Category: Altruism

Abstract

Andrew Carnegie can be viewed as a person who could combine both altruistic and egoistic qualities. He can be accused of violating the rights of workers or even exploiting them. Nevertheless, he was willing to donate money to various charitable organizations. In his view, it was a moral responsibility of a well-to-do person to act in this way. To a great extent, his activities contributed to the social development of the United States. Thus, one cannot say that altruism and egoism are irreconcilable. These are the main aspects that can be singled out.

Understanding Altruism

Researchers and psychologists debate various aspects of a persons behavior; much attention is usually paid to such conflicting values as self-interest and altruism. Very often, it is argued that egoism underlies various decisions of a person. In turn, the opponents of this viewpoint believe that the concern for the welfare of others is an inseparable part of being human. Overall, it is possible to say that these ethical principles can co-exist. This argument can be illustrated by looking at a famous industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, who could be both an egoist and an altruist at the same time. These are the main issues that should be discussed more closely.

It should first be noted that by contemporary standards of social responsibility, Andrew Carnegie can be regarded as an unscrupulous individual who was concerned primarily with the profitability of his enterprises, rather than the welfare of other stakeholders such as workers. For instance, one can mention his attempt to quell the Homestead strike, which resulted in numerous causalities (Krause, 1992, p. 3). Certainly, such incidents could be widespread in the second half of the nineteenth century. At that time, many entrepreneurs could adopt similar strategies. Nevertheless, this incident tarnished Andrew Carnegies reputation. This is one of the points that can be made.

Nevertheless, it is important to mention that Andrew Carnegie perceived money as a method of achieving various objectives that were not always related to his own well-being. For instance, one should mention he had given away $350,695,653, which was an enormous amount of money in 1919. In fact, he spent more than 90 percent of his fortune on charity (Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, 2010). Admittedly, one can say that these charitable activities could be aimed at raising his self-esteem. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that many contemporary industrialists spent their capital on luxury objects, but they did not donate money to educational institutions or libraries. In contrast, Carnegie believed that this investment could be critical for social progress. Apart from that, he believed that it had been a moral responsibility of a wealthy person to spend his/her money on charity. Therefore, one can say that he embraced altruistic values. Moreover, many criticisms of Carnegie are unfounded.

On the whole, one can argue that people cannot be divided into two opposing groups, such as egoists and altruists. The main issue is that a person can combine two forms of behavior. Andrew Carnegie can be regarded as an example of an individual who incorporated both altruistic and egoistic qualities. The decisions that he took during his lifetime were aimed at promoting his self-interest as well as the welfare of the community. Thus, his behavior was guided by opposing ethical principles. This issue is important for understanding the complexity of his character. These are aspects that can be distinguished.

Reference List

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. (2010). Andrew Carnegie: A Tribute. Web.

Krause, P. (1992). The Battle for Homestead, 1880-1892: Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Peter Singer provides a variety of resources and insights into the question of charity and giving aid to foreign infinities and people in poverty. He clearly asserts that he doesn’t believe people do as much as they should, and thus should follow their moral obligation to give a percentage of their wealth. I think one of the arguments with this question is the concept of nations helping others, even though they may feel a special obligation to help their own citizens that could be in lesser need. As singer states in his paper Famine, Affluence, and Mortality, “The fact that a person is physically near to us… may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away.” (Singer, 1972). This assertion suggests often people focus on the ones near them or in their nation while really their obligation is to the people that need it most. This is a volatile issue today, especially in the political world we live in where some countries are in conflict and deny the cries of the most impoverished while building their own country greater.

The negative arguments against this theory and to this question do not so much revolve around the concept of others, but rather on the ways and resources to help with. One issue that Singer addresses in his above-mentioned paper is that sometimes the charities that receive the “morally obligated” donations use them to do what they think is helpful to an impoverished country without asking. In the example in the reading of the water well play pump case study, millions were spent on a supposed more efficient solution to pumping water that the locals ending up detesting and stating were less effective and hurt the supply. Money being used for things like this were proposed to bring about the most happiness, but ultimately wasted money and left a community with nothing (Wisor, 2017). Situations like these and the global issue of “voluntourism” can come from a feeling of moral obligation to help but not be for the right reasons and ultimately not help.

The basis of this ethical dilemma is if people with the means to give are obligated to do so and assist with poverty, and I believe that answer is yes. Maybe not always in the exact thoughts of percentages given and requiring people who see others not giving to cover for them, but giving to the point of marginal utility makes sense. I think along with the obligation to give comes the responsibility to be sure the NGO or other agency you give to is valid and uses the money appropriately and with altruism in mind to ensure the greatest benefit for the impoverished. However, I think that the bottom line is that Peter Singer’s philosophy on effective altruism raises a lot of valid points that solidify peoples moral duty to help those less fortunate when they have the means to do so.

From my personal standpoint, habitually, people talk about love, what is it to love someone unconditionally, the genuineness of love, and the line between self-love and self-less love, but we do not delve about its true essence. Misconceptions always play with certainty about the efficacy and value of love which thereby holds us back to promote and generate love toward others. Love does not entail possessiveness nor prorietorial. People view love as the possession of something or someone that needs and has to be obtained and preserved. To expect and assume others ought to provide it to us unconditionally to make ourselves feel loved and filled with love is the biggest fallacy, which costs us much unhappiness. Love can be beautiful and intoxicating, heartbreaking and soul-crushing, or often all at the same time. Does love make our lives meaningful, or is it a trick of biology to make us reproduce and procreate? As a towering intellect and ever evolving piece of his knowledge; plato, once said that love makes us whole again. Love in its purest form need not to be demanded and clamored from others. Well, we can’t deny the fact that we normally blame ourselves for not feeling and being loved by someone, but its merely unorthodox to blame others for not loving us.

Environmental ethics gears with the moral and ethical relationship of human beings in a natural environment, the value of its moral status concerning the environment and non-human properties (Brennan, et. al., 2016). It helps describe human’s moral and ethical obligation with regards to the environment. Callicot suggests that we have an active and intrinsic motivation to protect and preserve the environment, be it to the areas where plants and animals reside that knots to love for the environment although by means, people are often justified and accounted to that of human-centered benefits. Moreover, human liberation and rights really came from the perspective of the moral and ethical paradigms in philosophy in which they are embedded. Interestingly, the vast existence of resources and natural wealth present can make our moral and ethical attitudes turn into munificence, benefitting not only to human social welfares, but also the animals and environment. The viewpoint seen in humans for environmental preservation and protection links to love for the environment itself. The idea of love is applied to love of humans, love of animals and love of nature, the “do no harm” applies not only to humans but also to the non-human contents of the environment.

