Question: Can the goal of an initially altruistic act become non-altruistic when the situation changes due to the other party’s refusal to accept the act?
Here I am thinking specifically about the example where two people are in a life boat. It would be altruistic, and even supererogatory, to offer all of your food the other person. If the other person then refused to accept the offer, you are left in a new situation; knowing full well that the other person will not be eating the food, could you be called altruistic for your constant refusal to eat the food? What if that person refused to eat until you agreed to eat too?
I think it may very well still be altruistic to refuse to eat the food, in that you are still trying to place the needs of someone else above them. I think, however, that it would also be exceedingly stubborn to not reach some sort of compromise. Given that you are now fully aware that both of you would die if you continue in this manner. I'd imagine that both of them can be sort of altruistic and eat only if the other person eats.
No comments:
Post a Comment