Altruism E-Book

Matthieu Ricard

• Herausgeber: Atlantic Books
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

The concern for the well-being of others could be the saving grace of the 21st century. Matthieu Ricard's Altruism, an erudite, brilliantly ranging synthesis of philosophy, psychology and ages old wisdom, is a radical call to kindness, which has the potential as a new global movement to answer the biggest problems of our time: the economy in the short term, life satisfaction in the mid-term, and the environment in the long term. As the faultlines of inequality and nationalism leave us ever more divided, Ricard challenges us to be better people - and in the process, make the world a better place.

Leseprobe

Altruism

Born in France in 1946, Matthieu Ricard is a Buddhist monk who left a career in cellular genetics to study Buddhism in the Himalayas over forty-five years ago. He is an internationally bestselling author and a prominent speaker on the world stage, celebrated at the World Economic Forum at Davos, the NGH forums at the United Nations, and at TED, where his talks on happiness and altruism have been viewed by more than seven million people.

His previous books have been translated into more than twenty languages and include The Monk and the Philosopher, The Quantum and the Lotus, Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill, and The Art of Meditation, as well as seven photography books.

Ricard is an active participant in the current scientific research on the effects of meditation on the brain. He lives in Nepal and devotes much of his time to 140 humanitarian projects in Tibet, India, and Nepal.

altruismbook.com

www.matthieuricard.com

www.karuna-shechen.org

‘A careful, detailed, hard-nosed assessment of what is needed both for individual happiness and for the welfare of the planet. . . This book is so rich, so diverse. . . that it is best kept as an inspiring resource to be consulted over many years.’ Wall Street Journal

‘Who better to tell us about altruism than a Buddhist monk and scientist, who has meditated so extensively on compassion that it has changed the left side of his brain? In a lively and personal account, Matthieu Ricard takes us through the origins of empathy and altruism, explaining how biology laid the foundation, whereas culture and spirituality permit us to expand its reach.’ Frans de Waal, author of The Age of Empathy

‘Matthieu Ricard brings together ancient wisdom and scientific insights to put forth a truly compelling global vision for the 21st century, cutting through our endless distractions and asking, “What is a good life?” At a time when we as individuals and as a society have largely abandoned that question, his voice, his message and his wisdom are greatly needed.’ Arianna Huffington

‘Written with deep conviction and breathtaking scope, this is a must-book for anyone who wants to explore the human capacity for altruistic love and compassion, and the potential of this capacity to transform our lives. In conversation with Western philosophical and scientific perspectives, the book offers a Buddhist vision for extending altruism beyond its natural limits through carefully crafted meditation practices. The goal is, quite simply, to enable you and me, our society, and all sentient beings to experience less suffering and greater happiness. Could one desire more?’ Daniel C. Batson, author of Altruism in Humans

‘Altruism is just what is needed to bring hope to those depressed by the violence, war, selfishness and corruption that surround us today. Matthieu Ricard provides convincing evidence based on both careful research and personal experience that altruism is an integral part of our nature. . . Altruism addresses how these qualities can be cultivated and enhanced in the individual and how a more altruistic society is not only possible but essential if we care about the future.’ Jane Goodall, UN Messenger of Peace

‘This remarkable book is an extremely well-documented and elegantly argued plea for altruism, kindness, and compassion… Even little snippets will blow your mind and inspire you, as Matthieu puts it, to change yourself and the world.’ Jon Kabat-Zinn, Professor of Medicine Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Medical School

ALSO BY MATTHIEU RICARD

Happiness

The Monk and the Philosopher (with Jean-François Revel)

The Quantum and the Lotus (with Trinh Xuan Thuan)

Buddhist Himalayas (with Olivier and Danielle Föllmi)

Journey to Enlightenment

Monk Dancers of Tibet

Tibet: A Compassionate Eye

Published by arrangement with Little, Brown and Company,Hachette Book Group, New York, New York, USA. All rights reserved.

First published in Great Britain in 2015 by Atlantic Books,an imprint of Atlantic Books Ltd.

This paperback edition first published in Great Britain in 2018 by Atlantic Books.

Originally published in France in 2013 as Plaidoyer pour l’altruismeby NiL éditions.

Copyright © Matthieu Ricard 2013Translation copyright © Little, Brown and Company 2015

The moral right of Matthieu Ricard to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

E-book ISBN: 978-0-85789-700-8Paperback ISBN: 978-0-85789-701-5

Printed in Great Britain

Atlantic BooksAn Imprint of Atlantic Books LtdOrmond House26–27 Boswell StreetLondonWC1N 3JZ

www.atlantic-books.co.uk

To my spiritual masters, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Kyapje Kangyur Rinpoche, and Kyapje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, and all those who have opened my eyes to compassion.

To my mother, Yahne Le Toumelin, and to my sister Ève, who taught me altruism by example. To Christophe and Pauline André, accomplices in altruism.

To my scientific mentors and friends thanks to whom this book has some credibility: Daniel Batson, Richard Davidson, Paul Ekman, Paul Gilbert, Jane Goodall, Richard Layard, Antoine Lutz, Tania Singer, Dennis Snower, Frans de Waal, and all those who enlightened me on numerous points.

To my friends, fellow workers, and benefactors in the Karuna-Shechen Association, who put compassion into action through their contribution to over a hundred humanitarian projects.

To Raphaële Demandre, who never misses an opportunity to help those who are in need.

To those who have contributed so much to improving this book: Christian Bruyat, Marie Haeling, Carisse Busquet, and Françoise Delivet.

Finally, to all beings, who are altruism’s reason for existence.

Contents

Introduction

IWhat Is Altruism?

