One thing that comes up in almost any discussion on altruism is that an action is never truly altruistic because the person is performing the action is his or her self interest. I think this is true, but why should it matter? Say one person gives $10,000 to a charity out of truly altruistic purposes, and another person does because they feel guilty if they don’t. That $10,000 doesn’t do less good if the action is not purely altruistic. Whether or not altruism exists does not matter; doing good does. Furthermore, it almost speaks poorly of your character if you don’t feel happy about helping out someone in need, and it speaks poorly of your character if you don’t feel guilty by not helping. That happiness that you feel could then be the cause of more helping of those in need, which certainly does not make your contribution mean any less. You’re even affecting more people positively if by helping others you feel some sense of satisfaction and happiness because you are improving your own life as well. Singer never says that this should not be the case with effective altruism, as he discusses in his TED talk many people whose lives have improved after they began giving, including a woman who was deeply depressed before she began devoting her life to helping others, and some time after she began this endeavor she became one of the happiest people she knew. She was able to positively affect the lives of many others in need as well as her own, all without acting out of purely altruistic tendencies.
I think you make a really interesting point Nathan! Whether or not altruism exists doesn’t really make a difference! Even if one doesn’t care about giving, the end goal will be that someone in need was helped while the person giving additionally gets something as well. I remember watching this episode of friends where two of the main character, Joey and Phoebe are discussing whether an action can truly be selfless. Joey believes every action benefits the individual doing the action in someway or another. Phoebe then decides to prove Joey wrong. After coming up with nothing all day she sees that a bee is on her, and decides to let the bee sting her so that it will seem like the bee has an advantage compared to the rest of the swarm. She believes that by letting the bee hurt her, she is committing an altruistic act. Joey however cleverly says that the bee probably died after stinging her. Towards the end of the show, Phoebe decides to donate $200 to broadcasting service where Joey is working to raise money for a charity. She dislikes public broadcasting and wants to use her money somewhere else but decides to donate anyways. But even in this action there is a hidden benefit. She feels good to be helping her friend and the cause he supports. It’s clearly very difficult to prove whether a selfless act truly exists and so your way of seeing altruism truly makes sense to me.
I agree too, money is money and the motive behind it does not matter in the end because the donated money will help either way! In a case where the outcome may be different is if two people volunteered at an event where one had altruistic motives and the other needed volunteer hours for something and he/she did not want to be there, the outcome may not be as positive and/or rewarding for the second person.