| | |
|
MikeAbendSecondPaper 5 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.MikeAbend
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."- Samuel Johnson | | | A slightly more far-reaching justification is "reciprocal altruism";. Reciprocal altruism, an offshoot of game theory, suggests that we act altruistically in the hope of inspiring repayment in some form at some time in the future. For example, I give a loan to someone in the hope that, if I need help in the future, my good deed will inspire them to help me as compared to if I had not given the loan. However, this justification of altruism reaches only as far as those I reasonably will come into contact with; not nearly as global or broad as the justification I am looking for. | |
<
< | Altruism versus Individualism
Socio-biologists also argue that for any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders, leading to innate altruism. Evolution has even created a separate altruism "rewards center", which is activated any time an individual commits an altruistic act, i.e. a charitable donation. Still, while altruism may be necessary for the functioning of a social group, it does not explain altruism towards people living on another continent and I will never meet. | | | The Guilt Ratio
All of these theories justify altruism to some extent, but only towards individuals I will likely come into contact with. While only a theory, I think the answer to my question lies in the emotions of empathy and guilt, as well as personal awareness and self-perception. | | | I should also note that individuals can resort to cognitive dissonance based ego defense mechanisms to minimize high guilt ratios: delusion, denial, repression, rationalization etc. For example, given the two choices in the earlier decision, I could rationalize killing a stranger by assuming someone else would take the money if I did not, decreasing the "percent responsible" factor. | |
>
> | Deviation from "Morality"
This paper lacks a determination of what the "moral" decision actually is. Morality is not universal, but specific to each individual and the result of many different factors. Our law is somewhat a reflection of our "morality", defining reasonable expectations of behavior. But, if my law does not punish a crime such as assault, does that mean it is not wrong? The main relevance of defining morality for the guilt factor is that the "cost to others" or "gain to self" aspects are dependent somewhat on deviations from the "moral" decision. | | | The Choice
When I began writing this paper, I assumed that an individual had to "choose" how much the guilt ratio affected their decision making process. I though that self-perception and moral judgment would force a person to choose between being "good or "bad" person. However, such personality components may be completely biological and outside of the realm of free choice. Or, the good/bad distinction could be cultural and a reflection of our society's values. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |