Re: sorry meant this link:salrushdyMay 15 2009, 04:28:27 UTC
the paper is long, but I went through the conclusions anything really new I had learn: "intentionality axis cannot be reduced to rationality axes" so what is this irreducible part about is it there at all? I never claim that sympathy is far differs from compassion i never really can grade this stuffs...
I am not sure he was completely right by canceling sympathy as a rational actions. Maybe it is rational? Try to explore the answer in biology.
Why should human help another human? For the humans in the near circle (family or extended familiy) Hume discussed above.
But for a stranger? One reason may be for self satisfaction or for gain/reward. Another reason may be an upgraded instinct. Animals that live in groups may help each other. Maybe we define all humanhood as a big group? And also include the animals?
I've also found a semantic explanation: The definition of true altruisem is the helping to others for no gain or reward. Thus, altruisem should be worth nothing! :-)
Exactly, I would conceive of altruism as a rational requirement on action. there is no need to postulate a benevolent desire to explain altruism. Willing a world in which everyone has a policy of not helping others, while knowing that you will need help, would be inconsistent, so we must will to help those who are in need. You take your own ends to be good and worth pursuing, so consistency requires that you treat the ends of others as good and worth pursuing. This suggests that we have reason to help not only those in need, but anyone we are in a position to help.
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
but I went through the conclusions
anything really new I had learn:
"intentionality axis cannot be reduced to
rationality axes"
so what is this irreducible part about
is it there at all?
I never claim that sympathy is
far differs from compassion
i never really can grade this stuffs...
Reply
Why should human help another human? For the humans in the near circle (family or extended familiy) Hume discussed above.
But for a stranger? One reason may be for self satisfaction or for gain/reward. Another reason may be an upgraded instinct. Animals that live in groups may help each other. Maybe we define all humanhood as a big group? And also include the animals?
I've also found a semantic explanation: The definition of true altruisem is the helping to others for no gain or reward. Thus, altruisem should be worth nothing! :-)
Reply
I would conceive of altruism as a rational requirement on action. there is no need to postulate a benevolent desire to explain altruism. Willing a world in which everyone has a policy of not helping others, while knowing that you will need help, would be inconsistent, so we must will to help those who are in need. You take your own ends to be good and worth pursuing, so consistency requires that you treat the ends of others as good and worth pursuing. This suggests that we have reason to help not only those in need, but anyone we are in a position to help.
Reply
Leave a comment