Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#2The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311...
Abstract:
> Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral intuitions. Yet consequentialism involves endorsing not just instrumental harm, but also impartial beneficence, treating the well-being of every individual as equally important. In four studies (total N = 2086), we investigated preferences for consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist social partners endorsing instrumental harm or impartial beneficence and examined how such preferences varied across different types of social relationships. Our results demonstrate robust preferences for non-consequentialist over consequentialist agents in the domain of instrumental harm, and weaker – but still evident – preferences in the domain of impartial beneficence. In the domain of instrumental harm, non-consequentialist agents were consistently viewed as more moral and trustworthy, preferred for a range of social roles, and entrusted with more money in economic exchanges. In the domain of impartial beneficence, preferences for non-consequentialist agents were observed for close interpersonal relationships requiring direct interaction (friend, spouse) but not for more distant roles with little-to-no personal interaction (political leader). Collectively our findings demonstrate that preferences for non-consequentialist agents are sensitive to the different dimensions of consequentialist thinking and the relational context.
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#3The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311... Abstract: > Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral i…
For those who have studied Philosophical Ethics in High School or Undergrad, you'll probably be familiar with the term "deontological" (lit. 'derived from god') but are perhaps not used to the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism". Per the study, "consequentialism" is Utilitarianism, which may be more familiar to you.
> "...said to be making a “consequentialist” (or “utilitarian”) judgment in line with consequentialist ethical theories (Bentham, 1789/1983; Mill, 1863)."
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#4There was some interesting discussion on reddit about this
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/cx7me3/morality...
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#5I haven't read the article yet, but what is this title?
I thought that one of the characteristics of altruism is that it's not attractive.
Definition of altruism:
>unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others charitable acts motivated purely by altruism
>behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
edit after skimming the article: Perhaps they meant to say "Altruists are not always attractive"
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#6A related piece from Jeremy Waldron on the topic of "moral distance":
"The parable of the Good Samaritan, as it has become known, is cited most often by moral philosophers to open a debate about the duty to rescue [...] We all agree that it was wrong for the thieves to attack the man, and that it would be equally wrong for the Samaritan, the priest, or the Levite to join in such an attack. The hard question is: do the Samaritan, the priest, or the Levite also have an obligation to help the man who fell among thieves?"
https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/menonfall16/files/2016...
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#7The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311... Abstract: > Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral i…
For those who have studied Philosophical Ethics in High School or Undergrad, you'll probably be familiar with the term "deontological" (lit. 'derived from god') but are perhaps not used to the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism". Per the study, "consequentialism" is Utilitarianism, which may be more familiar to you. > "...said to be making a “consequentialist” (or “utilitarian”) judgment in line with conseq…
Strictly, there are other forms of consequentialism besides utilitarianism, though utilitarianism is perhaps the most familiar.
Consequentialism means (duh) judging your morality based on the consequences of your actions. Utilitarianism means making that judgment in terms of some quantifiable "utility" or "value". But there are other ways to make that judgment, including applying intuition or even applying some kind of deontological deity-given rules.
The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework").
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#8People look for mates who will care for them. If you value the group over the individual then that's less likely.
The ideal, surely, is someone who looks after themselves, their partner and their friends foremost and the group after that.
When those two things come into conflict, however...
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#9The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311... Abstract: > Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral i…
For those who have studied Philosophical Ethics in High School or Undergrad, you'll probably be familiar with the term "deontological" (lit. 'derived from god') but are perhaps not used to the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism". Per the study, "consequentialism" is Utilitarianism, which may be more familiar to you. > "...said to be making a “consequentialist” (or “utilitarian”) judgment in line with conseq…
Hate to nitpick, but 'deont' in deontology does not come from the (latin) root "deus', rather from the Greek root 'deont' - that which pertains to duty.
Re: Altruism Isn’t Always Attractive
#10I haven't read the article yet, but what is this title? I thought that one of the characteristics of altruism is that it's not attractive. Definition of altruism: >unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others charitable acts motivated purely by altruism >behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species edit after skimming the article: Per…
[deleted]