Thanks, Miguel Pineda, for this intriguing question!
Before we can think about how morality and altruism are related, we first need to get clear on what we mean by ‘morality’ and ‘altruism’.
Moral philosophers, like the rest of us, generally agree at least roughly about what moral norms require. Don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t steal (your housemate’s chocolate cake). But they do not agree on what theory best explains and justifies these norms. Luckily, we don’t need to get into this. For now, let’s just say that morality is a code of conduct specified by whatever the correct moral theory is.
Altruism is easier to pin down. Altruistic actions are usually thought to be motivated by a desire to benefit someone else for that person’s sake. For example, my housemate gives to charity because she wants to help others in need. When I give to charity (say) I only do it to brag about it to my friends. We both want to help, but I want to do so only for self-regarding reasons, whereas she genuinely cares about others. Her action is altruistic; mine isn’t.
With these clarifications in mind, let us get back to your question about how morality and altruism relate. I imagine you were thinking of actions such as giving away all one’s money to those in need, which are altruistically motivated and clearly morally good. But this does not yet show that all moral actions are altruistic. Moreover – to add another question on top of yours – it also doesn’t show that altruistic actions are always moral. Let me explain.
Are altruistic actions always moral? Imagine that Cleo wants Peter to do well in a test and helps him cheat. Cleo is purely motivated by concern for Peter’s wellbeing. If you think that Cleo’s act is morally objectionable, then perhaps morality requires more than just altruistic motivation.
Are moral actions always altruistically motivated? Think again about my selfish charity donation. It seems I am acting morally – giving to charity is a good thing! Now, if I ask you what you think of my character, an honest answer will make me unhappy. If your motivation is my wellbeing, perhaps you should lie. But the morally right thing to do, it seems, would be to tell me the unpleasant truth. If this is right, it seems that morality doesn’t require altruistic motives.
To add to this last point, some philosophers think that morality is not always about actions that affect others. If that is right, then concern about others is not necessary for morality. Kant, for example, thought that we have moral duties to ourselves. Think about Larry, who spends his days in his hammock watching Netflix. Larry could use the time to learn how to draw or do an online accounting course. But he doesn’t. Kant would say that Larry acts against the self-directed moral duty to develop his talents. (Before you ask, yes, reading Armchair Opinions totally makes spending too much time on social media morally permissible! Next question?)
What do you think? Is morality just altruism? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: (credit)