  1.  The Nature of Altruism

  2.  Extending Altruism

  3.  What Is Empathy?

  4.  From Empathy to Compassion in a Neuroscience Laboratory

  5.  Love, Supreme Emotion

  6.  The Accomplishment of a Twofold Benefit, Our Own and Others’

  7.  Self-Interested Altruism and Generalized Reciprocity

  8.  Selfless Altruism

  9.  The Banality of Good

10.  Altruistic Heroism

11.  Unconditional Altruism

12.  Beyond Imitations, True Altruism: An Experimental Investigation

13.  The Philosophical Arguments Against Universal Selfishness

IIThe Emergence of Altruism

14.  Altruism in Theories of Evolution

15.  Maternal Love, Foundation for Extended Altruism?

16.  The Evolution of Cultures

17.  Altruistic Behavior Among Animals

18.  Altruism Among Children

19.  Prosocial Behavior

IIICultivating Altruism

20.  Can We Change?

21.  Training the Mind: What the Cognitive Sciences Have to Say

22.  How to Cultivate Altruism: Meditations on Altruistic Love, Compassion, Joy, and Impartiality

IVContrary Forces

23.  Egocentrism and Crystallization of the Ego

24.  The Spread of Individualism and Narcissism

25.  The Champions of Selfishness

26.  Having Hatred or Compassion for Yourself

27.  The Shortfall of Empathy

28.  At the Origin of Violence: Devaluing the Other

29.  The Natural Repugnance to Kill

30.  Dehumanizing the Other: Massacres and Genocides

31.  Has War Always Existed?

32.  The Decline of Violence

33.  The Instrumentalization of Animals: A Moral Aberration

34.  Backfire: Effects of the Meat Industry on Poverty, Environment, and Health

35.  Institutionalized Selfishness

VBuilding a More Altruistic Society

36.  The Virtues of Cooperation

37.  An Enlightened Education

38.  Fighting Inequality

39.  Toward a Caring Economy

40.  Voluntary, Joyous Simplicity

41.  Altruism for the Sake of Future Generations

42.  Sustainable Harmony

43.  Local Commitment, Global Responsibility

Conclusion: Daring Altruism

Acknowledgments

Karuna-Shechen: Altruism in Action

Sources for Figures

Select Bibliography

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

—VICTOR HUGO

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.

—MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

Altruism

INTRODUCTION

I have little inclination to talk about myself and would rather expound the views of the great thinkers who have inspired my existence. Telling you about a few stages of my personal journey, though, will help you understand how I came to write this book and to substantiate the ideas presented in it.

After growing up in France, I went to India for the first time in 1967, at the age of twenty, in order to meet the great masters of Tibetan Buddhism including Kangyur Rinpoche, who would become my main spiritual master. That same year, I began a dissertation on cellular genetics under the direction of François Jacob, at the Institut Pasteur. It was those years of scientific training that taught me to appreciate the importance of intellectual rigor and honesty.

In 1972, having finished my dissertation, I decided to move to Darjeeling to be near my teacher. During the many years that followed that encounter, whether in India, Bhutan, Nepal, or Tibet, I led a simple life. I received barely one letter per month; I had neither radio nor newspapers, and scarcely knew what was going on in the world. I studied with my spiritual master, Kangyur Rinpoche, and after his death in 1975, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. I spent a number of years in contemplative retreat. I also devoted myself to the activities of the monasteries to which I had become linked: Orgyen Kunzang Chöling in Darjeeling and Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling in Nepal, while working also toward the preservation of Tibet’s cultural and spiritual heritage. Thanks to the teachings I received from these masters, I became aware of the incalculable benefits of altruism.

In 1997, I received a message from a French publisher, proposing I engage in a dialogue with my father, the late philosopher Jean-François Revel. The publication of the book that resulted from these conversations, The Monk and the Philosopher, marked the end of a quiet, anonymous life, but it also offered me new opportunities.

After a quarter of a century of immersion in the study and practice of Buddhism, far from the scene of the West, I found myself again confronted with contemporary ideas. I renewed my ties with the scientific world by conversing with the astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan (The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet, published in 2000 in France as L’Infini dans la paume de la main). I also took part in meetings at the Mind & Life Institute, an organization inspired by the Dalai Lama and founded by the neuroscientist Francisco Varela and the entrepreneur Adam Engle, with the aim of encouraging exchanges between science and Buddhism. In 2000, at Richard Davidson’s lab in Madison, Wisconsin, I began to take part actively in research projects in psychology and neuroscience whose object is to analyze the effects, both short-and long-term, of training the mind through meditation. Over the years, Richie and I developed a close friendship and collaboration. The same happened with several other scientists including Paul Ekman, Tania and Wolf Singer, Daniel Batson, and Antoine Lutz.

So my experience has taken place at the confluence of two major influences: Eastern Buddhist wisdom and Western sciences.

When I returned from the East, I had become used to living within a culture and among people whose priority was to become better human beings by transforming their way of being and thinking. Ordinary preoccupations with loss and gain, pleasure and displeasure, praise and criticism, fame and anonymity, were regarded there as puerile and as causes of suffering. Above all, altruistic love and compassion comprised the cardinal virtues of all human life and were the heart of the spiritual path. I was, and still am, particularly inspired by the Buddhist vision in which every human being possesses an indestructible potential for goodness and enlightenment.

The Western world in which I found myself, a world where individualism is often appreciated as a strength and a virtue—sometimes to the point of selfishness and narcissism—was a bit puzzling, since it did not seem to foster an optimal way to live in society.

When I considered the cultural and philosophical sources for the difference between “other-oriented” and “self-oriented” societies, I remembered Plautus, for whom “man is a wolf to man,”1 an assertion taken up and developed by Thomas Hobbes, who speaks of the “war of every man against every man”;2 Nietzsche, who states that altruism is the mark of the weak; and finally Freud, who asserts he has “found little that is ‘good’ among human beings on the whole.”3 I thought it merely a question of a few pessimistic thinkers; I hadn’t realized the extent of the impact of their ideas.

Anxious to understand this phenomenon better, I noticed how taking for granted that all our deeds, words and thoughts are motivated by selfishness has long influenced Western psychology and theories of evolution and economies, to the point of acquiring the force of a dogma whose validity has until recently scarcely been challenged. The most surprising thing is the persistence of intellectuals to try to spot, at all costs, a selfish motivation at the origin of every human action.