Bioethics, or simply, the love of life, looks at ethical issues that arise in virtue of our biological nature, of the fact that we are embodied and not just minds. We can find various definitions of bioethics, the simplest would be that is it considered as one of the ethical issues raised by queries involving life. It is an important field as we get more in the arena of understanding science and the fact that we can do things with biological sciences that has an impact on a human being means we must have ethical standards (Macer, 1998). The intrinsic or inner motivation and strength for ethical behaviour comes from love, it uses the idea of love of life as a ground for respect of life. To answer and elucidate the questions whether love of life is tantamount to bioethics, we should consider how humans view bioethics. Primarily, the way people view life in general, their responsibilites and moral interactions with living organisms, and how they describe the systems of organizations that the society thrive to protect bioethical values. Presently, considering the modern technology, there are a lot of bioethical issues, for example, if someone is trying to formulate or develop a new drug or vaccine, and it has to undergo experimentation, there has to be some fundamental principles of ethics that guides what a person can and cannot do when dealing with another human being. The resemblance and interrelatedness of all living organisms can be easily seen in most societies. Bioethics has origins in the connection and relationship between animals and nature, through evolution, Wright stated that not only humans, but animals do also possess brotherly love and it has seen as an advantage for survival in a community if all has a love for each other in all social beings. Living organisms including humans and animals also exhibit non-selfish behavior, and it is called Altruism.

Altruism is the sense of being selfless to others. Giving a handful of help to someone who needs the least and most (Kraut, Richard, 2018). As the simple saying goes, “Big differences came from small things.” What causes people to help? To risk one’s life to save the life of a stranger? In other words, what are the causes of someone or anybody else’s capacity for altruism? One answer is compassion, obviously, which is a key driver of altruism, but when u delve deeper through the capacity of human nature to care for others, that is when the efficacy of love changes the plot. Auguste Comte stressed that these altruists literally don’t think of themselves as being the center of anything, as being better or more inherently important than anybody else, which entails that altruistic love is the supreme kind of love. However, attitude is everything. On a personal note, this is where integrity comes because when you do moral deeds to others, you opt to set and preserve your values and standards of being a “kapwa” to others. You help someone because it is your act of sharing and showing your love for God and mankind. As the law of nature says, everything comes back when you do good to others, say nice things and think good thoughts. Not expecting something in exchange for, but it is the feeling of wholeness and fulfillment as a person.

Love of nature, love of ourselves, and love of others appears to be in common threads, or a major thread catenating all of humankind with each other, and within the environment. One of the facets or aspects of nature that humanity seem to love is the heterogeneity of living organisms. If we consider the environmental and bioethics, we must also comprise the duties and responsibilities we have to humanity as well as to the nature.

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine differences in the altruism of men and women and contextualise with conclusions/future postulations of Simmons and Emanuele. Two Hundred and seventy participants were asked to complete The Self Report Altruism Scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn & Fekken, 1981), which required the participants to indicate on a scale from never to very often 20 items that discussed a variety of altruistic behaviours. Participants’ answers were collected and ranged from 20 (low altruism) to 100 (high altruism). Results were found to be non-significant and little numerical difference between the mean male and female altruism scores was observed. These results were inconsistent with Simmons and Emanuele’s (2007) findings that females are more altruistic than males.]

Gender Differences and Altruistic Behaviour

There is rapid growth in literature examining the concept of altruism and what affects and influences individuals to behave more altruistically and which type of individuals are likely to be more altruistic. Altruism is the selfless concern for happiness and wellbeing of others. Altruism is the behaviour or action of helping someone else without any expectation of reward or regard to your own self-intertest. An example of altruistic behaviour would be if an individual donated money or their time to a charity/organisation or helped someone, whether that be a stranger or a friend without the aim of getting recognition for it.

Numerous studies have explored and investigated altruistic behaviours and how they differ between males and females. Simmons and Emanuele (2007) stated that females are more altruistic than males, as they found whilst conducting their study that women were thought to donate more of both money and time compared with males. Another previous study found that women were increasingly more generous than that of men (Andreoni & Vesterlund, 2001). They concluded that men tended to be either completely selfish or completely selfless, compared to women who tended to evenly share. Eckel and Grossman (1996), also found similarly to the other studies mentioned above that women on average donated almost twice as much time or money that that of men.

Thus, the present study aims to examine differences in the altruism of men and women and contextualise with conclusions/future postulations of Simmons and Emanuele.

It is hypothesised that Females’ altruism scores will be significantly larger compared with that of male altruism scores.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 270 undergraduate university students, comprising 217 females, 48 males, 3 other and 5 gender fluid. Participants were aged between 17 and 58 years (M=22.25, SD=6.91). Gender fluid data was excluded from this study. Participants partook in the study as a part of their course requirement and were provided with consent forms prior to commencement. Table 1 presents the frequency of the sample with an Australian Citizenship.

Table 1

Frequency of participants with Australian Citizenship

Frequency

Yes

250

No

20

Total

270

Materials

“The Self Report Altruism Scale” (SRA). The self-report scale was developed by Rushton, Chrisjohn & Fekken (1981), it was a test designed to examine and measure altruistic behaviour. It consisted of 20 items that discussed a variety of behaviours that related to helping others. The self-report scale was presented in an online format in which participants were to rate each of the 20 items under the headings ‘Never’, ‘Once’, ‘More Than Once’, ‘Often’ and ‘Very Often’, according to how frequently they engaged in that specific altruistic behaviour.

Demographic Questionnaire. Presented above The Self Report Altruism Scale, demographic data was collected. It required information on gender, age and Australian Citizenship. This demographic data would provide information on the characteristics of the sample.

Procedure

Presented in an online format participants were first asked to fill out and complete the Demographics Questionnaire, which was inquiring on their gender, age and Australian citizenship. The participants then completed the SRAS and were to identify how often they had performed each of the altruistic behaviours on a scale from very often to never. The participants’ scores can range from 20 (low altruism) to 100 (high altruism).

An example item on the SRAS is “I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger”, which a participant would then select an answer ranging from either never to very often.

Each point on the scale was worth a specific value and was scored according to these guidelines:

• Never is worth 1,
• Once is worth 2,
• More than Once is worth 3,
• Often is worth 4 and
• Very Often is worth 5

After the participants complete the SRS the score is added up and recorded.

