Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Altruism psychology
The importance of self-interest
Altruism psychology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Altruism psychology
In the article “The Wrong Way to Get People to Do the Right Thing,” author Alfie Kohn argues that a person’s view of himself affects his likeliness to help others. He reveals that people either live up to the expectation that they are disposed to helping others and that they are altruistic, or they live down to the idea that they are selfish and motivated by egotistical reasons. People act selfishly due to the use of rewards and praise to encourage altruism, not human nature.
Kohn states that rewarding people for doing good things leads them to think that the reward caused them to act, thus leading them to think that they are not altruistic. In order for people to do good deeds without a reward, they¬¬ must see themselves as altruistic. He mentions several studies to prove this point. One involves repeated blood donors, in which case those who were reminded of the personal benefits of donating blood were more reluctant to donate than those who were reminded of the benefits to others. A second involves two groups of children, one of which was praised while the other was guided into
…show more content…
By not helping those who are struggling, we incur further costs later, and Kohn argues that this is part of why we help people. He cites newspaper excerpts with examples of healthcare, illiteracy, and family violence as evidence that people think that we should reduce family violence and illiteracy and improve healthcare for pregnant women and newborn babies because it is the most cost-effective method of dealing with these issues. Kohn suggests that financial self-interest inevitably affects the standards for spending tax money, and that people see everything from reducing infant mortality to care for the elderly as an investment, not as a part of humanity’s responsibility to care for others. By reducing issues of humanity to money, people defy the very purpose of
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
The idea that a person can be purely good and altruistic does not exist due to society’s acceptance and embrace of the selfishness and greed of human beings. People these days are some of the most selfish beings to ever exist but they are not ashamed of their actions because of how the world around them welcomes their self-centered nature with open arms. Selfishness comes is many ways, shapes, and forms. Many businesses need to utilize the greed of mankind in order to make money and prosper; “Greed-for lack of a better word-is good. Greed is right. Greed works” (Wall Street). Even politicians use their greed to run campaigns for themselves in order to win the hearts of Americans. As well as fulfill their ultimate selfish goal to be the man
If one wishes to be a psychological egoist, then one needs to explain why people do certain actions that appear to be genuine acts of altruism.
Ethical egoism is diametrically opposite to ethical altruism, which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if he sacrifices his own interest. Further, researchers justify and rationalize the mental position of egoism versus altruism through an explanation that altruism is destructive for a society, suppressing and denying an individual value. Although the ‘modern’ age unsubtly supports swaggering egoistic behavior in the competitive arena such as international politics, commerce, and sport, in other ‘traditional’ areas of the prideful selfishness showing off, to considerable extent discourages visible disobedience from the prevalent moral codes. In some cases, the open pro-egoist position, as was, per example, the ‘contextual’ interpretation of selfishness by famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, can be described as a ‘grotesque anomaly’.
However, putting that aside, there is a burning question that many people want to know about this broad characteristic: “What makes us want to give, and what is so good about giving?” Well, that’s two questions, but those two questions are very similar and so must both be assessed to thoroughly give an answer. Yes, everyone must be thinking, if someone gives something of his, doesn’t it just take away something from him, doing nothing but harming him? Well, believe it or not, there is a tremendous amount of equally tremendous benefits that come from being generous to all people alike. And when these benefits are presented, the first part of the question will be already, for the most part, answered.
As previously stated, there is a balance to be maintained between selflessness and selfishness. Logically speaking, you would always want to help people, but overexerting yourself to try and help them solve their problems, won’t really help anyone. These ideas are expressed in Selflessness and the Loss of Self (Hampton, Jean, and Daniel Farnham). The Intrinsic Worth of Persons: Contractarianism in Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007.
