Sitting in class this past semester, I feel like most of Professor Moglen's reasoning rests on the assumption that people are obligated to do the “right” thing. This idea of “good” often leads individuals to sacrifice their own best interests for the benefit of another. If my actions will negatively affect someone thousands of miles away, who I will never meet or have a chance of coming into contact with, why should I care about that person?

For example, suppose I am given two choices: 1) Make millions of dollars, with the result of one unknown foreign person killed 2) Not making any money at all

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?

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.

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 nieces and nephews, 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.

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.

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, these groups are limited in number (usually not more than 1,000 individuals). It does not explain altruism towards people living on another continent that I will never meet.

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.

I think (and this is only opinion) that there is a "guilt ratio" that weighs on our decisions. When choosing between two options, one of the variables that affects my decision is the size of the following:

[(cost-to-others) / (benefit-to-myself)] x (percent responsibility)

The more moral decisions are those with low “Guilt Ratios”. The cost to others component is dependent on the ability to feel empathy, to understand how another human feels, while the percent responsibility is a product of personal knowledge of circumstances.

When I make a decision with a high guilt ratio, since as a human I have an established sense of self, I am aware of the “immorality” of that decision and my responsibility for the result. Each individual is different, and some are able to disregard the guilt ratio more easily than others. However, for most humans, everybody has their price.

Note that if I am not aware of the externalities of my decisions, then they will not increase the "percent responsible" aspect of the ratio. Eben’s class is geared to make you think deeper about what it is a lawyer does. In most cases, we are helping the fortunate, not the victims. The reason ignorance is bliss is that we do not need to live with the guilt of knowing the consequences of our actions; to make the “good” decision, we have a responsibility to question what it is we are actually doing as lawyers. This will help lead us towards making the more "moral" decision.

I should also note that individuals can resort to cognitive dissonance based ego defense mechanisms 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.

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.

Whatever the answer, I like to think that as humans we have a choice. I cannot lie to myself about what type of person I am. And while every person has his or her price (would you turn down $1,000,000,000 to kill a foreign stranger if you knew there were no consequences?) I hope I will always choose to be the "good" person.