Philosophy Now Forum

What causes a good person to be good? Why would a person be kind to others? How does altruism take hold of a person? Is this a congenital trait or a learned behavior?

I, for one, am puzzled by what might be the motivation to put the needs of others ahead of one’s own. Not everyone is trying to live the good life. That means that a good person at times may need to protect his self-interests from badasses and brutes.

We often hear that family comes first. Is this to say that a person is to put the interests of a relatively small number of people ahead of everyone else? Would that be altruistic?

The American West was known as the Wild West, as the code of the West was “every man for himself.” Why should it be otherwise today?

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:39 pm The American West was known as the Wild West, as the code of the West was “every man for himself.” Why should it be otherwise today?

Because it takes too long to specialise if I am going to be a Doctor for myself, and an accountant for myself, and a lawyer for myself, and a plumber for myself, and a fireman for myself, and a pilot for myself...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour

If you like all the things you get by being part of a civilized society (personally, I like bakeries but I can't bake for shit) then you probably ought to create some value in return.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:39 pm We often hear that family comes first. Is this to say that a person is to put the interests of a relatively small number of people ahead of everyone else? Would that be altruistic?

There are too many people in this world to 'care' for everyone equally. As best as we can do is that we can create a society to eliminate needless pain/suffering, but we aren't out to make everybody drive a Ferrari.

A phrase I heard somewhere (that I can't quote verbatim) from somebody that I can't reference went something like this:

Politics is not sale-invariant.

At federal/constitutional level I am a libertarian.
At state level I am a Republican.
At local/municipal level I am a Democrat.
At home I am a socialist/communist.

Your first two paragraphs are answered by psychologists who have studied moral development.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 11:20 pm Your first two paragraphs are answered by psychologists who have studied moral development.

It hadn’t occurred to me that this had been worked out at all. I am interested in seeing how congruous the studies have been. I’ll do some research on that.

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:44 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:39 pm The American West was known as the Wild West, as the code of the West was “every man for himself.” Why should it be otherwise today?

Because it takes too long to specialise if I am going to be a Doctor for myself, and an accountant for myself, and a lawyer for myself, and a plumber for myself, and a fireman for myself, and a pilot for myself...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour

If you like all the things you get by being part of a civilized society (personally, I like bakeries but I can't bake for shit) then you probably ought to create some value in return.

Right. This should have been obvious to me.

But let’s say I have become a plumber. Wouldn’t my primary goal in earning money be to secure profit for myself and my family, and at best a secondary goal of contributing to the welfare of just some of the far too many to care for? Would I be any more an altruist than that?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:20 am But let’s say I have become a plumber. Wouldn’t my primary goal in earning money be to secure profit for myself and my family, and at best a secondary goal of contributing to the welfare of just some of the far too many to care for? Would I be any more an altruist than that?

I would say that "earning money" is a constrained goal given your first choice (to be a plumber).

If you were optimizing for money first - why not a bank robber?

But, on your point re: welfare. Do some approximate math on available vs needed funding. There's simply not enough for everyone.
You are forced to prioritize. Which necessarily means you have to know what is more; and what is less important.

Univalence wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:35 am You are forced to prioritize. Which necessarily means you have to know what is more; and what is less important.

Is there any reason not to decide that what’s most important is myself and my family?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:50 am Is there any reason not to decide that what’s most important is myself and my family?

Methinks prioritising otherwise would be irresponsible. The world is too complex for me to fix it all.

My household is less complex. I can fix that.

Would you describe yourself as selfless or selfish?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 4:21 pm Would you describe yourself as selfless or selfish?

Rational egoist. Which is not the same as selfish.

If it's in my long-term best interest I would make short-term self-sacrifices.