Wikipedia has an interesting explanation: "Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty. Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving)."
Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."
I'd like to challenge a few of these ideas which I believe actually were NOT intended to be a part of "altruism":
In those statements there is an implicit suggestion that consequences are always directly tied to motives. However, consequences for choices are not always the motivators for choices.
For example, if I decide to yell at a loved one the consequence will likely be regret and hurt feelings. Was that my motivator for making the choice? No. Actually, my motivator, which was to be right or to satisfy my ego, was never fulfilled. Another: Does a teenager try drugs because they want to be an addict and potentially ruin their life? No. Actually, their motivator, which is probably to find comfort or belonging, is never fulfilled. Their motives were NOT the consequences of their actions.
Now let's look at positive choice and its consequences. Suppose a daughter goes to her father and expresses that she is sad because another girl made fun of her at school. The father chooses to comfort his daughter. Why?
Do you believe that he has "expectation of any compensation or benefits" for himself, even intrinsic ones? Some would say "Yes, he knows that if he doesn't help, he will feel bad, or it could have a negative effect on his family later, or he will feel good about himself when he helps her." Well if you say that, you are probably not a father.
The father helps his daughter because of his concern for her welfare and with no expectation of any personal compensation, despite the fact the he WILL receive it. Some interpret this "expectation" to mean that the personal benefits were part of the father's motivation or decision-making process. That's not true. Our motives for certain choices are not necessarily to gain certain consequences. They don't have to match.
We can expect to be happy by doing good to others without this being our motivation. I believe altruism exists, and that their is such pure goodness in people. We really can make decisions with selfless motivation, and we all need to overcome ourselves and achieve this. This is the meaning of "charity seeketh not her own".
In those statements there is an implicit suggestion that consequences are always directly tied to motives. However, consequences for choices are not always the motivators for choices.
For example, if I decide to yell at a loved one the consequence will likely be regret and hurt feelings. Was that my motivator for making the choice? No. Actually, my motivator, which was to be right or to satisfy my ego, was never fulfilled. Another: Does a teenager try drugs because they want to be an addict and potentially ruin their life? No. Actually, their motivator, which is probably to find comfort or belonging, is never fulfilled. Their motives were NOT the consequences of their actions.
Now let's look at positive choice and its consequences. Suppose a daughter goes to her father and expresses that she is sad because another girl made fun of her at school. The father chooses to comfort his daughter. Why?
Do you believe that he has "expectation of any compensation or benefits" for himself, even intrinsic ones? Some would say "Yes, he knows that if he doesn't help, he will feel bad, or it could have a negative effect on his family later, or he will feel good about himself when he helps her." Well if you say that, you are probably not a father.
The father helps his daughter because of his concern for her welfare and with no expectation of any personal compensation, despite the fact the he WILL receive it. Some interpret this "expectation" to mean that the personal benefits were part of the father's motivation or decision-making process. That's not true. Our motives for certain choices are not necessarily to gain certain consequences. They don't have to match.
We can expect to be happy by doing good to others without this being our motivation. I believe altruism exists, and that their is such pure goodness in people. We really can make decisions with selfless motivation, and we all need to overcome ourselves and achieve this. This is the meaning of "charity seeketh not her own".
No comments:
Post a Comment