Observing Western society, I was forced to conclude that the “wise” were no longer the main objects of admiration, but that famous, rich, or powerful people had taken their place. The excessive importance accorded to consumption and a taste for the superfluous, as well as the reign of money, made me think that many of our contemporaries had forgotten the ends of existence—to achieve a sense of fulfillment—and gotten lost in the means.

In the reality of every day, despite the share of violence that afflicts the world, our existence is usually woven from deeds of cooperation, friendship, affection, and care. Nature is not merely “red in tooth and claw,” as the poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson deplored.4 What’s more, contrary to conventional wisdom and to the impression the media give us, all in-depth studies, gathered together by Harvard professor Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of our Nature, show that violence, in all its forms, has continued to diminish over the course of the last few centuries.5

From spending time with my scientist friends, I was reassured to note that, during the last thirty years, the deformed vision of human nature had been challenged by an increasing number of researchers demonstrating that the hypothesis of universal selfishness was disproven by scientific investigation.6 Daniel Batson, in particular, was the first psychologist to investigate, through rigorous scientific protocols, whether real altruism existed and was not limited to a disguised form of selfishness.

THE FORCE OF EXAMPLE

When I was young, I often heard it said that kindness was the most admirable quality in a human being. My mother demonstrated this constantly by her actions, and many people I respected urged me to be kind-hearted. Their words and actions were a source of inspiration and opened up to me a field of possibilities that were not limited to self-centered preoccupations and that fed my hopes for living a good and meaningful life. I was raised in a secular environment and so I was not inculcated with dogmas on altruism or charity. Only the force of example taught me.

Since 1989, I’ve had the honor of serving as a French interpreter for the Dalai Lama, who often states, “My religion is kindness,” and the essence of whose teaching is: “Every sentient being, even my enemy, fears suffering as I do and wants to be happy. This thought leads us to feel profoundly concerned for the happiness of others, be they friends or enemies. That is the basis for true compassion. Seeking happiness while remaining indifferent to others is a tragic mistake.” This teaching is embodied by the Dalai Lama on a daily basis. With everyone, visitors or strangers met in the airport, he is always totally and immediately present, with a gaze overflowing with kindness that touches your heart.

A few years ago, when I was getting ready to go on retreat in the mountains of Nepal, I sought some advice from the Dalai Lama. “In the beginning, meditate on compassion; in the middle, meditate on compassion; in the end, meditate on compassion,” he told me.

Every practitioner must first transform himself before he is able to serve others effectively. Still, the Dalai Lama insists on the necessity of building a bridge between contemplative life and active life. If compassion without wisdom is blind, compassion without action is hypocritical. It is under his guidance and that of my other spiritual masters that I have devoted my resources and a large part of my time since 1999 to the activities of Karuna-Shechen.7 This is a humanitarian organization made up of a group of devoted volunteers and generous benefactors, which builds and finances schools, clinics, and hospices in Tibet, Nepal and India.

THE CHALLENGES OF TODAY

In this current era we are confronted with many challenges. One of our main problems consists of reconciling the demands of the economy, the search for happiness, and respect for the environment. These imperatives correspond to three time scales—short, middle, and long term—on which three types of interests are superimposed: ours, the interests of those close to us, and those of all sentient beings.

The economy and finance are evolving at an ever-faster pace. Stock markets soar and crash from one day to the next. New methods of ultra-high-speed transactions, developed by the teams of certain banks and used by speculators, allow 400 million transactions to take place per second. The lifecycle of products is becoming extremely short. No investor is willing to place his money in treasury bonds redeemable in fifty years! Those who live in ease are often reluctant to alter their lifestyle for the good of those less fortunate and for the benefit of generations to come, while those who live in need aspire understandably to more wealth, but also to enter a consumer society that encourages acquiring not only what is needed to live a decent life, but to keep on chasing after superfluous things.

Satisfaction with life is measured in terms of a life plan, a career, a family, and a generation. It is also measured according to the quality of each passing instant, the joys and sufferings that color our existence, and our relationships to others; it is given or denied by the nature of external conditions and by the way in which our mind translates these conditions into happiness or misery.

As for the environment, until recently its evolution has been measured in terms of geological, biological, and climatic eras over dozens of millennia or millions of years, except for the occurrence of a few global catastrophes such as the collision of a giant asteroid that caused the fifth massive extinction of species on earth. In our day, the rhythm of change keeps accelerating because of ecological upheavals provoked by human activities. In particular, the swift changes that have occurred since 1950 have defined a new era for our planet, the Anthropocene (literally the “era of humans”). This is the first era in the history of the world when human activities are profoundly modifying (and at present degrading) the entire system that maintains life on earth. This is a completely new challenge that has taken us by surprise.

Wealthy countries, which profit the most from exploiting natural resources, do not want to alter their standard of living. But they are the nations chiefly responsible for climate change and other scourges (such as the increase of illnesses related to climate change—malaria, for example, is spreading in new regions and at higher altitudes as minimum temperature increases) affecting the poorest populations—precisely the ones that have contributed the least to these upheavals. An Afghan produces two thousand five hundred times less CO2 than a Qatari and a thousand times less than an American. About the rising level of the oceans, the American magnate Stephen Forbes declared on Fox News: “To change what we do because something is going to happen in one hundred years is, I would say, profoundly weird.” Isn’t it actually a declaration like that that is absurd? The head of the largest meat company in the United States is even more openly cynical: “What matters,” he says, “is we sell our meat. What will happen in fifty years is none of our business.”

But it all concerns us, as well as our children, those close to us, and our descendants, along with all beings, human and animal, now and in the future. Concentrating our efforts solely on ourselves and our relatives, in the short term, is one of the regrettable manifestations of egocentrism.

If we continue to be obsessed with achieving growth, with consumption of natural resources increasing at its current exponential rate, we would need three planets by 2050. We don’t have them. In order to remain within the environmental safety zone in which humanity can continue to prosper, we need to curb our endless desire for “more.” “Voluntary simplicity” does not involve living in poverty, but in moderation. It also facilitates social justice and does not encourage the disproportionate concentration of resources in the hands of a few.

