Altruistic acts are certainly to a great degree selfless. I think the debate is weather or not there is any act of altruism that does not have, in some small measure Altruistic acts e, a payback for the giver. For instance, serving at a homeless shelter is certainly to a large degree a selfless act. However, if the server feels good about helping and their self-concept is improved as a result, does this still qualify as a selfless act? In therapy I often encourage mildly depressed clients to perform volunteer work. I have found that their sense of self-efficacy and self-concepts are often improved after engaging in altruistic acts.
1. I am certain that there are examples of completely selfless acts but I wonder if they rarer than one would think. What do you think? Is true altruism rarer than one may think or are some people too cynical?
Let's take a closer look through discussion
1. What do you think? Is true altruism rarer than one may think or are some people too cynical?
There are many examples of selfless acts, like firemen risking their lives to save someone. Sure people can say they are paid to do their job, but there are jobs where you do not have to risk your life to save another's life. Or, a stranger who jumps into the river to save a person they see in the river that is about to go under and drown. There may be benefits after the fact, like praise and recognitions, but that was not the motive for the act. This is confusing cause and effect.
When a client is encouraged to volunteer, the counselor is aware of the many benefits of volunteering (effect of volunteering), but a selfless act of volunteering teaches a client to be less focused on self and ...
Based on the scenario, this solution discusses if true altruism is rarer than one may think or if some people are just too cynical. Examples are also provided.