When I mention altruism I do not primarily mean sentiments of generosity or solidarity or sympathy, I mean
the ethical doctrine first articulated by Auguste Comte that the moral worth of an action is determined by its selflessness.
Auguste Comte may have been the first to try to articulate this idea as a formal ethical doctrine, but the idea itself goes back at least as far as Jesus. (Remember the "whited sepulchres," for example.)
So I think I did understand your meaning, and tried to address this issue in my first several posts (including those to AJ).
My general conclusion was this: from the point of view of the "spiritual health" of the individual performing the "altruistic" act, the degree of selflessness, i.e., the motive, is important. An example: if you make a big contribution to charity only in order to impress other people, you will not "grow" spiritually as much as you would if your giving was motivated by real empathy for the recipient. (At the same time, giving "in order to save one's soul" -- which is also a "selfish" motive -- is okay.)
But from the point of view of the recipient, and of society in general, it does not matter what the motivation for an altruistic act is, IMO. A good deed is objectively a good deed, whatever inspired it. And personally, I would not look a gift horse in the mouth.
The basic problem here, as I see it, is that our language forces us to compare an apple to an orange: "selfishness" (bad!) to "altruism" (good!). We need some new, more objective, terms. |