For many of us, the notion of “simplicity” evokes a privation, a narrowing of our possibilities and an impoverishment of existence. Experience shows, however, that a voluntary simplicity in no way entails a diminution of happiness, but on the contrary brings with it a better quality of life. Is it more enjoyable to spend a day with your chil-dren or friends, at home, in a park or outside in nature, or to spend it trotting from store to store? Is it more pleasant to enjoy the content-ment of a satisfied mind or constantly to want more—a more expen-sive car, brand-name clothes, or a more luxurious house?

The American psychologist Tim Kasser and his colleagues at the University of Rochester have highlighted the high cost of materialist values.8 Thanks to studies spread over twenty years, they have demonstrated that within a representative sample of the population, individuals who concentrated their existence on wealth, image, social status, and other materialistic, extrinsic values promoted by consumer society are less satisfied with their existence. Focused on themselves, they prefer competition to cooperation, contribute less to the general interest and are unconcerned with ecological matters. Their social ties are weakened and they have fewer real friends. They show less empathy and compassion for those who suffer and have a tendency to use others for their own ends. They are in less good health than the rest of the population. Excessive consumerism is closely linked to extreme self-centeredness and lack of empathy.9

Individualism, in its good aspects, can foster a spirit of initiative, creativity, and going beyond norms and old-fashioned and restrictive dogmas, but it can also very quickly degenerate into irresponsible selfishness and rampant narcissism, to the detriment of the well-being of all. Selfishness is at the heart of most of the problems we face today: the growing gap between rich and poor, the attitude of “everybody for himself,” which is only increasing, and indifference about the genera-tions to come.

THE NECESSITY FOR ALTRUISM

We need a unifying concept, an Ariadne thread that will allow us to find our way in this labyrinth of serious, complex preoccupations. Altruism is this thread that will allow us naturally to connect the three scales of time—short-, middle-, and long-term—by reconciling their demands.

Altruism is often presented as a supreme moral value in both religious and secular societies. It scarcely has a place, though, in a world entirely governed by competition and individualism. Some people, notably the philosopher Ayn Rand, even rise up against the ethics of altruism, which they perceive as a demand for sacrifice, and they advocate the virtues of selfishness.

In the contemporary world, though, altruism is more than ever a necessity, even an urgent one. It is also a natural manifestation of human kindness, for which we all have potential, despite multiple, often selfish, motivations that run through and sometimes dominate our minds.

What, in fact, are the benefits of altruism with respect to the major problems we have described? Let’s take a few examples. If each of us cultivated altruism more, that is, if we had more consideration for the well-being of others, financiers, for example, would not engage in wild speculation with the savings of small investors who have entrusted themselves to them, just to gather larger bonuses at year’s end. Financiers would not speculate on commodities—food, grain, water, and other resources vital to the survival of the poorest populations.

If they had more consideration for the quality of life of those around them, the ones who make decisions and other social agents would be concerned with the improvement of working conditions, family and social life, and many other aspects of existence. They would be led to acknowledge the divide that is growing ever wider between the poorest and those who represent 1% of the population but who control 25% of the wealth.10 Finally, they could open their eyes to the fate of the society itself from which they profit and on which they have built their fortunes.

If we evince more concern for others, we will all act with the view of remedying injustice, discrimination, and poverty. We would be led to reconsider the way we treat animals, reducing them to nothing but instruments of our blind domination which transforms them into products of consumption.

Finally, if we care about the fate of future generations, we will not blindly sacrifice their well-being to our ephemeral interests, leaving only a polluted, impoverished planet to those who come after us.

We would on the contrary try to promote a caring economy that would enhance reciprocal trust, and would respect the interests of others. We would envisage the possibility of a different economy, one that is now advocated by many modern economists,11 an economy that rests on the three pillars of true prosperity: nature, whose integrity we must preserve; human activities, which should flourish; and financial means, which ensure our survival and our reasonable material needs.12

Most classical economists have for too long based their theories on the hypothesis that people exclusively pursue selfish interests. This hypothesis is wrong, but it still comprises the foundation of contemporary economic systems based on the principle of free exchange theorized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. These same economists have argued against the necessity for each individual to attend to the well-being of others so that society can function harmoniously—a necessity clearly formulated, nevertheless, by the same Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Also forgetting the emphasis placed by Darwin on the importance of cooperation in nature, certain contemporary theories of evolution think that altruism makes sense only if it is proportional to the degree of biological kinship linking us to those who carry some part of our genes. We will see how new advances in the theory of evolution allow us to envisage the possibility of an extended altruism that transcends the ties of family and tribal proximity and emphasizes the fact that human beings are essentially “super-cooperators.”13

Contrary to what the avalanche of shocking news often presented in media headlines would have us think, many studies show that when a natural catastrophe or some other kind of tragedy occurs, mutual aid is more the rule than every-man-for-himself, sharing more common than pillaging, calm prevails more than panic, dedication more than indifference, courage more than cowardice.14

Furthermore, the experience of thousands of years of contemplative practices attests that individual transformation is possible. This age-old experience has now been corroborated by research in the neurosciences that has shown that any form of training—learning how to read or learning a musical instrument, for example—induces a restructuring in the brain at both the functional and structural levels. This is also what happens when one trains in developing altruistic love and compassion.

Recent studies by theoreticians of evolution15 stress the importance of the evolution of cultures: slower than individual changes but much faster than genetic changes. This evolution is cumulative and is transmitted over the course of generations by education and imitation.

That is not all. In fact, cultures and individuals continue to influence each other mutually. Individuals who grow up in a new culture are different, because their new habits transform their brain through neuroplasticity, and the expression of their genes through epigenetics. These individuals will, in turn, contribute to causing their culture and their institutions to evolve so that this process is repeated in every generation.

