Altruism

The three articles assigned were very captivating reads. The political climate today leads to many outcries of unfairness in our society, whether that be related to financial unfairness (income inequality, for example) or social unfairness (police brutality maybe?). I would say that in general, people look out for themselves. Although I understand this innate characteristic (it could be argued that this is an evolutionary trait, as it’s seen in the chimpanzee study from the first article) I’ve always found it odd. Are material objects, that have no meaning other than arbitrary value we place on it, more important than human connections and relationships? Is having 3 marbles better than making a friend with whom you could play marbles with? I think this is a bizarre way to look at things, but I wanted to mention it for the purposes of having it on my blog. 

I do think that someone with more to give is more likely to do so, as they have more leeway with their income. In terms of altruism and gift exchange, an interesting thought is considering whether it is a fortunate person’s responsibility to share their wealth (via money, time, volunteering, etc.). I personally go back and forth on the matter. It’s easy for me to see the argument behind the idea that it falls on the backs of those who can afford to give to do so. It makes sense that those who can barely make rent and put food on the table should not be burdened with also then contributing money (or time) for altruistic matters. In that case, the responsibility would obviously fall on the wealthy. However, I also struggle morally with judging someone for how they spend their earned income. An example of this is the tragedy of the Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral. The beautiful cathedral was destroyed by fire on April 15^th2019 and, by April 22^nd2019, over 1 billion dollars was raised for a complete restoration. I was overjoyed hearing the news but quickly discovered that this was not the appropriate reaction, as many people (especially those in my age range) were livid. The debate arose that this was a commentary on how selfish and terrible rich people are: they could band together to raise 1 billion dollars in a matter of a week yet couldn’t mirror that altruism for issues such as poverty, world hunger, refugees, environmental causes, etc.? If I’m being honest, I don’t agree with this mentality at all. People should be free to spend as they please, and there’s no saying that the donators were not also giving to environmental research or non-profits that help Syrian refugees. In my opinion, shaming someone for not donating their funds to causes that you deem valid is, in itself, selfish. 

I often hear people talk about how no seemingly altruistic action is actually genuine, as it makes the doer feel good about themselves, and is thus selfish. I vehemently disagree with this. Although self-satisfaction is a side effect of giving to others, it is more or less unavoidable. In general, an altruistic action is admirable and positive, so those who partake in it will feel similarly about themselves. There are plenty of people who have the means to give, the opportunity to give, and yet still don’t do so. Therefore, taking the step to do something kind and (almost) selfless should not be looked down upon due to it simultaneously making you feel good about yourself. 

I think that child-like want for fairness is still within us today, fighting against our adult understanding that there should be compensation for our actions. It can be difficult to not view everyone through the lens of them being selfish, but it’s necessary for a cohesive society. There are likely to be people who are rich and also unwilling to share their marbles, but there is really no use in fixating on them. It would be more helpful to try and be altruistic in our day to day lives. Finding causes that one is passionate about, such as architecture or history in the Notre Dame example, and giving time or money to it is an easy way to incorporate altruism into one’s life.