Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I'm not sure that this is possible, except when a person is doing something because they have fallen under the power of the moment.
But even this is more of a herd feeling or a stupidly emotional outburst, rather than an act.
Otherwise, any action will cause a sense of satisfaction at least from their own actions.
Which somehow contradicts the principles of alturism.
BUT – is it so bad?
What does it matter why a person helps? Is it because he wants to prove something to himself, or is it because he feels sorry for people? the main thing is that he does it.
Yes, altruism is based on selfishness.
At the individual level, altruistic behavior is encouraged by the same brain chemistry as eating during hunger, having sex after some abstinence, and so on. That is, it is more comfortable for a person or animal to act altruistically. When and if it is not more comfortable, then altruistic actions end.
At the genetic level, altruism is fixed by natural selection. For example, to a certain extent, helping close relatives is justified by the fact that they successfully spread their genes, which largely coincide with the genes of an altruist. It is also beneficial to help sexual partners, increasing their own chances of reproduction.
At the group level, if you go to the option of not having a close relationship, the benefits of helping “your” group are not so obvious, but under certain conditions it also contributes to the reproductive success of the altruist due to the increased success of the entire group (where there are also his children and blood relatives). The flip side of the biological foundation of altruism is its parachiality: altruism to “our own” (no matter how they are defined) is combined with distrust, lack of help or causing injury to “outsiders”.
Since people are highly social, the spread of altruism is also helped by the fact that an altruist can count on a higher social status. (Honor and respect to those who saved the tribe from enemies, fed it to its full, etc.) And status, in turn, until recently clearly helped reproductive success – especially in men. Groups that did not encourage parachial altruism lost out in competition with competing groups.�
Are there any altruistic actions that obviously do not lead to the reproductive success of the altruist? Yes, of course. Natural selection is not so precise as to leave only ideal behaviors. For selection, it is enough that altruism increases the chances on AVERAGE, and not absolutely always.
Yes! If we talk about a reasonable person, then yes. “Altruists”, when viewed broadly, don't really exist. Any of our actions and decisions are aimed at getting our own benefit. Whether it's material, political, economic, spiritual, etc…
Anyone who doesn't like this answer, I'll ask you a problem.: Try to think up (not do or commit) at least one altruistic action on your own behalf? You can't do that. Any decision you make (if it is honest) will be selfish in nature.
Imagine a person walking along a road and seeing a grandmother who can't cross the road. And he is in a very big hurry , and he has a choice: Either he helps his grandmother cross the road and is late for the meeting of his whole life, or he does not help. One person will pass by on the basis of their own material benefits (if they were in a hurry to meet their partners), another on the basis of spiritual benefits (to meet their love), and the third person will help his grandmother (despite the fact that he was also in a hurry to meet his whole life), because otherwise he will not forgive himself later, In any case, he will choose WHAT IS MORE COMFORTABLE AND PROFITABLE for HIM.