Posted on 06/27/2013 7:56:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Helping another person even when doing so could adversely affect you is considered a virtue by many. People are often applauded as heroes, as they should be, when they help others. But what happens when a well-intended action results in unanticipated harm?
Expand that thought one more step: What is the effect if the resulting harm should have been known, but the persons taking action out of supposed "altruism" based their actions on emotions rather than on data? They meant to help, but they ended up hurting someone or some group -- either themselves, the intended beneficiary of the action or a third party.
In a paper titled "Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 4, 2013), associate professor of engineering Barbara Oakley of Oakland University lays out arguments that altruism can be pathological. Actions thought to benefit another person or persons can have unreasonable, negative consequences to that person or group and even to the person carrying out the action.
"Pathological altruism," Oakley writes, "can be conceived as behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable ... an observable behavior or personal tendency in which the explicit or implicit subjective motivation is intentionally to promote the welfare of another, but instead of overall beneficial outcomes the altruism instead has unreasonable (from the relative perspective of an outside observer) negative consequences to the other or even to the self."
In simpler terms, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, the intent was to be helpful -- but the result was harmful.
Examples: In keeping her child from failing, a parent winds up ensuring her child never learns how to deal with failure. In promoting home ownership, a government program encourages people to get in over their heads, landing them in foreclosure -- and in some cases out on the street -- when hard times hit. In that last example, another unintended consequence proved to be that taxpayers had to bail out the banks that were too big to fail.
Oakley provides a fascinating example: "In foreign aid, $2 trillion dollars have been provided to Africa over the past 50 years. As chronicled by economist and former World Bank consultant Dambisa Moyo, a native of Zambia, such aid has resulted in measurably worsened outcomes in a broad variety of areas, supporting despotism and increasing corruption and a sense of dependency in Africans. In some cases, the money has been directly responsible for extraordinary damage. Experienced foreign aid worker Ernesto Sirolli echoes many when he notes that much Western aid arises from narcissistic paternalism and patronization."
While we may want to help others, it might be more useful to first understand objectively whether our actions will result in the desired state. Or whether we are acting not for outcomes of others, but instead due to narcissistic paternalism, patronization, codependency and/or self righteousness. This would require taking off blinders of bias to see the real results rather than the intended results.
"Are some individuals addicts of their feelings of self-righteousness?" asks Oakley, who notes that altruism bias "seems to grow from or relate to that little studied sense of rightness, of certitude -- a tip-of-the-tongue feeling built on a web of biases, influences and perceptions that one thing is beneficial, whereas another is not."
Nowhere are these questions more needed than in the framework of politics and policy. Filled with rhetoric and emotions, one group or another talks about "helping" this or that constituency -- the middle class, the poor, the children. Many groups talk about help, and may really want to help, but few appear to focus on the data about outcomes.
In order to change this, Oakley suggests we "set the stage so that it becomes culturally acceptable, even expected, that one should attempt to quantify objectively purported claims of altruism."
What happens when programs that are set up to "help someone" instead enable that person or group of people to continue unsustainable activity? In such cases, who gets the real benefit -- and who is the real victim?
Smug Alert!
Pathological anything is bad. This includes pathological self-discipline, pathological money grubbing, pathological noseyness, pathological aloofness, pathological indifference, pathological righteousness. I owe a debt to my parents’ altruism and their instinctual drives that kept them from selling me into slavery or eating me for dinner or renting me to couples unable to conceive. I’m not prepared to declare altruism demonic and assign it front burner status over sadism, ignorance, egomania or messianic zeal.
Why undercut the human motivation for charity, family, loyalty, principled action, patriotism? This manufactured ambivalence crap is how 6 million Jews went to the big BBQ. Waging a philoslopical sloganeering manichean war upon altruism is NOT a priority.
If you don’t know your own psychology, how will you ever know if you are being manipulated by oligarch mafia elitist neo-aristocracy sociopaths for their Brahminic hidden agendas? A federation of anti-social personality types is nothing more than a zombie army. Our prisons are filled with them. Heil Hitler!!
That’s exactly what it’s about - the self-righteousness of leftists.
“the intent was to be helpful — but the result was harmful”
No, the intent was to feel good about oneself, and the harmful result is of no interest to the person who wants to feel good about himself.
Ayn Rand
The first step on the path to destruction is to consider altruism a primary virtue. The next step is to declare any action that is not altruism as the vice of selfishness and therefore immoral. Then, finally,the government must pass laws that prohibit selfishness and force actions to be altruistic.
Bingo, Mr.B...
Hammer, meet nail head...
For the mature competent adult, the maxim holds true that "what we do is what we intend to do." All else is self deception.
Sheeperals DO delude themselves, because their true intent has nothing to do with beneficience toward others, but toward their own sense of “goodness”.
Sowell pointed out that “intellectuals” are pointedly not interested in the actual effects of the policies they support, because the outcomes are not what they are interested in.
They are only interested in supporting their sense of “good personhood”, and if you point out the negative effects, you will be surprised at the response - as if you attacked them personally, because, to them, that’s what you’ve done when you’ve pointed out that their reason for feeling righteous is bogus and actually harms people.
In the case of inherently evil acts, this is the case. An obvious example would be abortion. There are no circumstances or intentions which can make abortion moral because it is an act which cannot be made to conform with Gods will in any case. It is INHERENTLY evil, always so.
However, most moral decisions do not consider acts which are "objectively" wrong, to note your use of the word.
In medical care, for instance, and this is not just limited to medical care, almost all decisions are made on the basis of a risk-benefit analysis. Many treatments which can cure an illness have some limited risk attached to them. Usually the level of risk is known but not always. It would be incorrect to say that a physician whose treatment resulted in a foreseeable complication INTENDED thar outcome. He would be trying to cure a disease. There would be no moral culpability.
There are also situations where adverse outcomes are not foreseeable.
I think what the author is getting at is that simple naïveté when a more comprehensive look at the risks and benefits should apply has caused a lot of harm.
I kind of like the approach. Acknowledging someone as "altruistic" before telling them they are stupid has a better chance of being heard than the reverse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.