The Paradox of Altruism

Are humans truly capable of being selfless? In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued that actions motivated purely by self-interest, even if they help others, lack moral worth. Thomas Hobbes believed that humans are inherently and perpetually motivated by self-interest, and all actions – even those that may seem altruistic, are fundamentally rooted in the motivation of personal gain or fear of consequences. Lastly, Nietzsche, in his critique of morality, was deeply skeptical of the possibility of a human expressing true altruism and argued that altruism acts often as a way to conceal a will to power. He argued that altruism was just a way for individuals to assert their superiority and dominance over others by being charitable or innately self-sacrificing. One can say that Kant, Hobbes, and Nietzsche, emphasized a pessimistic outlook on the world and that they generalized humanity as selfish beings who are not capable of being inherently good. 

However, when it comes to human reasoning; the theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of charity or selflessness can be truly “altruistic”. This is because the individual may receive an intrinsic reward. Whether it’s good karma or self-gratification, it is almost guaranteed that the actor will leave the situation satisfied, qualifying as a benefit and validating the argument that true altruism is impossible. After all, the actor inevitably indulges in the belief that they are charitable and morally good. 

This contrasts precisely with Kant’s argument; an act loses all moral value if it is done solely for moral value, solely for personal-gratification, solely for personal gain. Yet, everything humans do is for personal gain and is motivated by either fear or desire. That is human nature, and it is observed everywhere; from the political systems worldwide to the hierarchy of the social classes. Observe social media; every day one will scroll through at least 2 or 3 posts about starving children in Gaza or displaced children in Ukraine. In this scenario, two morally questionable acts take place; the individual posting online, who often receives social validation or a sense of moral satisfaction (thereby nullifying the act’s moral value as discussed earlier), and the individual who ignores the post, as most do on such platforms, because ignorance is bliss. Platforms such as these often encourage sharing for the sake of validation, not change. When individuals are observed only advocating digitally, but not taking any tangible action beyond that, it is irrefutable that they receive the most benefit out of the act by also putting in the least effort.

Everything deemed good or morally valuable within human systems does not qualify as true altruism. This is solely because these aspects of the system are made only to put up the illusion of moral value, when in reality it is done to sugarcoat the actuality of a world where millions suffer. This superficial morality that is designed solely to uphold societal structures only represents the deep-rooted inability of humanity to express true altruism. Supported by the arguments of philosophers who wrote their arguments on the matter centuries ago, it is undeniable that the issue of true altruism has persisted within humans for years, and that is a part of humanity; it is timeless. Even Plato, in his concept of the “highest good”, suggested in his works that being altruistic, is, to an extent, a way to achieve one’s own highest good, contradicting the true meaning of altruism. Ultimately, the pursuit of true altruism has plagued humanity, a philosophical dilemma that has been debated for centuries. As long as human reasoning is governed by self-interest, whether it is consciously or subconsciously, with good moral intent or bad moral intent, true altruism will remain a myth for humanity. What humanity labels as ‘altruism’ is, in reality, self-driven motivation disguised as charity – a fundamental flaw in human morality that consistently continues to defy true altruism. To humanity, altruism is and always will be a myth, a facade of morality, and it will always remain embedded within human morality.