Adams states that, "admiring such acts and their motives depends on the premise that they constitute really excellent features of interpersonal relationship, and that there is no comparably great excellence of intrapersonal relationship that would be constituted by holding back more for one's own good." I find this to be a finally crafted concluding sentence for his argument on why altruism is excellent. His argument allows for him room to discredit acts of selflessness and unselfishness when they are done out of lack of respect for one's self.
Adams took on a very controversial topic and went with a strong argument. He not only stated that one could act in a way that would be entirely for the good of another, but that there is a right and wrong way to do so as well. He explores the latter in the section on self-sacrifice. He makes the argument that the "relational significance of self-sacrifice is not that the self is destroyed but that the self is given; and it is enhanced by the excellence of the self that is given." I enjoy his concept of the self and I agree with his argument. Self-sacrifice, when done excellently, seems to embody the idea of a self (mind, intellectual force) that can transcend the physical world and its limitations through the construction and deliverance of meaning; and in the case of self-sacrifice, the hopes of giving ultimate and life protecting meaning.
Adams, through his definition and argument, can also get away with saying that self sacrifice is not an act of selflessness, but unselfishness, because his idea (and I agree) of the self is one that can and does transfer and develope meaning through means which go beyond physical barriers. This goes against the idea that, once a person is dead, their value dissipates, which devalues the effect and power of the human mind and the virtue it may produce (that could have far larger implications than a mere lifetime).
1 comment:
Generally I agree with Johnn and with Adams that selflessness is not necessarily a prerequisite of altruism. But it sounds like both are saying self-respect and proper self-regard are essential to excellence in altruism.
Does this mean that the best acts of altruism are those in which the agent maintains self-preservation? Can we not be excellently for the good when we abandon or own self-value? It sounds like Adams says we cannot, but I think we can. I don't see how an act qualifies as altruism if it doesn't include some cost to the self, whether it is time, money, attention, life, etc. Don't we admire the people who sacrifice the most as being the most altruistic?
Post a Comment