Results

Table 2 illustrates mean difference in altruism score between males and females below.

Table 2

Mean difference of Altruism scores between males and females

M

SD

Male

52.92

12.32

Female

52.61

10.90

To investigate whether there was a difference in altruism score between the two independent groups of males and females an independent t-test was used. The t-test was not statistically significant showing no mean difference between male and female altruism scores, t(263)=0.17, p=>.05.

Discussion

The present study aimed to re-examine differences in the altruism of men and women and contextualise with conclusions/future postulations of Simmons and Emanuele’s (2007) study

The hypothesis that Females’ altruism scores will be significantly larger compared with that of male altruism scores was not supported and showed no significant difference between male and female altruism scores as show by independent samples Also, only very little numerical difference between the mean scores was observed.

These results were inconsistent with Simmons and Emanuele’s (2007) findings that females are more altruistic than males. They were also inconsistent with Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001) findings which stated that females were increasingly more generous than males. This may be due to the limited male sample in this study of only 48 men compared with 217 females. Another reason why the results may be inconsistent is due to social desirability bias, which unfortunately is very common when using self-report measures, as participants have the tendency to try and illustrate oneself in the best possible light and this can then in turn interfere and possibly distort the results collected (Fisher, 1993).

One limitation of this study is that the sample used is unrepresentative of the entire population. A large difference in the proportion of male and female participants exists as well as the fact that the participants were only selected from one particular course at one university. Having this unrepresentative sample may influence and skew the results collected and mean that valid and reliable inferences cannot be made from these results. As well as this, having an unrepresentative sample also rises the problem of whether these results can be generalised to the entire population. To ameliorate this issue the sample used in the study should more accurately replicate that of the whole population, so having a balanced ratio of females to males and also randomly selecting participants from multiple other universities.

The present study also has methodological strengths. The study includes a large sample size of 270 which means that from the results valid and reliable comments can be made. Large sample size will also ensure a more accurate mean value and will help to identify any outliers that may skew or influence the results.

The results of this present study illustrate little to no difference in altruism scores of males and females, most other studies investigating gender differences in altruism provide strong evidence that in fact yes, females are more altruistic then men. And the most likely reason this present study did not reflect what previous studies showed could be due to the unrepresentative sample which had a very disproportioned number of males to female participants producing result that didn’t reflect that of Simmons and Emanuele’s (2007).

To conclude, the present study did not support Simmons and Emanuele’ (2007) findings that females are more altruistic then males and so for the future a more representative samples may be needed. Multiple studies have looked into examining the gender differences between altruism, but very little has investigated what influences individuals to behave altruistically and in what cases are people less likely and more likely to be altruistic, this may be topic that should be researched in the future.

References

1. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293-312. doi:10.1162/003355301556419
2. Simmons, W. O., & Emanuele, R. (2007). Male-female giving differentials are women more altruistic?. Journal of Economic Studies, 34(6), 534-550. doi:10.1108/01443580710830989
3. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181-191. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0081
4. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
5. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2

The concept of focus is altruism. Altruism is the “belief of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” This concept illuminates the fact that the helper is helping without any good coming out of the situation for them. There is a belief that altruism comes from Darwin’s theory of evolution. Selfish behavior may be a form of evolution, but so is altruism. This is a moral concept that was developed years ago. This concept may have evolved from one person seeing another person suffer, and the observer wanting to help them.

Auguste Comte coined the term, and it has been used ever since. There are different forms of altruism. There is psychological, behavioral, and ethical altruism. Psychological altruism consists of intentional motivation to help others for their own sakes. Behavioral altruism is defined in terms of consequences rather than intentions: it refers to any action that benefits others. It is assumed that there will be a cost to the agent providing the care. Biological altruism is a form of behavioral altruism, which relates back to Darwinism. This form of altruism references to the decrease of energy of the organism performing it and increases the fitness of another organism. This is similar to patients receiving care from providers, while providers end up having a bad knee or bad back. There is also a fourth form of altruism that states that the happiness of others should be the principal goal of one’s actions. This belief coincides with religious and cultural ethics. Since Comte believed that humans are naturally evil presented by the Christian view, he strived to create a religion based on human understanding. He wanted to create a religion based on helping people rather than an egotistic overtake of society. He also noted a key discovery in this time that stated women are more inclined to be altruistic instead of men because of their maternal instincts. By providing this statement, he believes that women should have supreme moral and religious authority. Altruism harbored women as the center of the religion, due to their morals. There was an emphasis on feminine moral virtues and the sanctity of motherhood.

Altruism is important whether it is in healthcare or in any other sector besides healthcare. If humans live in a society where nobody is inclined to be nice to each other or help each other out, then the world can become a hard place to live in. If altruism exists, then the community can succeed and thrive as a whole. Altruism is important to give as much as it is good to receive. In terms of the importance of being the provider of altruism, it can provide a sense of self-esteem. Teaching children at a young age to have altruistic qualities can help them in their future careers. It will motivate the children to have careers that are satisfying in terms of helping others. These children can become better parents and significant others by the solid teachings of altruism. Sensitivity and awareness coincide with altruism itself. Altruism is important not only in social context, but religious context as well. In religions such as Islam and Hinduism, almsgiving is important. Altruism is similar to almsgiving, as it contributes to almsgiving. There is a belief that if we do well for others, well will happen to us. This is a karmic belief in Hinduism. Often times, altruism can be a motivating factor to become someone that helps others in need.

Altruism is important in healthcare. If nurses or doctors are not altruistic in manner, then it would be impossible for patients to receive healthcare that would help them prosper in terms of health. If a provider is caring during the patient’s stay, then it is less likely for the patient to return back to the hospital for readmission. The more attention and care provided to the patient, is beneficial for the patient and provider. Readmission rates are increasing due to less attentive behaviors from providers, but altruism can change that. If a provider is not proving utmost care for the patient, then it is questionable on the stance of the provider and why they wanted to embark their careers in healthcare. It is important to foster altruism in healthcare and in other aspects of life.

