| | Hi Tibor. I'm not sure what a "bona fide altruist" is. You seem to be trying to dismiss some people as not "real" altruists. If someone supports their altruism by claiming that it leads to some other benefit not real?
If we take some religious people, they may believe the essence of morality is to help other people "first and foremost". But what reason do they have for accepting this? If they believe God wants them to do it, and that they will please God and maybe get into heaven, isn't that ultimately aimed at their own benefit? Are they not real altruists? Are the only real altruists those who have no reason at all for accepting altruism?
I think my article was focused on "bona fide" altruists. I think one can be an altruist and accept altruism because they believe it ultimately is beneficial for themselves as well. Perhaps that's just a rationalization. Or maybe they've been convinced that selfishness leads to destruction and chaos, and only altruism can lead to harmony and peace. But even if there is a self-interested motive deep down, that doesn't change their decision-making process. They are still altruists.
My article brought up the fact that they can never quite decide if altruism should be accepted because it leads to good results or not. On one hand they are suspicious of any self-benefit. On the other hand, if you don't have some benefit, the whole moral system becomes pointless.
|
|
