On page 69, he states, “you may believe that you can desire such altruism for people you love, for their own good, regardless of other goods it may cost them. ... I needn’t argue with you, for you already accept the main conclusions of this chapter.” He gives several arguments for it, but I think he fails to address, what love does to a person. I believe for people you love you want what is best for them. The individuals that you love you want to protect, and keep safe. Thus, it would seem almost counter intuitive that you would desire altruism for people you love. It is counter intuitive because why would you want a person you love to put his life into danger, or a self-sacrifice which would diminish their happiness? You wouldn’t.
Yes, it can be argued that it would make the person you love a better person. That you can admire that person, and love him for being a better person, but it seems that you would love the person for who they are. Altruism is something good at a cost, and perhaps to a loved there is no cost worth a love’s happiness. Altruism is a good thing, but it is a double-edged sword. I find that Adams is mistaken in calling it excellence. I feel as if this is much like other scenarios discussed in class such as killing one person to save five.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe wanting altruism for someone you love goes way beyond what you state here and I believe Adams feels the same way. It is not simply wanting the one you love to be a better person. Adams argues that altruism is an intrinsic good that instrumentally yeilds a great number of goods as well at times. He argues that altruism is self-regarding, which automatically means that the altruistic agent is involved in the result. He argues that altruism does not amount to selflessness. He does not wish for selfishness, but one need not be selfless either. He finds that some of the greatest goods in one's life can only be found through deep, meaningful relationships with others, which requires a degree of altruism. Would you not want your loved ones to have these relationships? Perhaps wanting your loved one to be a good person is part of the story. However, I feel like even if one simply seeks happiness for his loved ones, he would necessarily wish for his loved ones to disply altruistic motivations. Selfishness does not provide for nearly as many rich and satisying interpersonal goods that altruism allows for. These goods tend to outweigh the benefits lost through altruism. Thus, I believe most people would wish altruism on their loved ones.
I feel like you’re exaggerating the costs and benefits of altruism. Altruism doesn’t require one to self-sacrifice to the point of misery or even anywhere close, it’s merely giving up some of your own free time and hard work to others. If you get satisfaction from helping others then the self-sacrifice involved is virtually negated. We might also be inclined to say that a person –should- get satisfaction from helping others, which would strengthen the idea that any loss from altruism is negligible compared to the benefits. That might sound like a consequentialist notion, but since we aren’t looking to justify altruism through maximizing well-being we’re really not in danger of being called consequentialist.
Adams makes a short argument early in the chapter which I think might also apply here. The argument is a brief reductio ad absurdum proving that we should value altruism in a person. Imagine a loved one who has no altruistic qualities to him at all. You might find this person undesirable because he’s too selfish or self-centered. This would show that you really do want your loved ones to have some amount of altruism, even at the slight cost to themselves. Or, as Adams also suggests, you could at worst be ambivalent towards altruism – neither desiring it nor wishing the person didn’t have it. This also sounds plausible to me, but I think people really would want their loved ones to be altruistic.
I disagree with this post because it is based on the idea that altruism hinders the individual in some way. I disagree with that because i have been altruistic in my life at times and i have never found that i lost a part of myself or suffered in some way. any difficulties that one suffers from being altruistic is part of the experience and enhances it alltogether and creates a new and enriching experience. Because of this adams is right in saying that it is excellent because altruism is tis own unique and beneficial experience for all involved.
Post a Comment