The meaning of this concept in healthcare delivery is important. In fact, altruism can be traced back to the Hippocratic Oath. As mentioned before, altruism is included in religious traditions. Some people would say that altruism is connected to pleasurable activities in the brain. In healthcare, altruism denotes self-less care for patients. This means that the provider will go above the minimum expectations to provide care for his patient. Altruism in healthcare can be exemplified by physicians providing care to patients beyond their contracted hours, or even reducing the fee for patients who cannot afford healthcare. If a physician goes the extra mile to seek out alternative treatments for their patients that is not burdensome on their wallets, that is altruism. If patients are treated as nothing but numbers and paychecks, then patients will not receive the care they need. Patients must be treated with respect, and should be given support throughout their healing. If providers no display altruistic behavior, then it is possible that the patients are not going to be satisfied with the provider. If a provider does not examine and understand the patient carefully, there is a chance that malpractice is possible. Malpractice is when a doctor misdiagnoses a patient. This can be dangerous for both the patient and provider. Altruism is important in healthcare because it may even reduce patient’s needs for medical services. Often times if patients feel they are not getting enough medical attention, they will ask for medical services that are overused. Overuse of medication by patients will make the patient resistant to services they need to improve their quality of life. The meaning of this concept in healthcare ties together with the fact that it is a provider’s responsibility to care for their patient because if they do not provide ample care, it can become a domino effect and impact people negatively. Families, along with the patients themselves, would be impacted in a negative manner if altruism is not part of their care.

The meaning of altruism to my area of practice in healthcare management is important. In my area of practice, the employees are not in direct contact with altruism itself, but there is facilitation in progress. Healthcare managers are facilitating whether or not the patients are receiving ample care through patient satisfaction surveys’, readmission rates, and other data presented by the team. To my current and future area of practice, employees need to foster altruism to ensure that patients trust with their healthcare. Quality assurance is important in my field of work because satisfaction levels rely on data nowadays. Data provided to employees of a company helps employees see whether or not the providers are providing enough effort for their patients. Altruism can be noted in surveys, and it helps quality assurance agents to evaluate the care received by patients. Me and my organization interact with the concept in a meticulous way. In quality assurance, it is important for us to maintain patient satisfaction logs and scales of how satisfied the patients are with the care being provided to them. It is important to administer necessary feedback from patients, so the management section can see how the providers are treating the patients. This would not allow for HIPAA violation either, as we would not be present in the room where the examinations are taking place.

Altruism is an important aspect on healthcare in many ways. It is vital for the patient, as much as it is vital for the providers.

Our actions and our actions and our way of living may be influenced by our surrounding environment or culture, however, some behaviours apply to all humans. Egoism is the action an individual performs for their own good and self-interest (Herbert,1892). On the other hand, altruism is defined as the act of increasing the welfare of others while decreasing your own (Douglas, 2009). Although these key terms are seen as opposites, the question remains whether genuine acts of altruism exist or whether people’s actions are only motivated by self-interest. This essay will look to explore the contrasting relationship between these two terms.

Human Nature is the fundamental characteristics and traits, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting of humans. The concept of Human Nature may vary among humans depending on different aspects, such as culture or environment. The debate of “Nature versus Nurture”, for instance, questions whether human behaviour is shaped by the environment of a human being or by their genes. “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains” wrote the philosopher, writer and composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book “The Social Contract” (1762) . He believed that humans were born inherently good but that society corrupts and changes them into selfish beings. Considering this theory, this could explain why people think that older people are wiser.

There are positive correlations between levels of altruism, age and experience. This can be rationalised as older generations were more likely to be altruistic as a result of a lesser materialistic societal view found in previous generations. So maybe people do not get wiser as they get older; they were born wise and values that have been instilled into them and the circumstances in which they grew up fed this wisdom. Although we are encouraged to be altruistic from a young age, today’s society is more likely to be selfish in some ways. The rise of consumerism and the easy access to technology made society insatiable and we do not want to abandon our comfort. People sometimes tend to be altruistic only if it is going to benefit them one way or another.

Every time a selfless act is accomplished, there is a feeling of reward and dopamine released in our body. We could wonder if the dopamine is the result of the good action or if the good action is performed to have this rewarding feeling; but unconsciously, this feeling encourages us to repeat the good action. If an altruistic act is encouraged by the benefits it generates, it can be considered as egoism; the act itself is still altruistic but the reason behind it is not. Having an altruistic behaviour does not make somebody altruistic; pure altruism comes from a psychological rather than a behavioural sense. The craving for recognition can also be the motive behind an act of generosity and some people only show altruism when they have an audience.

In April 2018, the Youtuber Tanner Fox posted a video on his channel entitled “GIVING YEEZY’S TO HOMELESS PEOPLE!”; Yeezy’s are trainers designed by the rapper Kanye West that cost hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds. Fox starts the video saying “You really thought that I was just going to give Yeezys to the homeless?”, ignoring that these are the words he used for the title, and explains the he will sell his pairs of Yeezy’s and use the money to buy food and toiletries for homeless people. He then films himself going out in the streets to distribute the bags of goods. The video has been viewed more than 3 millions times and Fox received a massive amount of positive comments for his good action. Fox’s act seems generous indeed, but his main aim was to create a reaction from people and arouse people’s recognition.

The money he received from selling his trainers is nothing compared [to what he received from his video. “You’re a rare type of human to find. Kindhearted, kind, loving to all, and caring. God bless you Tanner”, commented one of Tanner’s subscribers. The simple fact to talk to someone about a good action that you made could be considered as egoism because unconsciously, you hope the person you are talking to will have a good opinion about you. For an act to be truly altruistic, the motive behind it has to be authentic, without pretension. Parents who make sacrifices for their children, doctors who give their lives for their patients, or even charities who give time to the cause they support; those actions can be qualified as purely altruistic.

Even though there might be a rewarding feeling, it does not lower the value of the action because the action itself does not benefit the actor directly. In Tanner Fox’ case, his action benefited him more than the homeless people he helped. People often become more altruistic when they think that someone is watching them. This mechanism is considered intrapersonal rather than socially mediated which is associated with reputation seeking; it has more to do with what people will think of them. Some organisations, such as Blood Donations, also use online recognition to encourage people to donate. Kathleen Chell, a volunteer for the RSPCA partnering with the Australian Red Cross, explains that “online donor appreciation strategies […] can reinforce positive feelings received from donating while […] building the person’s identity as a donor”. Once a person has donated their blood and feels appreciated for it, they are likely to incite their friends and family to become potential donors. Research shows that we do not have as much control over our thoughts and behaviour as we think; we get influenced by our environment and other people. This phenomenon, known as social conformity or peer pressure, is a type of social influence that results in a change of behaviour or beliefs, in order to fit in with a group.