To recapitulate, altruism seems to be a determining factor of the quality of our existence, now and to come, and should not be relegated to the realm of noble utopian thinking maintained by a few big-hearted, naïve people. We must have the perspicacity to acknowledge this and the audacity to say it. But what is altruism? Does real altruism exist? How does it appear? Can one become more altruistic, and, if so, how? What are the obstacles to surmount? How can we build a more altruistic society and a better world? These are the main questions we will try to examine in this work.

I

WHAT IS ALTRUISM?

To live is to be useful to others.

                       —SENECA

1

THE NATURE OF ALTRUISM

SOME DEFINITIONS

Is altruism a motivation, a momentary state of mind that aims at accomplishing the good of others, or a disposition to care for others in a benevolent way, pointing to a more lasting character trait? Definitions abound and, sometimes, contradict each other. If we want to show that real altruism exists and help it spread throughout society, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of this term.

The word “altruism,” derived from the Latin alter, “other,” was used for the first time in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte, one of the fathers of sociology and the founder of positivism. Altruism, according to Comte, implies “the elimination of selfish desire and of egocentrism, as well as leading a life devoted to the well-being of others.”1

The American philosopher Thomas Nagel explains that altruism is “a willingness to act in consideration of the interests of the other person, without the need of ulterior motive.”2 It is a rational determination to act stemming from “the direct influence of one person’s interest on the actions of another, simply because in itself the interest of the former provides the latter with a reason to act.”3

Other thinkers, confident in the potential for benevolence present in humans, go further and, like the American philosopher Stephen Post, define altruistic love as “unselfish delight in the well-being of others, and engagement in acts of care and service on their behalf. Unlimited love extends this love to all others without exception, in an enduring and constant way.”4 The agapē of Christianity is an unconditional love for other human beings, while altruistic love and compassion in Buddhism, maitri and karuna, extend to all sentient beings, humans and non-humans.

Some authors emphasize putting intentions into practice, while others think it is motivation that defines altruism. The psychologist Daniel Batson, who has devoted his career to the study of altruism, points out that “altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.”5 He clearly distinguishes altruism as ultimate goal (my explicit aim is to accomplish others’ welfare) from altruism as means (I accomplish others’ welfare with a view to fulfilling my own well-being). In his eyes, for a motivation to be altruistic, the well-being of others must constitute a goal in itself.6

Among the other modes of altruism, goodness corresponds to a way of being that translates into actions as soon as circumstances allow; benevolence, from the Latin benevole, “to want the well-being [of the other],” is a favorable disposition toward others, accompanied by a desire to act upon that desire. Solicitude consists of caring in a lasting way and with vigilance about another’s fate: concerned about his situation, one is anxious to provide for his needs, promote his well-being, and remedy his suffering. Dedication consists of selflessly placing oneself in the service of persons or a cause beneficial to society. Kindness is a form of caring, warm-hearted consideration that is manifested in the way we behave toward others. Fraternity stems from the feeling of belonging to the great human family whose every representative is perceived as a brother or sister whose fate matters to us; fraternity also evokes the ideas of harmony, cohesion, and union. The feeling of solidarity with a more or less extensive group of people is born when all must confront together common challenges and obstacles. By extension, this feeling can be experienced for the most destitute, or for those who are affected by a catastrophe; it is the community of fate that unites us.

ACTION ALONE DOES NOT DEFINE ALTRUISM

In her book entitled The Heart of Altruism, Kristen Monroe, professor of political science and philosophy at the University of Irvine at California, suggests we reserve the term “altruism” for actions carried out for the well-being of others at the price of some risk for ourselves, without expecting anything in return. According to her, good intentions are indispensable for altruism, but they are not enough. One must act, and action must have a precise goal, that of contributing to the well-being of another.7

Monroe does acknowledge, however, that motivations for an action count more than their results.8 So it seems preferable to us not to restrict the use of the term altruism to external behavior, since actions do not in themselves allow us to know with certainty the motivation that inspired them. Just as the appearance of undesirable and unforeseen consequences does not call into question the altruistic nature of an action meant for the good of the other, so a hindrance to taking action, which is beyond the control of the one who wants to act, does not at all diminish the altruistic nature of his motivation.

Moreover, for Monroe, an action cannot be considered altruistic if it does not bear a risk and has no “cost,” however potential, for the one who performs it. In our opinion, an altruistic individual will indeed be ready to take risks to accomplish good for others, but the simple fact of taking risks for someone else is neither necessary nor sufficient to qualify as altruistic behavior. One can imagine an individual putting himself in danger to help someone with the idea of gaining his trust and drawing personal advantages from it sufficiently desirable to justify the perils encountered. What’s more, some people agree to court danger for purely selfish reasons—to seek glory, for instance, by carrying out a dangerous exploit. On the other hand, a behavior can be sincerely devoted to the good of the other, without bearing any notable risk whatever. The one who, moved by benevolence, gives away part of his wealth or devotes years to a charity organization helping people in need does not necessarily take a risk; but his behavior deserves to be qualified as altruistic, in our sense of it.

IT IS MOTIVATION THAT COLORS OUR ACTIONS

Our motivations, whether they are benevolent, malevolent or neutral, color our actions. One cannot distinguish altruistic behavior from selfish behavior, a lie meant to do good from another uttered to harm, by the sole appearance of actions. If a mother suddenly pushes her child to the side of the street to prevent it from being run over by a car, her action is violent only in appearance. If someone approaches you with a big smile and showers you with compliments with the sole aim of swindling you, his conduct may seem benevolent, but his intentions are obviously selfish.

Keeping in mind our limited ability to control outer events or anticipate the turn they will take in the long run, we cannot qualify an act as either altruistic or selfish on the basis of the simple observation of its immediate consequences. Giving drugs or a glass of alcohol to someone who is undergoing a detox cure, with the excuse that he is suffering from abstention symptoms, will no doubt provide him with much-appreciated temporary relief, but such an action will do him no good in the long run.

On the other hand, in every circumstance, it is possible for us to examine our motivations attentively and honestly, and to do our best to determine if they are selfish or altruistic. More often than not, we neglect to do so. It is also easy to misperceive our true motive. This is why Buddhist teachings emphasize the need to look again and again into the mirror of one’s mind to check our motivations.

