I think Bill believes that altruism involves an obligation – that people are altruistic because they feel a duty to do a certain thing. Therefore, if you are doing something nice because you feel obligated (by whatever force) to do it, then you have not freely chosen this act.
Wikipedia gives the etymology of the word, which does mention obligation frequently. The word "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the "greater good" of humanity. "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
So, under that definition perhaps there can not be altruism and freedom.
I propose that there is something deeper that compels some people to feel obligated to help others even if it is at a cost to themselves. The conclusion to feel as if your life should be in some way devoted to the service of others is a decision that every person can chose to accept or deny for themselves. Therefore, freedom and altruism do exist.
I think that altruism is a necessary component of being a member of society. But like anything else too much of a good thing can be bad, like Jehovah's witnesses. And politicians. Most of them probably think the laws they make are in the spirit of altruism, but clearly many simply impede the freedoms of others. So a balance is what is important, I believe.
I think Bill believes that altruism involves an obligation – that people are altruistic because they feel a duty to do a certain thing. Therefore, if you are doing something nice because you feel obligated (by whatever force) to do it, then you have not freely chosen this act.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia gives the etymology of the word, which does mention obligation frequently. The word "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the "greater good" of humanity. "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
So, under that definition perhaps there can not be altruism and freedom.
I propose that there is something deeper that compels some people to feel obligated to help others even if it is at a cost to themselves. The conclusion to feel as if your life should be in some way devoted to the service of others is a decision that every person can chose to accept or deny for themselves. Therefore, freedom and altruism do exist.
We should ask a nun this question.
ReplyDeleteI think that altruism is a necessary component of being a member of society. But like anything else too much of a good thing can be bad, like Jehovah's witnesses. And politicians. Most of them probably think the laws they make are in the spirit of altruism, but clearly many simply impede the freedoms of others. So a balance is what is important, I believe.