People are more susceptible to do things considered trendy or acceptable in the public eye. This increase in conformity is a result of various social media people being introduced at younger ages. Brands and organisations use peer pressure and the fear of missing out (FOMO) to promote their products and associate them with influencers, people who literally influence other people on social media, and are considered as role models to follow. When people want to appear successful and be accepted by society, it is easy to get caught up in the mix of wanting to appear a certain way. There is a heuristic most of us use to determine what to do, think, say, and buy: the principle of social proof. To learn what is correct, we look at what other people are doing.

If you see the person next to you giving money to a homeless person, you might feel the need to do so as you do not want to appear less generous than them. However, this is personal and not necessarily about contributing to someone’s well-being. If someone is asking for your help, you might accept to help them just because you do not want to seem like a bad person. This mindset is the result of societal expectations and how people are meant to behave. This again, reminds us that people are “everywhere in chains”. Rousseau felt that a proper society had no place for blame, criticism, judgment, comparison with others, and the distinction of worth among men.

Because humans are by nature saints, it must be the corrupting influence of society that is responsible for the misconduct of an individual. In opposite to Rousseau’s theory, Dawkins claims that everyone is born selfish and has to be taught altruism in some form or another (2006). From a young age, we are taught to be altruistic. If all humans were born inherently good, altruism would not have to be taught. In fact, as kids, we are rewarded for good behaviour and we assimilate altruism to a positive experience. But there is a misconception about altruism. The method of “if you are being good, you will be rewarded” is used by a lot of parents to teach their children how to behave and be kind; however, it does not teach them genuine altruism but reciprocal altruism. It is often remarked that reciprocal altruism, or reciprocity norm, cannot be qualified as genuine altruism because it is performed with the expectation of getting something in return, while true altruism is described a selfless act for the sole sake of someone’s well-being.

Empathy can also be mistaken for altruism. If you see something bad happening to somebody and you put yourself in their position, you will want to help them. However, the reason you help them is because you understand the circumstances as your own and if that happened to you, you would want someone to help you too. These emotions are related, but indirectly, empathetic people could be considered selfish as their motive to help is that they could imagine themselves being in the same uncomfortable position. These behaviours are known as prosocial behaviours.

While altruism is one possible motivation for those actions, prosocial behaviour refers to a pattern of activity. There are many things that predict whether people will help others. Another common theory, among the reciprocity norm, empathy-altruism hypothesis and altruistic personality traits, is kin selection. Kin selection is an evolutionary concept that says that people will help others who are related to them, even if it decreases their own comfort.

According to the theory of evolution, this is because we want our genes to survive for future generations. The co-operative behaviour of honey bees, for example, can be explained by kin selection. Typically, mothers take care of their own offspring. This behaviour is explained in terms of fitness; the mother is ensuring her alleles will be passed on from generation to generation. Again, this phenomenon could be seen as egoistic; by helping their offspring, queen honey bees can indirectly maintain the passing on of similar alleles. Thus, kin selection remains the principal factor behind eusociality. In Darwinian theory, this phenomenon is described as “survival of the fittest”.

Herbert Spencer (1863) first used this phrase after reading Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species” (1859), formulating the theory of evolution by natural selection, in which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits. Based on evolutionary theory, sociobiology doubts whether any human actions are altruistic. All actions are done from the ultimate motive of self-gain and survival. Self-preservation is part of Human Nature; In his book The Last Train From Hiroshima (2010), Charles Pellegrino quotes one of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb blasts as saying that those who survived were, in general, those who looked after their own safety, instead of trying to help others : ‘those who survived the bomb were […] in a greater or lesser degree selfish, self-centered–guided by instinct and not by civilisation. And we know it, we who have survived”.

In period of crisis, human beings are naturally going to do what it takes to live. For instance, during this time of pandemic, some people are only focused on their own needs and are fighting over food and other commodities instead of being united and helping each other out. Others rely on everyone to stay home so they can go out without risking too much to be infected. People who are bored at home and are ordering things online do not necessarily think of the people who are forced to keep working in extenuating circumstances, in order to deliver the parcels. These behaviours can be qualified as egoistic. On the other hand, doctors and nurses who are working everyday to save lives and risking their own, are being altruistic. When we look at these examples, we can tell that some people are truly altruistic and some are not.

Although fundamentally opposite, Rousseau’s and Dawkin’s theory both imply that society and environment has an impact on the way we become and that we can be pre-disposed to be good or bad. Studies have shown that we can be pre-disposed to be altruistic and that genes can have a role on an individual’s altruism. Some people were born altruistic, some were not. In this case, it has to be incluated to us. A non-genetic way to pass down values and ideas from an individual to another, are memes. A meme is an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means. This is the concept of international Darwinism. Today’s society draws its inspiration in previous generations and songs, stories, ideas, theories, technologies and arts are all copied with variations, in order to evolve. The memes our ancestors created have shaped our brains and allowed us to create more memes that next generations will copy as well. Just like egoism and altruism, some traits are specific to human beings and others have to be taught in a way or another.

To conclude, human beings are in constant evolution. Egoism and altruism are part of Human Nature and cannot exist without each other and, although fundamentally opposite, are extremely close. True altruism is only possible provided that it is performed with pure intentions. Factors such as culture, environment or genetics, can influence our way of thinking and behaving, which can make us more or less altruistic. However, in a society where freedom of thoughts and actions are under pressure, we could wonder if genuine altruism exists.

Bibliography

1. Spencer, H. and Machan, T. R. (1978) The principles of ethics: in 2 vol. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.
2. Spencer , H. (1864) The principles of biology: in 2 vol. Williams and Norgate. Douglas K. (2009). Altruism. 203(2720): 31-2, New Sci.
3. Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species. London, United Kingdom: James Murray.
4. Dawkins, R. (2006) The selfish gene. 30th anniversary ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Wakefield, J. C. (1993) ‘Is altruism part of human nature? Toward a theoretical foundation for the helping professions’, Social Service Review, 67(3), pp. 406–458.
6. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762) Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique et autres écrits du contrat social. Paris: Librairie Generale Franca̧ise (Le livre de Poche Classiques de la philosophie, 4644).

Altruism can appear in different forms. Whether it’s donating to a charity or volunteering, it is an act of kindness. It is seen everywhere, especially on social media. People post and talk about themselves giving a homeless man food, rescuing an animal, giving back to the community, most of all, just being a hero. However, there has been an ongoing controversy about those that help people. As sad as it sounds, there are people in this world who do actually take advantage of it either, so they can feel good about themselves or let others perceive how good of a person they are. With that being said, some people believe true altruism does exist, while others think otherwise. The textbook, “Taking Sides: Clashing View in Social Psychology” Nier (2013) defines altruism “as an unselfish interest in helping others”. Researchers are starting to investigate whether true altruism exists. The real question here is, is there really a reason behind the act of being nice or is it simply just out of care and generosity?