My attention was also drawn to several questions in this podcast, which made me eager to find the answers to these questions. For example, one interesting question I heard was “when you do see generosity how do you know it’s really generous” (Levy, 2010). This question stood out to me because it is one particular question I don’t think about often and made me wonder whether people help someone out because they see it as a duty. However, I believe the best answer to this question is the portrayal of the concept of norm of reciprocity, which indicates “the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future” (Akert, Aronson, & Wilson, 2013, p.303). This is true because “generosity” happens when both persons are nice to each other and if an individual helps another person then it’s easy to assume that the person who was
Even forms of human beings preforming selfless acts derives from ones desire to help others, which in a way makes that person feel importance. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, better known as Mother Teresa, devoted her life to helping those in great need. To many these acts may appear as selfless and gallant acts that are not performed by anyone with any type of ego. Yet when taking a psychological look at why she performed such acts they may appear a somewhat more for herself. Every time anyone does anything, even when for someone else, they are doing it for some type of feeling that they experience. With the holiday season approaching, there will be a specific emphasis on giving unlike any other time of the year. We give yes to show gratitude for someone we love, but also to experience the joy in seeing someone enjoy something they them self-caused. Even while being selfless humans have the unique ability to still be doing something that involves caring for them self. This outlook toward the human condition completely debunks Wolf’s claim that “when caring about yourself you are living as if you are the center of the universe.” When choosing to do anything positive or negative, for others or for yourself, you are still taking your self-interest into consideration, making it
2, 2007, Wesley Autrey jumped on the subway tracks of a New York City subway platform, as a train was approaching to save a man who fell due to a seizure. Since most people would tend to argue that he did it influenced by pure altruism, because he did not gain anything in this moment, he got the satisfaction of having helped somebody, and the respect of that and other humans after that accident, which proves that there was no pure altruism. Altruism, an illusionary behavior, lets us gain from charity, but always requires something in return, influenced by reciprocal altruism and empathy, universal egoism and moral, leading to an overvaluing of the action.
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich” (Kennedy 463). He describes the consequences of being selfish by explaining that focusing on one group will not bring success in the U.S but bring it down. There are many who are poor and suffering, but a few who are
Before a case can be made for the causes of altruism, altruism itself must first be defined. Most leading psychologists agree that the definition of altruism is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (Batson, 1981). The only way for a person to be truly altruistic is if their intent is to help the community before themselves. However, the only thing humans can see is the actions themselves, and so, selfish intent may seem the same as altruistic intent. Alas, the only way that altruism can be judged is if the intent is obvious. Through that, we must conclude that only certain intents can be defined as altruistic, and as intent stemming from nature benefits the group while other intent benefits yourself, only actions caused by nature are truly altruistic.
For someone who believes in psychological egoism, i t is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal...
This statement leads me to my next point of Singer’s argument that being one of many to assist does not take away the responsibility that you have as an individual. He supports his viewpoint with a progressive scale of every person donating at least one percent of their income and taxpayers giving five percent of their income. If everyone in affluent countries donated with Singer’s proposed scale, they would raise $1.5 trillion dollars a year –which is eight times more than what poor countries aim for in hopes of improving health care, schooling, reducing death rates, living standards, and more. Even though Singer proposes the progressive scale for giving money to aid extreme poverty, he does not introduce any alternative methods to giving aid. Singer presented this point in the argument accurately, but is not strong enough to support the child-drowning example. In comparison to the child drowning, Singer’s proposal is weak because you cannot hold people accountable for not donating a percentage of their income; however, you can hold a person or group of people accountable for watching and not saving the child from
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.
This obligatory nature of his argument urges people to donate the money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries. Singer’s profound conclusion has been supported by an analogy: What would you do if you saw a small child drowning? There can be little doubt that, despite the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy and shoes wet, people will attempt to save the child’s life. From this example, Singer builds on to argue that there is no moral difference between letting the child drown and letting one die of poverty in a greater geographical distance. After refuting some objections raised by other scholars, Singer reiterates the importance of our obligation to help, which should not be lessened by the refusal of other people to help.