouldn't say it's human nature any more than being born to speak English is human nature. English is taught - and if you were born in another country, you may be speaking a different language.

I wouldn't even say language is human nature. If you grew up alone on a desert island, obviously you would have no concept of language either.

However, there is a reason that cooperation is taught, just like language is taught. The reason is that cooperation allows humans to survive much better than if it wasn't taught (in fact, language itself is a tool used for cooperation).

Without cooperation, we wouldn't have computers, electricity, anti-biotics, cooked meals, clean drinking water. Not only that, without cooperation, we wouldn't even be taught that murder is "wrong".

[Strider]

What is human nature? A question that has been troubling philosophers from ancient times since today. When it comes to politics, i personally consider it a misleading debate. Whether human nature is altruistic or selfish, capitalism is injustice and slavery. Communism (as in stateless and classless society, where mutual aid and solidarity reigns) is justice and freedom. To put it bluntly, communism is the best system for everyone, altruistic or selfish, because the society in overall benefits as much as each person independently. Whether this is possible or not, whether capitalism is as far as humans can achieve, that is a whole different debate.
In any case though, supporting something because it is human nature, is plain stupid. We have logic for the sole purpose of surpassing our "natural" weaknesses. That my friend is definitely human nature.