In multiple studies, assumptions are made that people only like to help for their own benefit. For instance, when asking why they choose to help someone, their responses are oftentimes out of remorse or guilt. This illustrates the egotistic response in which helping was not due to generosity, instead, it was an act to reduce their own distress. Along with other researchers, Cialdini (1987) believed that egoistic was the reasoning behind altruistic behavior. The first research conducted observed that in a high-empathy set, subjects displayed increased helping scores. However, when receiving a sadness eliminating the reward, they were not helpful. In the second experiment, Cialdini et. al, (1987) tested the Negative State Relief model. This time it was predicted that people help others as a response to their own selfish behaviors. Results revealed that subjects tended to be helpless when they were given to see their personal sadness as fixed. Both experiments conducted ended up showing that helping another in distress was a decision of lessening their own sadness within the observer that occurred from the elevated empathy the observer felt for the sufferer.

Other different theories believe true altruism exists. Batson argues empathy represents a huge part of why people are driven to help others. According to Baton, “when we feel empathy for another person we become genuinely concerned for their well being and are more likely to help for altruistic reasons” (pg. 421). Baton et. al (1981) led a study where subjects were to witness a woman getting electric shocks. In this case, subjects were given the choice to help. Researchers hypothesized that if empathy does lead to altruistic acts that the subject would help the woman whether the cost of escaping without helping can either be easy or difficult. As predicted results were shown and supported that empathy influences altruistic acts. Furthermore, in the second experiment, when conditions for escaping were difficult without helping, a low empathic response led to help. This indicates that when subjects were being forced to help, they would proceed to help if it was for their own good.

Taking both into consideration, I believe true altruism does exist but to a certain extent. As humans, we do have some sort of altruism in us. We have the tendency to feel and understand another person’s way of being. In other words, we can visualize what it would be like to be them. The majority of it honestly depends on the person and who they are. Some people can do things out of random kindness, while others do it for other reasons. I can also see why people say altruism is not a real thing. The choices we make in our daily life frequently result in our self-centered thoughts and, or, feeling of satisfaction when helping others.

Thus, the alternatives of our initial moral choice are asymmetrical by definition: choosing the path to Other we are finding ourselves; choosing self-affirmation against Other, we are losing everything – Other and ourselves.

Hence, our choice between good and evil, morality and amorality, is also asymmetric and uneven. For indication of the initial collision of the moral choice can be used different terms. The most transparent and usable among others are the terms of ‘Egoism’ and ‘Altruism’.

The word ‘egoism’ derived from the Latin Ego, ‘I’, appeared in late 18th century, meaning doing or seeking of that which affords pleasure or advances interest. On the contrary, the word ‘altruism’ comes from the Latin Alter, ‘Other’, and was used for the first time in 19th century by founder of positivism and one of the sociology’ fathers, a French philosopher Auguste Comte. Altruism, according to Comte, suggest ‘the elimination of selfish desire and of egocentrism, as well as leading a life devoted to the well-being of others.’ (find a reference).

The meaning of these two terms is clear enough in contrast: egoism – concentration on self-interest and self-affirmation as the biggest value; altruism – concentration on others and affirmation of them as the highest value. Because of this simplicity, the opposition between egoism and altruism appears less relevant or even overcame by contemporary society. However, main fundamentals never lose their validity, especially, when the main dimension of human’s identity is in the focus. Moreover, this modern indifference to the opposition ‘egoism vs altruism’ is asymmetric in the application: if the term ‘altruism’ is devaluated and usually omitted in modern society, the term ‘egoism’ is quite popular and sometimes elevated in a positive way. Against this tendency it is important to recognize real asymmetry in the confrontation of egoism and altruism. This asymmetry shows, as mentioned earlier, how altruism help us to find the way to I and to save it, moreover how to save others. In the meantime, egoism, in fact, is a non-fruitful and non-grateful life approach, useful only for those who are thinking in a short-term way and making money on the cult of chaotic consumerism of undeveloped human masses. It is easy to see that the strictest egoists as individuals or companies, with equality of other conditions, have the lowest culture of I.

To define the conceptual distinction between egoism and altruism the American psychologist Daniel Batson argues that it is important to see the difference between egoistic and altruistic motivation for helping. According to him, egoistically motivated helping is direct toward the end-state goal of increasing the helper’s own welfare. In contrast, a person helping is altruistic to the degree that he or she helps from a desire to reduce the distress or increase the benefit of the person in need. That is, altruistically motivated helping is directed toward the end-state goal of increasing the Other’s welfare.

This conceptual distinction between egoism and altruism leads to three observations: (a) Helping, as a behavior, can be either egoistically motivated; it is the end-state goal not the behavior, that distinguishes an act as altruistic. (b) Motivation for helping may be mixture of altruism and egoism; it need not to be solely or even primarily altruistic to have an altruistic component. (c) Increasing the Other’s welfare is both necessary and sufficient to attain an altruistic end-state goal. To the degree that helping is altruistically rather that egoistically motivated, increasing the other’s welfare is not an intermediate, instrumental response directed toward increasing one’s own welfare; it is an end in itself. Although one’s welfare may be increased by altruistically motivated helping (for example, it may produce feelings of personal satisfaction or relief), personal gain must be an unintended by-product and not the goal of the behavior. This conception of altruism and of the distinction between it and egoism seem quite consistent not only with Auguste Comte’s initial use of the term, but also with modern dictionary definitions, for example, ‘unselfish concern for the welfare of Others’. (Batson. Alrtuism as a threat?)

If to talk about altruism separately from egoism, the definition is not so simple. Matthieu Ricard in his book Altruism is trying to define if ‘altruism is a motivation, a momentary state of mind that aims at accomplishing the good of others’, or ‘a disposition to care for others in a benevolent way, pointing to a more lasting character trait’.

Thomas Nagel, the American philosopher, defines altruism as ‘a willingness to act in consideration of the interests of the other person, without the need of ulterior motive.’ (Nagel Thomas, The Possibility of Altruism, Princeton University Press, 1978, p.79).

Daniel Batson, who made numerous researches about altruism, points out that ‘altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing other’s welfare.’ (Batson, C.D. (2001), op.cit., p.20)

Professor of political science and philosophy at the University of Irvine at California Kristen Monroe, in her book The Heart of Alrtuism, mentions that term ‘altruism’ usually used for actions with a precise goal – contributing to the well-being of Other. She also emphasizes that motivation for an action is more important that result of it. (Monroe, Kristen Renwick, The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.6). It means that we cannot judge action separately from motivation for this action and vice versa.