In his book Altruism in Humans, Daniel Batson offers a set of criteria by which we can qualify our motivations as altruistic.9

Altruism requires a motivation: an instinctive reflex or automatic behavior cannot be qualified as either altruistic or selfish, whatever the beneficial or harmful consequences may be.

The difference between altruism and selfishness is qualitative: it is the quality of our motivation and not its intensity that determines its altruistic nature.

Various motivations, altruistic and selfish, can coexist in our minds, and create a motivational conflict when we simultaneously consider our interests and the other’s.

Moreover, we sometimes act in ways that benefit others for reasons that are neither altruistic nor selfish, especially out of a sense of duty or to respect the law.

Carrying thought into action may depend on various factors that are beyond our control. This alone does not fundamentally change the altruistic or selfish nature of our motivations.

Altruism does not require a personal sacrifice: it can even lead to personal benefits, provided that those benefits do not constitute the ultimate goal of our behavior, but are only secondary consequences of it.

In essence, altruism does indeed reside in the motivation that animates one’s behavior. Altruism can be regarded as authentic so long as the desire for the other’s welfare constitutes our ultimate goal, even if our motivation has not yet been transformed into actions.

By contrast, a selfish person considers others as instruments in the service of his own interests. He does not hesitate to neglect, or even to sacrifice, the good of the other when that turns out to be useful to reach his ends.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VALUING THE OTHER’S WELFARE

Valuing the other and being concerned about his situation are two essential components to altruism. When this attitude prevails in us, it manifests itself in the form of benevolence toward others, and it is translated into an open-mindedness and a willingness to take care of them.

When we observe that the other has a particular need or desire whose satisfaction will enable him to avoid suffering or to experience well-being, empathy first makes us become aware of this need. Then, concern for the other gives rise to a desire to help satisfy that need. On the other hand, if we grant little value to the other, we will be indifferent to him: we will ignore his needs; perhaps we will not even notice them.10

ALTRUISM DOES NOT REQUIRE “SACRIFICE”

The fact of experiencing joy in working for the good of others, or of coming away with unexpected benefits for oneself, does not, in itself, make an action selfish. Authentic altruism does not require that you suffer from helping others and does not lose its authenticity if it is accompanied by a feeling of profound satisfaction. What’s more, the very notion of sacrifice is relative: what seems a sacrifice to some is felt as a gain by others, as illustrated by the following story.

Sanjit “Bunker” Roy, with whom our humanitarian organization Karuna-Shechen collaborates, relates that at the age of twenty, as the son of a good family educated in one of the most prestigious schools in India, he was destined for a fine career. His mother already pictured him as a doctor, an engineer, or an official in the World Bank. That year, in 1965, a terrible famine broke out in the province of Bihar, one of the poorest states in India. Bunker, inspired by Jai Prakash Narayan, friend of Gandhi and a great Indian moral figure, decided to go with friends his age to see what was happening in the villages most affected. He returned a few weeks later, transformed, and told his mother he wanted to go live in a village. After a period of worried silence, his mother asked him: “And what are you going to do in a village?” Bunker replied: “To work as an unskilled laborer, digging wells.”

“My mother almost went into a coma,” Bunker says. The other members of the family tried to reassure her, saying: “Don’t worry, like all teenagers, he’s having his crisis of idealism. After toiling there for a few weeks, he’ll soon become disillusioned and will come home.”

But Bunker did not come home, and remained for four decades in villages. For six years, he dug three hundred wells with a pneumatic drill in the countryside of Rajasthan. His mother stopped talking to him for years. When he settled in the village of Tilonia, the local authorities didn’t understand either: “Are you running away from the police?”

“No.”

“Did you fail your exams?”

“No.”

“Were you unable to get a government job?”

“No.”

Someone of his social standing and with such a high level of education was out of place in a poor village.

Bunker realized he could do more than dig wells. He observed that the men who had completed their studies left for the cities and contributed nothing whatsoever to helping their villages. “Men are untrainable,” he proclaimed mischievously. It was better, he thought, to educate the women, especially the young grandmothers (aged 35–50) who had more free time than mothers with families. Even if they were illiterate, it was possible to train them so they could become “solar engineers,” able to make solar panels. And there was no risk of their leaving the village.

Bunker was ignored for a long time, then criticized by the local authorities and international organizations, including the World Bank. But he persevered and trained hundreds of illiterate grandmothers who supplied solar energy to almost a thousand villages in India and in many other countries. His activity is now supported by the Indian government and other organizations; it is cited as an example almost everywhere in the world. He has also come up with programs that use the ancestral know-how of farmers, especially ways to collect rainwater to fill tanks big enough to provide for the yearly needs of the villagers. Before, women had to walk several hours every day to bring back heavy jars of often polluted water. In Rajasthan, he founded the Barefoot College, in which even the teachers have no college degree but share their experience based on years of practice. Everyone lives very simply at the college, like Gandhi’s communities, and no one is paid more than 100 euros a month.

He has since reconciled with his family, who are now proud of him. So, for many years, what seemed to those close to Bunker to be an insane sacrifice has constituted for him a success that has filled him with enthusiasm and satisfaction. Far from discouraging him, the difficulties he encountered on his way have only stimulated his intelligence, his compassion, and his creative faculties. To this day, and for forty years, Bunker has led to fruition a multitude of remarkable projects in nearly sixty-seven countries. What’s more, his entire being radiates the calm contentment of a meaningful life.

To teach villagers in a lively way, Bunker and his collaborators organize representations featuring large papier-mâché marionettes. As a sly wink to those who used to look down on him, these marionettes are made from recycled reports of the World Bank. Bunker quotes Gandhi: “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Finally, you win.”

TEMPORARY MENTAL STATES AND LASTING DISPOSITIONS

For Daniel Batson, altruism is not so much a way of being as a motivating force directed toward a goal, a force that disappears when that goal is attained. Batson thus envisions altruism as a temporary mental state linked to the perception of a particular need in another person, rather than as a lasting disposition. He prefers to speak of altruism instead of altruists, since, at any time, a person can harbor in himself a mixture of motivations, some altruistic and some selfish. Personal interest can also enter into competition with the interest of others and create an internal conflict.

