Suchergebnisse

Early in Peter Abelard's Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian, the philosopher (that is, the ancient Greek) and the Christian easily come to agreement about what the point of ethics is: "[T]he culmination of true ethics … is gathered together in this: that it reveal where the ultimate good is and by what road we are to arrive there." They also agree that, since the enjoyment of this ultimate good "comprises true blessedness," ethics "far surpasses other teachings in both usefulness and worthiness." As Abelard understood them, both fundamental elements of his twelfth-century ethical culture — Greek philosophy and Christian religion — held a common view of the nature of ethical inquiry, one that was so obvious to them that his characters do not even state it in a fully explicit way. They take for granted, as we take the ground we stand on, the premise that the most important function of ethical theory is to tell you what sort of life is most desirable, or most worth living. That is, the point of ethics is that it is good for you, that it serves your self-interest.

Abstract:Is Hobbes a normative egoist? That is: does Hobbes think that an agent's normative reasons are all grounded in her own good? A once-dominant tradition of Hobbes scholarship answers 'yes'. In an important recent work, however, S. A. Lloyd has argued that the answer to the question is 'no', and built an alternative non-egoistic interpretation of Hobbes that stresses reciprocity and mutual justifiability. My aim in this paper is to articulate and defend an original 'middle way' interpretation of Hobbes that steers a course between an excessively egoistic and what we might call an excessively 'moralistic' interpretation. According to the interpretation I defend, our obligations have their source in self-interest in the sense that they are all self-assumed results of covenants, our reasons for making which are solely self-interested. But the obligations that result from such covenants can sometimes require us to act against our self-interest.

Studies have shown that intergroup conflict may result from two distinct human motives: the desire to obtain personal retributions from conflict ( egoism), and the desire to sacrifice for the benefit of the ingroup ( parochial altruism). Yet, the relative strength of these motives is open to debate. In this study, we compare behaviors in two Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemmas (IPD), which respectively capture altruistic and egoistic motives to generate conflict. Egoistic motives result in about 40% more conflict than altruistic motives. Yet, parochial altruism generates more conflict when three conditions are gathered: i) other ingroup members are parochial altruists, ii) the outgroup is aggressive and iii) the outgroup is rich. Implications regarding the diverging structural causes of terrorism and civil wars are discussed.

The relationship between the values of altruism & egoism & the level of antagonism toward Negroes is examined. Antagonism toward Negroes is measured by a SD score, degree of trust of Negroes, & willingness to use firearms against Negroes during the 'Watts Riots' in Aug of 1965. The results, based on 583 interviews, indicate that altruism is associated with a lower level of antagonism toward Negroes than is egoism. This is true for all 3 measures of antagonism. When controls for sex, age, educ, & occup are applied, the original relationship between values & SD & trust is in most instances maintained. The relationship between values & use of firearms, however, is somewhat unstable, remaining of moderate strength only among men & those of low SF;S. AA.

AbstractWe provide survey evidence that personal values have an impact on individual investment decisions, in particular preferences for socially responsible investing. Our findings show that there is a positive link between altruistic values and the relative importance of social responsibility. This effect is stronger when individuals believe that they can make a positive social or environmental impact with their investments, or when they feel morally obliged to invest responsibly. If altruistic individuals associate responsible investments with higher returns, it decreases their motivation to invest responsibly. Egoistic values are negatively associated with the decision to invest responsibly, unless individuals associate responsible investing with higher returns.