How does one argue for "helping others" without any religious context?

Question

I was having a political discussion with roots in philosophy, where I was explaining an idea for a government program which would enforce equal opportunities for children who have poor / parentally uninvolved home environments, and I ran into a philosophical obstacle: The other person responded with "Not with my tax money. I don't have kids, don't plan to, and honestly don't care about helping those kids who I don't know."

I thought this might be a dismissible point of view, surely there aren't many with such views - but I then had the same discussion with another person and received a similar response: "I know it sounds bad, but honestly I care about helping people I care about, and that's it."

So, I grew up in a religious family and the only supportive reasoning I've been exposed to is religiously rooted. "God says so." - In society, one can't support arguments with religion - And I personally don't subscribe to this form of reasoning either. But I do feel inclined to argue in support of helping others.

How can one argue in support of helping others without citing religious dogma as supportive reasoning? How can I counter a "selfish" argument without religion?

Answer 1

It's in society's interest and consequently also in his interest to do so. There is a good book, Liars and Outliers: Enabling The Trust That Society Needs To Thrive by Bruce Schneier.

Society thrives when there is security, trust, and cooperation. These three depend upon moral, reputational, and institutional pressures in society. Religious reasons fall under the heading moral pressures. All societies have different degrees of all three. Schneier writes:

It's what we call "trust." Actually, it's what we call "civilization."

All complex ecosystems, whether they are biological ecosystems like the human body, natural ecosystems like a rain forest, social ecosystems like an open air market, or socio-technical ecosystems like the global financial system or the Internet, are deeply interlinked. Individual units within those ecosystems are interdependent, each doing its part and relying on on the other units to do their parts as well. This is neither rare nor difficult, and complex ecosystems abound...

Within complex systems, there is a fundamental tension between what I'm going to call defecting, or acting against the group interest and instead in one's own selfish interest. Political philosophers have recognized this antinomy since Plato. We might individually want each other's stuff, but we're collectively better off if everyone respects property rights and no one steals...Most of the time, we realize that it is our self-interest to act in the group interest.

Societal mammals, which you can include us in, have some sort of societal structure (elephants, chimpanzees are examples) that will take care of those members that are weak or ill. Equal opportunity programs are a way for us to help the weaker members of our society stronger, and thus society in general becomes stronger and thrive more. It's in our own selfish interests to see others thrive.

Answer 2

The objection isn't philosophical but simply a refusal to think through consequences; this is surprisingly common but happens because others have done this for them: prophets, poets, thinkers and legislators.

Social contract theory, utilitarianism, consequentialism, Kantian ethics are some options in arguing this in a secular context.

Given the religious context of your question, it's worth noting that In Kantian ethics, one imagines oneself as a legislator through the Categorical Imperative; and this according the SEP is a formalisation of the 'Golden Rule' in Christian ethics.

Answer 3

I would point you at this perspective https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/17541/9166.

For the reasons given there, I think compassion is more inborn than selfishness, and that we train folks up into selfishness in our society. It is The Big Lie of Capitalism that Utilitarianism is natural and Kantian motivation is contrived.

Through economics, people in general have been over-trained to assign responsibility in an unnaturally rigid way. They therefore think that these people should just take care of themselves and take responsibility for their own past decisions (and so their children). But deeper down, they also know we are more interchangeable than that. Empathy is not an option, or a trait, it is a fact of psychological life, genetically installed, and ignored at great peril.

If you dig into these people's reality, their genuine motivation will most likely emerge. They want someone to be around to take care of them if and when they fail. So they do want to be compassionate to those who are now failing. Their economics-and-rights-focussed mythology just won't let them admit it.

But (as Barbara Deming puts it) we are all part of one another. As Ken Wilbur points out, there really is no natural or sustainable boundary containing an individual's concerns.

If someone cares responsibly about themselves, they have to care for those upon whom they are dependent, or their support system will decay, and they will suffer. Then if they only care about 'their own', what about those about whom 'their own' care? Anyone suffers when those around them suffer because they care about more distant people. And if care is not extended to the more immediate supporter for this suffering, why should those people keep caring about them, instead of those more-distant others? Well, then, their personal investment is automatically being spent farther from home, and they should protect that investment of effort to some degree... Empathy therefore naturally extends outward, recursively, even if it decreases somewhat at each layer. Stopping it at some chosen point is just a pretense.

