Altruism, generally defined as "an unselfish concern for the welfare of others," usually goes hand in hand with morally good, which differs from culture and beliefs. It seems likely an act could be morally good without necessarily being altruistic, but can an act be defined as altruistic without being morally good?
I believe the article mentioned that being self interested or altruistic can mean an act for one's own self that does not impact a negative connotation on others. Does this confirm that all altruistic acts are morally good? Suppose a person belongs to this hypothetical religion where they are required to cut them selves in order to sacrifice blood to their higher being. He thinks he is doing a good act, despite hurting himself, and this doesn't have a negative impact on anyone else. Is this morally good? Perhaps in his religion but most of us wouldn't agree.
I find this to be a challenging concept to debate and understand, along with providing examples. I'm going to conclude that deciding whether an altruistic act is morally good or not, depends a lot on culture and point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment