The basic form of my question is: If, once a person reaches the highest level of altruism, they suddenly drop to the bottom of Houchin's measurement of altruism, what is the point of trying to become more altruistic?
If Houchin is correct, then it seems that there is no point. While he claims that there is always room for improvement as far as altruism is concerned, it seems to me that one might reach a point where the only more altruistic act is to die for some worthy cause. At this point, I do not think that one should feel obligated to try and become more altruistic at the cost of one's life. One can instead continue being somewhat altruistic in smaller ways as more situations present themselves, and I do not think that Houchin's penalizing this sort of behaviour as less worthy than that of people at a lower level of altruism trying to improve their overall behaviour is warranted.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Q&A 4, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Is there a synonym for 'selfless' which does not imply a complete absence of self-interest?
Yes, there is - 'unselfish.' It is not especially aesthetically pleasing, but it conveys the point much more accurately than 'selfless' does and it is less open to misinterpretation. 'Unselfish' means 'not selfish', so 'not preoccupied with the self above other concerns'. This does not, I think, mean that we should never use the term 'selfless', but to avoid confusion it might be wise to use it interchangeably with 'unselfish', so that listeners can discern that we are not implying that selfless people have no self-interest.
Also, upon reflection I am thinking that this was a rubbish question. I shall attempt to come up with better ones in future.
Yes, there is - 'unselfish.' It is not especially aesthetically pleasing, but it conveys the point much more accurately than 'selfless' does and it is less open to misinterpretation. 'Unselfish' means 'not selfish', so 'not preoccupied with the self above other concerns'. This does not, I think, mean that we should never use the term 'selfless', but to avoid confusion it might be wise to use it interchangeably with 'unselfish', so that listeners can discern that we are not implying that selfless people have no self-interest.
Also, upon reflection I am thinking that this was a rubbish question. I shall attempt to come up with better ones in future.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Response: Considered Heroism
In response to Rachel Niddrie's post "Thinking About Kindness" (February 15, 2012):
While I'd agree that heroism is often unconsidered and immediate, I also think that there are certain considered acts which still qualify as heroic. For example, someone might think for quite a while before deciding to donate a vital internal organ to a neighbor's child, but that would not remove the heroism of the act.
On a closely related note, is there a point at which heroism becomes stupidity? If a person pushes someone else out of the way of a train and is hit themself, when they could have simply shouted to alert the potential victim (who could have gotten out of the way in time), was that person being a hero or being a fool? I think that in this case we could say they were being both. They probably did not consider the possibility of saving the person in a less dangerous manner, so their actions were heroic, but ultimately unnecessary. Their death would be a waste, but that would not decrease the heroism of the actions leading up to it.
While I'd agree that heroism is often unconsidered and immediate, I also think that there are certain considered acts which still qualify as heroic. For example, someone might think for quite a while before deciding to donate a vital internal organ to a neighbor's child, but that would not remove the heroism of the act.
On a closely related note, is there a point at which heroism becomes stupidity? If a person pushes someone else out of the way of a train and is hit themself, when they could have simply shouted to alert the potential victim (who could have gotten out of the way in time), was that person being a hero or being a fool? I think that in this case we could say they were being both. They probably did not consider the possibility of saving the person in a less dangerous manner, so their actions were heroic, but ultimately unnecessary. Their death would be a waste, but that would not decrease the heroism of the actions leading up to it.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Supererogatory Behavior
In class on Monday we discussed a scenario in which two people are stuck in a lifeboat with a limited amount of food. There is enough food that one (and only one) person could, if they ate all of it, survive until the boat reaches shore. If the people split the food, they will both die. We all agreed that, if one person were to offer the other person all of the food, that person would be acting supererogatarily. Similarly, I think we agreed that if one person took all of the food for themself, without asking the other one's opinion or offering an equal share, that person would be acting selfishly and immorally. However, apart from these two relatively clear-cut scenarios, the morality of various actions that these people could take are somewhat debatable. I think it is worthwhile to investigate several possible permutations of this scenario.
Personally, I think that if one person (let us call them P1) supererogatarily offers the food to the other (P2), and P2 accepts, then P2 is acting in a self-interested but not selfish manner. If P2 refuses the food in hopes that P1 will reconsider and eat the food themself, then P2 is also acting in a supererogatory manner. If P2 refuses the food on the basis that they cannot sit by and watch another person starve in order to keep them alive, however, they are not acting supererogatarily, but merely self-interestedly. If P1 takes the food without consulting P2 and P2 fights them for it, P1 is being selfish and P2 is being self-interested. If P1 offers the food, P2 refuses, and then P1 also refuses (not in hopes that P2 will reconsider, but because they are unwilling to watch P2 die) then P1 is acting self-interestedly. If the two people offer each other the food, and then decide to split it (either because neither person will take it due to not wanting to watch the other die, or to maximize the chances of both people surviving - after all, a ship might pass and pick up the lifeboat before the boat reaches shore) then both are being self-interested.
Personally, I think that if one person (let us call them P1) supererogatarily offers the food to the other (P2), and P2 accepts, then P2 is acting in a self-interested but not selfish manner. If P2 refuses the food in hopes that P1 will reconsider and eat the food themself, then P2 is also acting in a supererogatory manner. If P2 refuses the food on the basis that they cannot sit by and watch another person starve in order to keep them alive, however, they are not acting supererogatarily, but merely self-interestedly. If P1 takes the food without consulting P2 and P2 fights them for it, P1 is being selfish and P2 is being self-interested. If P1 offers the food, P2 refuses, and then P1 also refuses (not in hopes that P2 will reconsider, but because they are unwilling to watch P2 die) then P1 is acting self-interestedly. If the two people offer each other the food, and then decide to split it (either because neither person will take it due to not wanting to watch the other die, or to maximize the chances of both people surviving - after all, a ship might pass and pick up the lifeboat before the boat reaches shore) then both are being self-interested.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)