Saturday, March 8, 2008
Altruism?
I loved the lecture because I learned something new about ALTRUISM, which I've considered an unworthy, self-sacrificial, pitiful ethical theory. But I liked how she said that in her opinion, we must find the balance between altruism and egoism. We should WANT to help others, and we do, by our human nature. And we CAN be helping ourselves as well while we "commit" altruistic acts; the fact that we can CHOOSE to be altruistic or not is proof of the beauty of selflessness. But I really liked the question my dad asked (hahah) at the end-"Why is it that I feel so good when I write a check to charity out of my own accord, but when I write a check for social services to the government, all I feel is resentment-no gratification whatsoever?" Altruists would, I guess, argue that that's okay because it is a selfless act so we shouldn't feel any gratification anyway. But that's the altruism I hate. Is our government forcing people to be altruistic? There IS a duty of the government to its people, but is the welfare system MORE effective than allowing more job opportunities and relying on the goodness of human nature? We've seemed to lose faith in it. Again, I'm trying to relate politics to ethics, not just discuss my political views. My question is: does altruism really exist in the way it is defined? I would say that altruism is absolutely not "all true." Does ANYONE do a charitable/selfless act without having at least some gratification or good feelings within themselves? I don't think so. And we should never be ashamed for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I love that you began by having one view of altruism and reconsidered it in light of the talk. That is what critical thinking is all about! I also like that your dad joined you for the lecture.
It would seem, from the research Dr. Pescovitz presented, that there is always some pleasure involved in a charitable or selfless act. It seems, however, that many people value more those acts in which the pleasure was outweighed by personal loss, as in the case of a martyr, or in which the pleasure was not considered before doing the act.
You make an interesting connection between ethics and politics/government. Is it possible to legislate ethics? You ask whether the government forces people to be altruistic. Consider adage about the Nazis, that they could make people do anything except love them. A government can force its citizens to give, but it cannot force them to care. There seems to be an aspect of intention that is important in altruism. If it is my intent to do you good, regardless of any consequence or inducement, then I have behaved altruistically. If I do good for any other reason, then my act cannot be called altruistic. As Dr. Pescovitz said in the afternoon lecture, however, this does not make such an act worthless. It just cannot go by the name "altruism."
Post a Comment