Furthermore, for Monroe, an action can be described as altruistic only if it causing a risk and has a ‘cost’ for the one who performs it. If to consider the movement from I to Other as a risk of renouncing oneself it makes sense. On the other hand, non-all behavior that occur the risk for the one who performs it can be called as altruistic, or a behavior can be purely driven by benevolence, without taking any apparent risk.

Altruism require a benevolent motivation and does not require a personal sacrifice: it can even lead to personal benefits, provided that those benefits do not constitute the ultimate goal of one’s behavior but are secondary consequences of it.

Valuing the Other and being concerned about his situation are two essential components to altruism. When this attitude prevails in us, it manifests itself in the form of benevolence toward Others, and it is translated into an open-mindedness and a willingness to take care of them (M.Ricard, p19)

At the same time, altruism should be enlightened by lucidity and wisdom. It is not a question of inconsiderately gaining access to all the desires and whims of others.

Altruism can be defined as the desire to help someone even if it involves a cost to the helper (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2013). This is different to prosocial behaviour which is an act performed with the goal of benefiting another person (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005). There is difficulty in understanding people’s motivation behind their behaviour as we can never fully know a person’s intentions, making the distinction between altruistic actions and prosocial behaviour hard to define. We have to infer the motivation from the behaviour using empirical evidence. An altruistic motive involves the desire to reduce distress or increase the benefit of the person in need, this differs from an egoistic motive of helping from a desire for gaining reward or avoiding personal pain (Aronson et al., 2013). Although altruistic and egoistic motives differ, the action of helping is the same. Batson’s (1991, as cited in Aronson et al., 2013) Empathy-Altruism hypothesis, argues for a form of altruism that is based on feelings for others. Although the hypothesis can explain how some acts may be altruistic and others egoistic, it also has its criticisms including those of needing to be motivated by empathy – therefore resulting in the behaviour not being purely altruistic. Altruism can also be explained by evolutionary theories such as Kin Selection and Survival Tendencies but it is hard to conclude motivation behind people’s actions and therefore prosocial behaviour, a broader category, may be able to explain our helping behaviour.

The empathy-altruism hypothesis can be used to support the existence of pure altruism. Devised by Batson (1991, as cited in Aronson et al., 2013), the hypothesis explains altruistic behaviour in terms of feelings for others. Batson (1991, as cited in Aronson et al., 2013) states that when we feel high empathy for someone in need, our behaviour towards that person is purely altruistic, if we do not feel empathy for this person then social exchange will occur – weighing up the benefits and costs of helping. Experiments run by Batson (1992) support the empathy-altruism model as results are consistent with the predictions of the hypothesis. Batson devised an ease of escape x empathy experiment in order to discover whether motivation behind helping behaviour is altruistic or egoistic. Batson predicted than even in the easy escape condition, high empathy predicts high helping behaviour – altruistic behaviour. Participants observed a ‘worker’ whom they believed to be electrically shocked – ease of escape being manipulated by informing some participants that if they do not help then the electric shocks will continue (difficult escape) and informing others that they will observe no more (easy escape). The results confirmed the hypothesis – when escaping was easy but empathy was high, the individual would still help. This portrays how there is an existent pure altruism when we feel high empathy for those in need, we will help regardless of the costs to ourselves.

Although the hypothesis provides evidence of altruism, it is difficult to generalize findings from experiments such as Batson’s (1992) as we cannot conclude that everyone has similar motives behind their behaviour. The study suggests that we only help when we feel empathy for those in need and therefore a sense of guilt. A study conducted by Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler and Darby (1975) tested the effectiveness of guilt on a person’s behaviour. Participants were given two scripts, one extreme request script and the other a smaller request. Participants were then assigned to one of three conditions, the door-in the face, small-request-only, or the exposure control condition. The results showed that the door-in-the- face technique – where the extreme request is rejected then the smaller request made was the most effective condition. We reciprocate when someone does something for us in order to relieve our own stress of seeing someone suffer (Aronson et al., 2013). Therefore, this study shows that helping behaviour may be motivated by egoism rather than altruism, conveying the non-existence of pure altruism and the existence of an innate need to resolve distress.

If altruism is based on emotion then it must existent as it is in our instincts when we feel guilt to make amends and help those who need it. Our feelings can guide our behaviour through our urges that accompany them, this is known as thought-action tendencies (Fredrickson, 1998). The feeling of guilt urges the thought-action tendency of amendment, altruistically motivating us to reduce feelings of distress. A study conducted by Coombes, Cauraugh and Janelle (2007) assessed whether specific emotions produce specific thought-action tendencies. Participants were shown a range of emotion inducing images and were instructed to extend their wrists and fingers a quickly as possible whilst the electrical signals in their muscles were recorded. The results found that the fear-inducing images produced faster withdrawal actions than other images. Just as fear produces fast withdrawal symptoms, feelings of guilt will naturally enforce you to make amendments or help others. This conveys how our natural thought-action tendencies support the existence of a pure altruism as our emotions guide information processing and therefore our behaviour (Nolen-Hoeksema, Fredrickson and Loftus, 2009).

Our thought-action tendencies suggest that emotion guides our behaviours and therefore altruistic motives. However, a study conducted by Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz and Beaman (1987) suggested how it is our own guilt and personal sadness that we want to alleviate by helping another person rather than wanting to reduce the other persons state of distress. Cialdini et al. (1987) study had two conditions – an empathy-set condition and a mood-fixing condition (participants believed the drug taken would fix their mood for the next hour) in order to test whether empathically orientated individuals would help a sufferer for selfless or selfish reasons. Researchers found that participants helped more when not taking the mood-fixing drug as they believed that helping could fix their own mood. These results suggest there is an increased personal sadness associated with empathy and supports an egoistic interpretation over a selfless altruistic interpretation of enhanced helping under conditions of high empathy. Therefore, there must not be an existent pure altruism as we only help others in order to feel better about ourselves.

