| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."- Samuel Johnson
| |
<
< | | | | | |
>
> |
• Mike, just thought I would go through and post some initial reactions, more for myself than anything. Its mostly just comments that I am thinking about, and in some areas I have changed around some wording. I plan on just working through here and there, in pieces.
-- PeterWade - 25 Apr 2010
| | | Why Should I Care About People I Will Never Meet?
| | | Why should I choose the option that is obviously worse for me? What is the innate or social influence that compels me to act "good", instead of in my own best interest? | |
>
> | I am not sure I agree with this. Instead of reasoning from the assumption that people are obligated to do the right thing, I think Eben is often trying to show us that the choice to "do the right thing" (or a right thing) is, in fact, NOT a choice to sacrifice our own self-interest. Much of the class seems to focus on the idea the decision is not a binary one. We do not have to choose financial success or seeking some form of social justice, we can have both. Not only that, but the choice to seek justice/do the right thing is actually in our best interest, we just don't know it yet (in large part because of the con that is law school). | | | This paper is an attempt to justify altruism, acting for the benefit of others without an immediate reward; to separate pure evolutionary selfishness from the morality that often defines human behavior.
Kin Selection | |
<
< | The most basic justification for altruism is kin selection. In an evolutionary sense, my most fundamental goal is to spread my genes to as many offspring as possible. By quantifying the amount of genetic material that will be passed on, one could conceivably work for the benefit of nephews and cousins, since they will contain at least some of my personal genetic material. However I am looking at altruism on a truly global scale. Kin selection does not reach past individuals I share genetic material with. I must look further. | >
> | The most basic justification for altruism is kin selection. In an evolutionary sense, my most fundamental goal is to spread my genes to as many offspring as possible. By quantifying the amount of genetic material that will be passed on, one could conceivably work for the benefit of nephews and cousins, since they will contain at least some of my personal genetic material . However I am looking at altruism on a truly global scale. Kin selection does not reach past individuals I share genetic material with. I must look further.
This is a little confusing. Is it supposed to mean that to some extent I am concerned with my brother's well-being because if he lives longer/flourishes, the likelihood that he will spread some of the same genes I want to spread increases? Also, how far does this feeling extend? It isn't a conscious factor in my decision making, so if it operates on a subconscious/biological level, wouldn't it ultimately extend to everyone via the instinct towards the propagation of the species (in other words, ensuring the spread of human genetic material)? | | | Reciprocal Altruism | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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.
Reciprocal Altruism, as you point when you say it is an offshoot of game theory, seems like more of a practical, strategic consideration. Behavior motivated by expected future gains isn't divorced from self-interest, it is simply an investment. I don't think this fits well into the discussion of why I would choose to help someone else at the expense of personal gain (i.e., it does not "separate pure evolutionary selfishness from the morality that often defines human behavior"). It would, however, be relevant to a discussion of why altruistic behavior is not mutually exclusive of personal gain. | | | 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. | |
<
< | Assume for simplicity that every decision an individual makes is binary in character: I can choose to do it, or I can choose not to do it. This structure of decision-making takes into account all known factors, whether conscious or subconscious, and chooses the option with the "best" result as compared to the other. | >
> | Assume for simplicity that every decision an individual makes is binary in character: I can choose to do something, or I can choose not to do something. When making this decision I take into account all known factors, whether conscious or subconscious, and choose the option with the "best" result as compared to the other. How do I measure which is "best?" | | | Formula |
|