It seems legitimate, then, to speak also of altruistic or selfish dispositions according to the mental states that usually predominate in a person—all the stages between unconditional altruism and narrow-minded selfishness are conceivable. The Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson said about altruism that it was not “some few accidental motions of compassion, natural affection, or gratitude; but such a fixed humanity, the desire for the public good of all those to whom our influence can extend, a desire that regularly urges us to all acts of benevolence, and leads us to learn correctly the best way to serve the interests of humanity.”11 For his part, the American historian Philip Hallie states that “Goodness is not a doctrine or principle. It is a way of living.”12

This lasting internal disposition is accompanied by a particular view of the world. According to Kristen Monroe, “altruists simply have a different way of seeing things. Where the rest of us see a stranger, altruists see a fellow human being. While many disparate factors may contribute to the existence and development of what I identify as an altruistic perspective, it is the perspective itself that constitutes the heart of altruism.”13

The French psychologists Jean-François Deschamps and Rémi Finkelstein have also demonstrated the existence of a link between altruism regarded as a personal value and prosocial behavior, especially voluntary work.14

Further, our spontaneous reactions faced with unforeseeable circumstances reflect our deep-set dispositions and our degree of internal preparedness. Most of us will extend a hand to someone who has just fallen into the water. A psychopath or a person dominated by hatred might watch the unfortunate person drown without lifting a finger, even with a sadistic satisfaction.

Fundamentally, to the extent that altruism permeates our minds, it is expressed instantaneously when we are confronted with the needs of the other. As the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor wrote: “Much modern moral philosophy has focused on what it is right to do rather than the nature of the good life.”15 This view of things allows altruism to join a vaster perspective and lets us envisage the possibility of cultivating it as a way of being.

2

EXTENDING ALTRUISM

Altruism is like rings in the water when you toss a pebble. At first the circles are very small, then they get larger, and finally they embrace the entire surface of the ocean.

—ALEXANDRE JOLLIEN1

For most of us, it is natural to feel benevolently inclined toward someone dear to us, or to anyone who is well-intentioned toward us. It seems a priori more difficult to extend that benevolence to many individuals, especially to those who treat us badly. But we have the ability, through reasoning and through mental training, to include them in the sphere of altruism by realizing that kindness and compassion are not simply “rewards” given for good behavior, but that their essential aim is to promote the happiness of beings and to remedy their suffering. I will discuss the methods suggested by Buddhism to this end. In doing this, my aim is not to urge the reader to adopt this spiritual way, but to emphasize the universal value of certain points emerging from the philosophy and practice of Buddhism. These qualities are part of what the Dalai Lama calls the promotion of human values or secular ethics, an ethics that is not opposed, in principle, to religions, yet depends on none of them.2

Altruism and compassion have the aim of spreading themselves as widely as possible. We must simply understand that our own well-being and the world’s cannot rest on indifference to the happiness of the other or on a refusal to care about the sufferings around us.

ALTRUISTIC LOVE, COMPASSION, AND EMPATHY

Buddhism defines altruistic love as “the wish that all beings find happiness and the causes of happiness.” By “happiness,” Buddhism means not just a temporary state of well-being or a pleasant sensation, but rather a way of being based on an array of qualities that include altruism, inner freedom, and inner strength, as well as an accurate view of reality.3 By “causes of happiness,” Buddhism is referring not merely to the immediate triggers of happiness, but to its profound roots, namely the pursuit of wisdom and a more accurate understanding of reality.

This altruistic wish is accompanied by a steady readiness and availability to others allied with the determination to do everything in our power to help each individual being to attain authentic happiness. On this point, Buddhism joins Aristotle, who wrote: “We may describe friendly feeling toward any one as wishing for him what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but for his, and being inclined, so far as you can, to bring these things about.”4

It is not a question here of a simple dogmatic assertion that “suffering is evil”; it is taking into consideration the desire of every sentient being to escape suffering. A purely normative attitude, the aim of which would be to bring an end to suffering as an abstract entity, might involve a risk that one might be less attentive to the beings themselves and to their specific sufferings. That is why the Dalai Lama gives this advice: “We must use a real individual as the focus of our meditation, and then enhance our compassion and loving-kindness toward that person so that we can really experience compassion and loving-kindness toward others. We work on one person at a time. Otherwise, we might end up meditating on compassion for all in a very general sense, with no specific focus or power to our meditation.”5 What’s more, history has shown us that when one defines good and evil in a dogmatic way, all kinds of distortions become possible, from the Inquisition to totalitarian dictatorships. As my father, Jean-François Revel, often said: “Totalitarian regimes proclaim: ‘We know how to make you happy. You just have to follow our rules. However, if you disobey, we will regretfully have to eliminate you.’ ”6

Altruistic love is characterized by unconditional kindness toward all beings and is apt to be expressed at any time in favor of every being in particular. It permeates the mind and is expressed appropriately, according to the circumstances, to answer the needs of all.

Compassion is the form that altruistic love takes when it is confronted with others’ sufferings. Buddhism defines it as “the wish that all beings be freed from suffering and the causes of suffering” or, as the Buddhist teacher Bhante Henepola Gunaratana poetically writes: “Compassion is a melting of the heart at the thought of another’s suffering.”7 This aspiration should be followed by putting every method possible into action to remedy his torments.

Here again, the “causes of suffering” include not only the immediate and visible causes of suffering, but also the deep-seated causes of suffering, chief of which is ignorance. Ignorance here is understood as a mistaken understanding of reality leading us to have disturbing mental states like hatred and compulsive desire and to act under their influence. This kind of ignorance leads us to perpetuate the cycle of suffering and to turn our backs to lasting well-being.

Loving-kindness and compassion are the two faces of altruism. It is their object that distinguishes them: loving-kindness wants all beings to experience happiness, while compassion focuses on eradicating their suffering. Both should last as long as there are beings and as long as they are suffering.

We define empathy here as the ability to enter into affective resonance with the other’s feelings and to become cognitively aware of his situation. Empathy alerts us in particular to the nature and intensity of the sufferings experienced by the other. One could say that it catalyzes the transformation of altruistic love into compassion.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LUCIDITY

Altruism should be enlightened by lucidity and wisdom. It is not a question of inconsiderately gaining access to all the desires and whims of others. True love consists in combining unlimited benevolence with flawless discernment. Love thus defined should involve taking into account the full picture of each situation and asking oneself: “What will be the short-and long-term benefits and drawbacks of what I am about to do? Will my action affect a smaller or larger number of individuals?” Transcending all partiality, altruistic love should lucidly consider the best way to carry out the good of others. Impartiality demands that you not favor someone simply because you feel more sympathy for him than for some other person who is also in need, if not more so. How can we reconcile this unconditional and impartial love with the fact that we naturally have preferential relationships with certain people and that we are programmed genetically to show particular care for our kin and our friends? We may take the image of the sun. It shines over all people equally, with the same brightness and the same warmth in every direction. Yet, there are people who, for various reasons, are closer to it and receive more heat, but that privileged situation does not entail exclusion. It seems therefore possible to develop the kind of goodness that embraces all living beings while caring the best we can for those who fall within the sphere of our responsibilities.

REJOICING IN THE HAPPINESS OF OTHERS AND CULTIVATING IMPARTIALITY

To altruistic love and compassion, Buddhism adds joy when perceiving the happiness and good qualities of others as well as impartiality.

Rejoicing consists in feeling from the bottom of your heart a sincere joy at the accomplishments and qualities of others, toward those who work for the good of others, whose beneficial projects are crowned with success, those who have realized their aspirations at the cost of persistent efforts, and also those who possess multiple talents. This joy, appreciation, and celebration are accompanied by the wish that their happiness and qualities never diminish, but persist and increase. This ability to be pleased about the qualities of others also serves as an antidote to competitiveness, envy, and jealousy, all of which reflect an inability to rejoice in the happiness of others. Rejoicing also constitutes a remedy to a somber, despairing view of the world and humanity.

Impartiality is an essential component of altruism—the desire that beings find happiness and be free from suffering should not depend either on our personal attachments or on the way others treat us or behave toward us. Impartiality adopts the attitude of a kind, dedicated physician who rejoices when others are in good health and concerns himself with curing all sick people, whoever they are.

Altruism can be influenced by sentimentality and lead to attitudes of partiality. If, during a trip to a poor country, I meet a group of children and one of them seems nicer to me than the others, granting him any special treatment stems from a benevolent intention, but also testifies to a lack of fairness and perspicacity. It is possible that the other children present are more in need of my aid.

Similarly, if one is concerned about the fate of certain animals simply because they are “cute,” and if one remains indifferent to the suffering of those that are considered “ugly,” this is just a pretense of altruism, induced by prejudices and emotional preferences. Hence the importance of the notion of impartiality. According to Buddhism, altruism should be extended to all sentient beings, whatever their appearance, behavior, and degree of closeness to us.

Like the sun that shines equally over both the “good” and the “bad,” over a magnificent landscape as well as over a pile of trash, impartiality extends to all beings without distinction. When compassion thus conceived is directed at a person who is causing great harm to others, it does not consist of tolerating, or encouraging by inaction, his hatred and his harmful actions, but in regarding that person as gravely ill or stricken with madness, and wishing that he be freed from the ignorance and hostility that are in him. This does not mean that one will consider anyone who does not share one’s moral principles or deeply disagrees with them, as being ill. It refers to people whose views lead them to seriously harm others. In other words, it is not a matter of contemplating harmful actions with equanimity, even indifference, but of understanding that it is possible to eradicate their causes the way one can eliminate the causes of an illness.

The universal, impartial nature of extended altruism certainly does not create a diluted, abstract feeling, disconnected from beings and from reality. It does not prevent us from lucidly evaluating context and circumstances. Instead of being diluted by the multitude and diversity of beings, extended altruism is reinforced by their number and by the variety of their particular needs. It is applied pragmatically to every being who presents himself or herself in the field of our attention.

What’s more, it does not require that we achieve immediate success. No one can expect all beings to stop suffering overnight, as if by a miracle. The immensity of the task should be matched by the magnitude of one’s courage. Shantideva, a seventh-century Indian Buddhist master, says:

As long as space endures,

And as long as sentient beings exist,

May I, too, remain

To dispel the misery of the world.

One of the important aspects of altruistic love is courage. A true altruist is ready to move unhesitatingly and fearlessly toward others. Feelings of insecurity and fear are major obstacles to altruism. If we are affected by the slightest vexation, rebuff, criticism, or insult, we find ourselves weakened by it and think above all of protecting ourselves. The feeling of insecurity leads us to close in on ourselves and to keep our distance from others. To become more altruistic, we have to develop an inner strength that makes us confident in our inner resources that let us face the constantly changing circumstances of existence. Fortified with this confidence, we are ready to open ourselves up to others and to display altruism. That is why Buddhism talks about “courageous compassion.” Gandhi too said: “Love fears nothing and no one. It cuts through fear at its very root.”

EXPANDING ONE’S UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS’ NEEDS

The more concerned one is by the fate of someone experiencing difficulties, the more the motivation to relieve his suffering is reinforced. But it is important to identify clearly and correctly the needs of the other and to understand what is truly necessary in order to be able to provide for his various degrees of well-being.8 According to Buddhism, the ultimate need of every living being is to be free of suffering in all its forms, including those that are not immediately visible and that stem from ignorance.

Recognizing the fact that this need is shared by all beings lets us extend altruism to both friends and enemies, to those close to us as well as to strangers, to human beings as well as to all other sentient beings. In the case of an enemy, for example, the need one takes into account is certainly not the accomplishment of his malevolent aims, but the necessity of uprooting the causes that engendered these aims.

FROM BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM TO EXTENDED ALTRUISM