Follow the manual

Many advocates of social exchange theory claim that altruism doesn't really exist. They point to the benefits of moral action, such as satisfaction, self esteem, the belief that good was done, and claim that those things were really the motivator. What seem to be altruistic persons are actually selfishly seeking their own satisfaction through helping others.

I find this patently ridiculous. For starters, how the hell do they know what motivates someone? Saying that everyone who ever did something good was really pursuing their own benefit is like saying that everyone who ever assembled something was really following the instruction manual.

Of course that's not true. There are people who manage to construct all sorts of things without ever looking at the instructions. But someone could of course come along, open the manual, and point to all the things that had been done.

Sure, but the truth of it is this: the crafter attended to the nature and structure of the task. He or she looked at the project, tried some things, felt around for what seemed best, used some intuition, and worked so that the ideal end came to pass. The fact that they performed as the manual deemed is due to the fact that the manual reflects the reality of the situation.

Likewise. Most moral decisions are made by looking, trying for some things, feeling around for what seems best, using some intuition, and working so that the ideal end comes to pass. And yes, this may follow a social scientific "manual" for how humans behave. It may be that altruists benefit from altruism. But this is due to the fact that benefits flow from the structure of morality, not the other way around.

Sure, some crafters use the manual, but others are directed by what is real. In this case, both the crafter's actions and the manual flow from what is real.

Similarly, some philanthropists do good to get good, but others are directed by what is good. In this case, both the altruist's actions and the benefits of helping others flow from what is good.