Must you always be risking something in order to be doing something altruistic? Or in other words, must an act be at a cost to you for it to be altruistic?
Let's say I'm locked out of my house and I have to wait a few hours for my parents to return and let me back inside. At the current moment, I have nothing to do. Then, I witness a small car accident and I choose to help the people in the car accident by keeping the kids preoccupied while the adults figure everything out.
I had nothing to do previously, so I'm not losing anything by helping out.
Another example would be doing something considerably negative, such as watching a pointless television show or procrastinating, when a chance to partake in an altruistic act arises. In this sense, I would actually be gaining the ability to do something worth-while.
So my current response is that altruism cannot be defined as a charitable act at the cost to the altruist.
No comments:
Post a Comment