--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> wrote: > And in > fact, psychologists and most people in general, would > agree that "pure" altruism doesn't > really exist because you're feeding your beliefs about > what is right and wiling to sacrifice > material comfort for the "greater good" because YOU > think it is the right thing and your > sense of discomfort at not doing the right thing > overrides your sense of discomfort at > some "lower value" on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. >
I agree with this, Claudio. Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains differences in perspectives of what the words selfish and altruistic mean. For one thing, they mean different things at different levels of needs. For another, I think the judgmental quality of the words renders them ultimately meaningless, and maybe that's what you're indicating by putting quotes around "pure" altruism. For someone who doesn't have food or any other basics, being selfish might mean stealing food from someone else. For someone who has a few levels of need met (such as having enough food), stealing food might be painful since it would conflict with one's sense of justice/order/morality/beauty. So to serve oneself by avoiding pain, one would avoid stealing food. The actions in both these examples could be classified as selfish. Now looking at it from the other side.... Someone who is starving and has no other levels met might not share a meager portion of hard-won food. Yes, it might be called altruistic for that person to give the food away, and it might be called foolish or insane. But it depends on who the food is going to. A grandmother might "selfishly" give the food to her grandchild so the child can survive and carry on the grandmother's genes. That's how we got here, that's how we'll continue our race. Selfish? Altruistic? The definitions get blurry. I prefer looking at the acts and their motivations (as best we can identify them) rather than classifying them according to what seems like a judgmental spectrum from selfish to altruistic. Someone who has a few levels of need satisfied already might find that their higher needs are SERVED by giving away food. They might very well feel an inner guidance to give away food. Heeding that inner guidance need not be either selfish or altruistic -- it is just there and when one is self-actualized, one is strongly motivated to heed one's inner guidance, regardless of what convention (or hunger) might prescribe. So what I'm saying is that yesterday, a self-actualized starver might have felt guided to give away hard-won morsels -- not out of a sense of altruism but out of a sense of right action. Today, the same starver might be guided to fight for his own and not give a crumb, again out of a sense of right action. This could be perfectly consistent with right action, and yet seem totally inconsistent to an outside observer who might wonder whether selfishness or altruism guides the self-actualized person. I think neither concept does justice to the dynamic. It is more comprehensive to consider the motivations and actions without imposing a prejudicial value system upon the situation.