Biological theories of evolution suggest that there must be a pure altruism as we act altruistically toward those who we are related to. Darwin’s (1859, as cited in Aronson et al., 2013) natural selection suggests that we favour altruistic acts towards genetically related others as we want to ensure our genes are passed on and will flourish in the future. A study conducted by Madsen, Tunney, Fieldman, Plotkin, Dunbar, Richardson and McFarland (2010) looked at the duration of time an individual would endure pain in order for a reward to be given to a close relative or distant relative. Participants, both male and female, were asked to maintain a ‘ski position’ for as long as possible for each condition of close or distant relative. The results showed a significant linear trend between effort invested in task and relatedness of beneficiary. This suggests that altruism must exist if we are willing to benefit another person even if this does produce a cost to ourselves.

Although Madsen et al. (2010) found a significant relationship in their study, a limitation is that there may be differences between male and female motive and behaviour and therefore this does not promote a purely altruistic gene that is passed on through natural selection. We don’t know whether we are helping just because evolutionary processes deemed it an essential trait for survival. If pure altruism does exist through natural selection then behaviour between genders should be similar and we cannot explain why we help others that we may not share genes with. A study conducted by Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo and Sheblanova (1998) found when surveying volunteer work in seven countries, more girls than boys reported partaking in voluntary work in their communities. This suggests that if pure altruism exists then behaviour between genders should be equal, proposing that we may behave differently for different motives such as gaining reward. Therefore, this reinforces that helping may be due to prosocial behaviour rather than altruism.

In conclusion, although constructs such as the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1992) can explain how some acts may be altruistic and others egoistic based on our empathy for others, prosocial behaviour can explain the behaviour differences between genders and the differences in motives behind each action more effectively than altruism. The evidence against the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that there is no such thing as pure altruism – we can have altruistic tendencies but all acts cannot be purely altruistic due to differing motives. There cannot be absolutely selfless acts we will always gain personal reward from helping others. It is difficult to determine whether pure altruism does exist due to not being able to fully know a person’s motive behind their behaviour. By helping others in order to benefit them or reduce their distress we may be acting altruistically, but we also may be acting, by conditioning, on a principle that we believe will lead us to better things.

The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the article “When altruism isn’t moral written by Sally Satel. The article by Sally provides arguments, explanation and attempts to persuade readers on the importance of creating incentives for benevolent donors in the organ transplant system. To prove this, the author sought to find a middle ground between the poles of selflessness and that of greed in the system by providing the enabling environment for a balanced argument by researchers in similar fields on the subject matter, such as economists, philosophers seasoned health practioners and social scientist in government and private agencies. Being also an active receiver of such organ donations in the past, her expert knowledge in the field is unquestionable. The author is dedicated to the strong belief that society owes voluntary organ donors well meaning compensation for their generosity.

These study would therefore attempt to conduct an assessment of the research paper using analysis which best convey my thoughts.

Anecdotes

The author introduced the article to the audience with a short story that served to make us ponder over the topic. Often times, many writers use story telling as a veritable tool to inform, advise and paint stories to the audience. Another name for these short personal stories is Anecdotes. Anecdotes, or short personal stories, possess have several uses. The specific use of anecdote generates a spectrum of diversity in experience and perspective. Moreover, they emphasize the value of personal experience, above other perspectives related to those of facts or professional. Anecdotes signify the variation of experience and inspire compassion. Storytelling is an art form that everyone, even if unknowingly, participates in.

The essence of introducing the story of Matt Thompson donating a kidney to Sonny Davis after the reluctance of friends, relatives to assist and initial rejection by the Transplant program at Kaiser Permanente, North California did well to present the writer as an expert in the field of organ donor transplant system. It may also serve as a move to increase the writer’s credibility amongst the readers. Effective use of anecdotes would not only endear the audience to the subject matter but also demonstrated firsthand knowledge of the issue.

Logical Reasoning

Although Sally pinned a large degree of her arguments on “The woeful inadequacy of our nation’s transplant policy is due to its reliance on “altruism”” to support her generalizations, this was made hurriedly and was not supported by more than two examples in the article. Determining that the United States with over 50 states’ transplant policy relying on data from a single state – California only is totally hasty and a fallacy of defective induction. The adjective “woeful” presents the picture of a deplorable, pathetic, atrocious, hopeless or substandard system. I am very convinced that was not the real state of things. Inference based on a single state erodes the reliability of the article and cast doubt on the presentation of evidence. However, accolades must be bestowed on the writer for her ability to efficiently provide accurate comparison of the subject matter with outcomes in other sectors. According to Satel in her article “Today we routinely assign valuation to the body. Human blood plasma is collected primarily through paid donation. Personal injury lawyers seek damages for bodily harm to their clients. The Veteran’s Administration put a price on physical disabilities; we pay for justice in the context of personal injury litigation in the form of legal costs, and for very lives in the form of medical fees”. This statement would lay credence to the accusation of “double standard” for equal payments for compensating sperm, blood donors to create life as well as organ donors.

Bias and Tone

Based on the author’s admittance of being a recipient of similar humanitarian gesture of a kidney failure in the past from an unknown friend raises doubts in my mind surrounding the motives behind article. The writer clearly demonstrated her unequivocal support for the introduction of motivation incentives to save lives by stating that “it is not the most motivating course for organ donation out of all the alternatives to save people’s lives”. The author also shared her experience and recommended improvements in the system. It is can be inferred that her inspiration behind championing the article was to ensure that her donor was rewarded for the action which saved her life. Several times the issue of morality was a frequently discussed topic in the paper. It seems a daunting task to separate exploitation from this selfless behavior. It is a proven fact that a lot of donors would attempt to take advantage of the financial gain than the tax benefits , waivers or grants provided by government but there has to be a lasting solution to stem the tide of over four thousand people who reportedly die yearly from the absence of donors. With the growing numbers of reported cases for the need for kidney transplant against the marginal presence of actual donors, something needs to be done fast.

Conclusion

Altruism has been termed by various authors as a selfless behavior conveyed by a human being on another at no cost at all. Numerous reasons have always been adduced to be responsible for these actions. However, the article in review has made a valid case for the adequate compensation of kidney organ plant donors for their roles in saving lives at no cost at all. Also worthy to mention are the lessening of the rules and regulation guiding organ transplant donor system to pave the way for more interested people with altruism to play their part in ensuring that more lives are saved. The author emphasized the reasons why society owes this unique set of people a whole debt of gratitude.

Regardless of the perceived challenges with the current national policy on Kidney transplant donors, I will stand with the author of this article on the need for government to identify and compensate these heroes and heroines who without concern for themselves sacrifice at no cost at all. They can only be “Super Humans” as it is very difficult to stumble on based on rationality.

The United States government is therefore advised to launch a comprehensive review on the existing Kidney donor transplant policy in line with other health policy such as sperm or blood.