My 9-year-old granddaughter announced, “I feel very sorry for my friend Olivia.”
“Why?” her father asked her.
“Because I will be away and won’t be able to attend her birthday party,” she replied.
This struck me as a typical child’s self-centered behavior. But another way of looking at it is that it’s the epitome of altruism.
Most young kids view themselves as the center, or near the center, of the universe; that being so, their absence from an event honoring somebody else will in their minds detract from the other person’s enjoyment, so that my granddaughter’s sympathy for Olivia can be viewed as charitable.
We economists have lots of trouble describing what constitutes true altruistic behavior, and in that light, my granddaughter’s pronouncement doesn’t look so bad. Of course, if she were 13 and made this comment, I would be pretty convinced that her grandmother, her parents, and I had succeeded in spoiling her!
(Hat tip: M.A.H.)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
i think the epitome of altruism is empathy, and it’s what makes us social creatures- if we truly have empathy for someone, we will simply act altruistically
I’m not an economist, but it seems like much of the hand-wringing over altruism happens when we try to assess a person’s motives. In many cases, the benefit received for a possible act of altruism is emotional or internal, and can’t be measured.
If this is the case, I’m not sure that worrying about motive is important. What seems important is that a person or group did something to benefit someone else in the absence of a commercial transaction.
Face it, your granddaughter is spoiled!
I agree with frankenduf, what you describe is empathy not altruism.
The 3 comments before me are my thoughts exactly…
It would probably be safe to assume in the general case that any act, altruism or not, implies some sort of personal benefit. Those acts we categorize as “altruistic” are simply those where the reward entails the servicing of a belief — primarily as proof to actors themselves that they are “good people” for living up to their own specific standards.
This seems to be the case when the act is unpleasant or even suicidal — the perceived pleasure derived from the service of the particular belief outweighs the perceived cost — regardless of the true outcome. Even if it so happens that the charity has unintended consequences, it is often the perceived benefit of having followed the applicable rules that leads people to the conclusion that they “would not have acted differently” in spite of knowing the actual cost in hindsight.
How else can one explain the fundamental contradiction of people like Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie playing cutthroat business games to destroy their opponents, only to end up spending their time giving away their vast fortunes? What matters to people on a visceral level is control–to say their own lives have meaning and direction–the exercising of their belief–and this usually matters more than other people. This is why recipients of charity or welfare often feel they are being manipulated–even if that is not the direct intent, the evident flow of power makes it feel that way–and ultimately they know that they are *not* the ones in control. The purest altruism expects no gratitude; in fact realistically it should probably expect disdain in return and accept as much, despite the usefulness of gratitude as a feedback mechanism for encouraging helpfulness to others.
The generally common observation is that it is only with relative rarity that adults revise their fundamental behavioral rules in response to contrary outcomes. Children and juveniles, being more conceptually flexible, find it easier to learn new tricks and are somewhat less likely to have such statically rigid social responses. At some point most of us get locked in to a particular way of thinking.
So maybe the more interesting question is, what makes people define “goodness” and can it be done rationally and systematically on all sides? For the most part, what we define as “good” behavior is so culturally and personally subjective that we don’t even bother to enumerate the ends we intend to achieve in any meaningful, apolitical way.
All I know is, any 9-year old who uses phrases like “I will be away and won’t be able to attend” can have a job at my company as soon as she graduates. All she has to do is apply!
One thing many economists, or whoever doesn’t believe in voluntary giving (as opposed to forced taxation), seem to assume that one needs to sacrifice one’s self-interest to contribute to others’ wellbeing. Therefore it won’t happen easily. Therefore we need forced contribution.
I don’t agree. Whether you call it self-interest or greed or utility or whatever, people pursue happiness. And very often people feel happy when seeing others happy. Plus, people feel proud and happy when they have helped others.
I don’t know academic distinction between altruism and empathy, but I am certain that contributing to others’ happiness is not inconsistent with pursuit of one’s own happiness.