The room I am in now would be seeming like a prison to me, if not for the knowledge that I chose to be here. That decision, the possible motivations for it, and the responses to it are the things I will attempt to examine.
The context: An acquaintance is about to suffer a fate undeserved, and we have both become aware of it. We also know that this consequence was caused, whether intentionally or unintentionally, of this we are unsure, by our mutual acquaintances. Neither we nor our mutual acquaintances are able to prevent the consequence from occuring. However, I am able to bear the consequence on the behalf of my acquaintance; our mutual acquaintances are unable to do the same. There are still others who are similarly able to bear the consequence if they so chose or if they were aware of the situation. You will probably have to read this paragraph twice, but basically the parties involved are: myself, my acquaintance, our mutual acquaintances, and the others. I volunteered.
(I have presented the situation as skeletally as I could in order to imply as little as possible, if only because I myself am unsure of my own motivations and am hence reluctant to be accountable for anything I may have unconsciously embedded.)
This is the kind of decision that can only be made quickly. If I had stopped to consider it, either self-interest or self-consciousness would have delayed me enough to have prevented me. Any calculations made would have been irrelevant, because there were no upsides to be had, or at least, none that I would consider genuine or worthwhile.
Given that the decision made would only benefit another at a cost to me, the act could be called altruistic, although here I am thinking mainly in economic terms. Altruism in economics is an anomaly, because the otherwise all-pervasive weighing of incentives and costs does not apply, although what often happens is, abstract benefits are substituted in the absence of apparent ones in order to justify an otherwise inconsistent outcome. However, I think altruism is something that is necessarily individual, if only because altruism en masse would have no nett effect; it would probably be unwise to examine something so specific to the individual through the wide lens of economics.
So, economics aside, what can I say about altruism? I think a truly altruistic act has no incentive aside from the other person’s happiness, in which case, the ability to empathize is a prerequisite. I did experience a sort of warm glow from the time the decision was made, but this feeling wasn’t dissolved by the skeptical looks I got; on the other hand, it wasn’t made more substantial by the complimentary comments or expressions of admiration, either. This gives me reason to believe that the satisfaction experienced was not on my own behalf, becasue if it had been I think I would have been affected more by the responses I received. As to the question of why I did what I did, if it was something altruistic, then the ‘motivation’ would be what I mentioned earlier, namely the other person’s happiness.
I also mentioned earlier that this was the kind of decision that had to be made quickly, and I think another aspect to an altruistic act I should consider is whether it has to be something spontaneous, or at least relatively uncalculated. The word ‘altruism’ has connotations of moral virtue, for example, putting someone else’s concerns ahead of one’s own is considered virtuous or commendable in any moral system I can think of; this kind of attitude is generally called unselfishness, and an altruistic act would be an example of unselfish behaviour. However, if achieving merit in moral terms is an objective in doing something, would the act still be altruistic? I think if it were in itself motivation enough to do something, the act would not be altruistic, because ‘gaining merit’ could easily be enough of an incnetive to bear a cost, based on the individual’s level of delusion. People are perfectly able to deceive themselves about their satisfcation from something if they so will, but I think an act performed under this kind illusion should not be considered altruistic, because the perceived benefits for one’s self are sufficiently attractive that the other person’s happines need not be a reason for action. An altruistic act, then, would necessitate an uncommon measure of lucidity on the part of the person involved, and this is precisely why I think there is some element of spontaneity in the decision to do something altruistic, because for the person who is relatively free from illusions and self-deception, the decision would never be the calculated answer, and if it were taken, it would be an exception, never matter-of-course.
This leads on to another interesting possibility to consider: perhapse acts of altruism are motivated by an urge to exert our wills upon a situation. I think one reason why natural disasters stun is that the mind rebels against the lack of any apparent cause or proportion in the seeming judgment the victims receive. In the situation described, the unfortunate acquaintance was a random victim, so perhaps what I may have sensed was an opportunity to impose some measure of order in what would otherwise have been complete disorder. A choice was made where there would otherwise only have been an absence of one.
I suppose I should also mention that I’ve wondered if, perhaps, I just desperately wanted a conundrum to complicate.
