While's there's plenty in this conversation I find myself offended by, I feel obliged to call out in particular this statement: "I wager that your lop-sided use of the female pronoun was a semi-conscious reaction to the intensely aggressive (some might say "masculine") nature of the ongoing debate. Was this an attempt to diffuse or balance the emotions underlying the discussion by planting sensibility sirens? If so, you might be on to something -- something deeper than the anti-emotional nature of your altruism calculus. Certainly, my attempts at humor have intended to serve a similar diffusive function but in a much different manner."

Really? Really, really? I can't tell you how offensive I find it that you name what appears to at least this "feminine" observer to be merely a thorough and intellectual discussion a "masculine" debate. Huh? What makes this a "masculine" debate? Is it that the participants are men, or is it, as the casual sexism of your comment suggests, that you feel it's just getting a little too "intense" in here for the women folk? That you refer to the use of feminine pronouns as somehow having the power to "diffuse or balance the emotions underlying the discussion by planting sensibility sirens" only drives home the subtle yet unmistakable misogyny underlying your statements. This kind of tired gender stereotyping and sexism was a dead horse long ago; I'm those "emotional" types among us would appreciate it if you could stop trotting out its corpse any time the discussion gets too tough for you.

-- DanaDelger - 30 Sep 2009

It is true that so long as the definition of altruism is malleable we will all be frustrated by discussion.

I am curious though, Brett - how did your 100% use of the female pronoun (her/she) benefit you more than it cost you? As a male, I am personally offended. Just kidding - don't be offended by the question.

I wager that your lop-sided use of the female pronoun was a semi-conscious reaction to the intensely aggressive (some might say "masculine") nature of the ongoing debate. Was this an attempt to diffuse or balance the emotions underlying the discussion by planting sensibility sirens? If so, you might be on to something -- something deeper than the anti-emotional nature of your altruism calculus. Certainly, my attempts at humor have intended to serve a similar diffusive function but in a much different manner.

Ultimately, the floating variable here seems to be the caprice of human emotion. If one's theoretical model of human behavior insists on reducing every instance of emotional ambivalence to some quantifiable decision-tree, then we are all happily predictable automatons. If, however, emotions can lead to inexplicable mental absences from all cost-benefit calculations, then macro-economists are in the unfortunate position of not being god.

[It's getting a bit too abstract here, so for my own personal record I am making a mental note to be more concrete in synthesizing the following weeks' readings.]

-- JonathanBoyer - 29 Sep 2009

Maybe we should have a definition of altruism. I would say altruism is an action that costs the actor more than it benefits him. That is the definition that I have been working from (I’m sure if people disagree they will let me know). The key for our discussion whether altruism exists may be whether the costs and benefits are weighed from the subjective perspective of the individual actor or from an objective perspective. Because it is the actions of the individual actor under any given circumstance for which we are concerned, I believe that a correct analysis of the viability of altruism as a concept requires analysis of the costs and benefits from the individual actor’s subjective perspective. From that perspective and under that paradigm I restate my belief that altruism generally does not exist (I will not say that it is impossible to have exceptions to every rule).

The fact that an actor takes an action at any point in time means that she thinks that the action is in her subjective best interest and that it benefits her more than it costs her. This seems self evident to me—that is why she takes that certain action and she can take no other. However, undoubtedly different people value things to different degrees. Therefore, the apparent and perceived random, irrational, or altruistic behavior comes from the fact that individual No. 1 may value A higher than B whereas individual Nos. 2-100 value B higher than A. Consequently, if an individual chooses A she may be perceived as “altruistic” by the majority of society because from an objective perspective her choice costs her more than it benefits her (assuming her choice also benefits one or more other people). So for purposes of discussion, as an example, let’s say individual No. 1 invents new and useful software and puts it into the public domain without utilizing copyright or patent protection. Most people would probably say that action costs her more (primarily from unrealized revenue generation) than it benefits her and is in fact an altruistic action. In my opinion, however, that is still not an altruistic act because she subjectively believes, based upon her values, needs, etc., that the choice benefits her more than it costs her, even if she is aware it costs her more from a monetary perspective. This subjectively perceived benefit can come from many sources, as mentioned before, expectations of rewards in another life, recognition from society, delayed monetary benefit, or even self fulfillment, which benefits subjectively, in that individual’s perspective, outweigh the costs, such as unrealized immediate monetary gain.

Therefore, I can buy into altruism from an objective perspective in that an individual may benefit others by acting in a manner that does not benefit her as much it costs her from an objective perspective (although I believe even that is rare). I continue to believe, however, that it is not truly altruistic from the individual’s subjective perspective because based on that individual’s subjective beliefs and values the action benefits her more than it costs her. Admittedly, this may be a distinction without a difference except for an academic discussion in a law school class.

-- BrettJohnson - 28 Sep 2009

To be clear: I have no position.

"Isn't that what most garage bands exist for?" --CLASSIC

-- JonathanBoyer - 27 Sep 2009

Deep thoughts indeed.

Initially, I have to disagree with the statements that "humans, like other animals, are generally incapable of acting in a truly altruistic manner" and "evolution will quickly eliminate any truly altruistic propensities because a truly altruistic act by definition does not benefit and may harm the actor..." I think this may be overestimating the power of evolution, or at least its current advancement. Even if we assume that altruism is a trait evolution would gradually remove, that does not mean it has removed it yet. Perhaps altruism is our behavioral appendix. Or perhaps, like the appendix, it does something beneficial we aren't aware of.

Putting that initial disagreement to the side, I agree with part of your (Jonathan's) observation re: assessment of random vs. nonrandom behavior, quoted below:

"Perhaps it is more accurate to say that humans are calculating; behavior is not random."

I think it is important to add, and perhaps you agree, that to the extent people act nonrandomly they might not actually know of all the motives behind their action (they might simply be incorrect about their motives). In other words, saying behavior is not random does not foreclose the possibility that behavior is intentional but serving motives unknown to the person.

So, even if altruism does not in fact exist and all those claiming their actions were altruistic were in fact actually serving some other internal motive (e.g. Brett's observation that "an action may appear altruistic in one sense, e.g., lack of immediate revenue generation[,] but in fact may not be an altruistic action [because you gain something else of value later]"), why wouldn't this false-altruism still be sufficient incentive for future creations? Supposing I agree with Brett that "Even in a zero marginal cost world, there must be incentives for the initial creation of the first product[,]" couldn't other motives, even if perceived incorrectly as altruism, be sufficient --- e.g. the author created in hopes of getting attention? Or for fun or amusement? Isn't that what most garage bands exist for?

I suppose I also wonder why changing from "some compensation" as a model to "much less compensation" necessarily means insufficient incentives. I do not get the sense we are talking here about paying authors/artists/etc. zero to create - if that is the proposed model, I would appreciate being corrected.

At the moment, I am still considering this model; my questions above are mostly trying to understand your (Brett's and Jonathan's) positions. My concern - and I leave it to be addressed at a later date when the class course reaches it - is what model we will use to provide adequate incentives for things like pharmaceuticals. I look forward to the readings addressing that point; they appear to be near.

-- BrianS - 27 Sep 2009