And even our society, one that defines success through individual rights and staged competition, does in fact consider excessively narrow compassion to be a disease -- Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Answer 4

Arne Naess wrote several essays on the topic of the "ecological self" which are applicable in such a situation. Paraphrasing his many arguments, his argument was that the very narrowest definition of self (often conveyed by touching one's body while saying something like "this is me") proves remarkably difficult to pin down. He suggests that there are multiple valid definitions for "self," which can coexist at any time, each of which can demonstrate behaviors we associate with a self. The "ecological self" was a large class he penned to be "that which the self relates to."

He made arguments along those lines that altruism could potentially be explained as selfish behavior for a larger self. He argued one could choose to view Mother Teresa not as an altruistic narrow individual, but as a selfish individual using a broad definition of self to encompass a great deal of humanity (he, of course, also argued against the negative connotation associated with selfishness, especially when that selfishness is towards a wide self).

Answer 5

One needn't believe in the divinity of Jesus to follow his his message of radical social hospitality. Your interlocutors may object to their taxes going toward food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicare, and social security, but your interlocutors are not legislators. Their objection is moot. They're free to object, they're also free to organize amendments to the collection of taxes and their allocation.

I believe you are asking, is a socially responsible morality possible without religiously commanded duty? Ironic, isn't it, that many self identified Christians object to taxes which support programs benefiting the neediest segments of society, when their God explicitly commanded them to care for the impoverished?

I find Immanuel Kant's answer most helpful. Morality is about autonomy and freedom, and the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a jargony way of saying, they should act in such a way that everyone else could do the same without infringing upon everyone else's freedom and rational autonomy. Now, if citizens object to and refuse to pay taxes for services they don't use, civil society would hardly be possible. States would collapse. They may never use a certain road in their town - is that a robust argument for not contributing taxes toward having it maintained and paved? They might very well need to use that road in the unforeseeable future. Or, suppose that when they are elderly, and their private resources and consequently private health insurance are no longer available, should they be refused (short and long term) care because they can't pay for treatment?

In terms of schools, a society without an educated citizenry is vulnerable to mass manipulation. It is economically and technologically impotent. It's economically unsustainable, in the long run. Who's to say that the cure of cancer or any number of technological innovations aren't locked in the mind of a someone whose public education has failed them, or who can't afford higher education? If your interlocutors are comfortable living in a society characterized by mediocrity, uncritical herd-mentality, and rampant indifference to poverty, than their position makes sense. But it does not follow, that even though they may be indifferent to poverty, that everyone else should be as well. When it comes down to it those tax dollars are paying for the only meal some kids get a day.

Answer 6

Common sense is often overlooked when dealing in matters of altruism. How do you feel when you help another person? How do you feel when you harm another person? If you're looking at this without religion, then we can assume that this is the only life we have a chance to live. What is a good way to spend your limited time here?

Here's the logic flow:

1. You have limited time to live
2. Because [1], the way you experience this time is of utmost importance
3. When your emotions are functioning within "normal" parameters, you feel good when helping others.
4. Assuming same conditions for [3], harming others will make you feel bad.
5. Because [2], you are best spending time by avoiding [4] and seeking out [3]

Answer 7

I would tell him:

1. A BEAUTIFUL parable: Do you think that by planting a seed, what you would get in return would be another single seed? Have you ever planted a single seed? And from that single seed a forest has grown? You helping others is like planting seeds that could later through time create more and more tree/seeds, so don't think that everything is linear, things could also be exponentially!
2. Put yourself in the other person's shoes, imagine if you were born in a very poor or uneducated family, wouldn't you want others to be helping you? Would't others helping you create loyalty? Wouldn't loyalty create great results?!
3. Have you ever benefited from people who don't know you at all? Do you think they always did it for money or they did it because it was the right thing to do and so that later they would return the favor to others!

Answer 8

Start from the other side. Why would a Christian for example support other people's children? The two possible reasons are fear of punishment in the afterlife (which I find a rather pathetic reason), or the wish to be a decent person, a decent human being, and not an animal.

Why would someone who is not at all religious support other people's children? The first reason fails. The second reason is just as strong: The wish to be a decent person, a decent human being, and not an animal.

Answer 9

There's no difference. Religion doesn't provide a rationale for why any acts are intrinsically good or bad, it just baldly asserts that certain acts are good or bad, and appeals to consequences (e.g., do this or you won't be saved by God). The same is done in real-life: do this because it benefits you in this way, or do this because it hurts you in this way. Your only other recourse is an appeal to emotion, evoke a visceral response not based on reason but compelling nonetheless.