From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 07:25:38 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> When I speak of altruism, I am not speaking of some sort
> of genetic defect, or cosmic-ray induced distortion, but
> rather of an evolved trait.
Well then we agree.
However I believe the word "altruism" is a misnomer if an altruist is
defined as one who acts for the benefit of others without expecting a
reward.
> What I want to call *altruism* is what
> several others have already proposed it was, namely, "An
> altruist is someone who does good things for someone else
> without expecting a reward." Do you deny that such acts
> occur? What exactly is your problem with the common use
> of the word?
Yes, I deny that such acts occur.
Again, so-called "altruistic" behaviors are motivated by a desire for
the subjective experience of reward. This means they are not performed
"without expecting a reward."
Your mistake is in that you assume rewards for behavior must always be
objective. "Reward" is ultimately a subjective experience regardless of
the manner in which it is delivered.
Perhaps you are seeking also to preserve the nobility of these so-called
"atruistic" behaviors. This is why I suggest that you should refrain
from making value judgments. I certainly do not wish to imply that the
act of helping others is not in some way noble or virtuous.
I would say that a virtuous person is one who seeks the pleasure that
comes from helping others.
If you ask a community volunteer to explain her reasons for donating her
time and effort, she will (if she is honest) say that she volunteers
because she finds volunteering to be a "rewarding experience."
That, Lee, is not altruism as either of us define the word.
-gts
PS I'm headed out of town and won't be around any computers for email.
Back next Friday.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:57 MST