Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus

Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal

THINKING ABOUT
ALTRUISM
Tanja Dibou, PhD student of Tallinn University (Estonia).
Institute of Political Science and Governance, Tallinn
University, Narva Road 25, Tallinn 10120, Estonia,
email: dibouta@hotmail.com
Altruism is very provocative phenomenon. It is not clear: what
altruism means for people today and does it really exist? The
article is directed for a theoretical meta-analysis of various views
on phenomenon altruism. Analyzing a several number of views
(sociological, philosophical, religious, psychological), we will try
to concern the nature and content of the altruistic behavior, the
forms and the reasons of altruism. The author systematizes
different typologies of altruism. The objective to look for the
motives of altruistic behavior. One of crucial part of the paper is
concerned about possible benefits of altruism nowadays. The
article also concentrates on critics of altruism, trying to
understand, why people are skeptical about altruistic acts.
Keywords: altruism, egoism, altruistic behavior, moral norms,
typologies of altruism
INTRODUCTION
Altruism is very provocative phenomenon. It is not clear: what
altruism means for people today, in the most part of selfish time. The
idea to explore that this term altruism actually means, comes from
several obstacles.
One of the reasons for studying the altruism as a phenomenon
araised from my professional interest. Last 3 years, I have been
working with youngsters in various social and cultural projects;
most of activities are prepared by volunteers, who contributed
without any reward. Voluntary work is one of acts of the altruistic
behavior. Even 2011 year was a year of volunteering in Europe, the
program launched by European Commission in order to promote
volunteerism. Many people individually or in groups and
communities try to help people that are in trouble. Additionally to
voluntary work, hundreds celebrities and ordinary people are
involved in charitable giving and philanthropy.

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
These or other acts of altruism we can meet in everyday life, also we
use term of altruism quite often in everyday communication. But
even a rough contact with the above actions of altruism indicate the
heterogeneity and diversity of altruism. Moreover, the more we are
confronted with various forms of altruistic behavior, the more
questions arise. Probably thinking about these acts of altruistic
behavior as voluntarism and charitable giving bring us to the main
question: why do people commit heroic altruistic acts? Looking at
these two examples of altruistic acts, we can not answer to this
question promptly.
Moreover, thinking about altruistic acts, seems natural to ask: Does
true altruism really exist? Altruism in the ordinary life is associated
with a particular view of moral behavior, with the good deeds of
others, with a priority of other interests in respect of their own. And
we can assume that many altruistic acts are committed by a person
quite selflessly, without any motive of personal interest, personal
gain or benefit. However, there are opinions that all human actions
are selfish by its nature, because human do only that they think is
best for themselves at the moment.
If we look impartially, why there is a behavior that is personally
disadvantageous to those who commit it? Whether this behavior is
really not profitable? Maybe the whole reason of altruism is in a
subsequent act of altruistic rewards: real or symbolic, internal or
external, material or spiritual?
In order to look into these matters, first steps are to study theories
about altruism, and to investigate the motives of such kind human
behavior. Altruism remains a hot topic for the study of many experts
from different fields, that's why in this article we try to make metaanalysis of various views on phenomenon altruism. Analyzing a
several number of views (sociological, philosophical, religious,
psychological), we will try to concern the nature and content of the
altruistic behavior, the forms and the reasons of altruism. One of
crucial part of the paper is concerned about possible benefits of
altruism nowadays. We also concentrate on critics of altruism, trying
to understand, why people are skeptical about altruistic acts.
The paper consists of several parts, that have own questions on key
issues relating to altruism.
- How to define altruism?
-What motivates altruism?

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
-What are the types of altruism?
-How related altruism and egoism?
Does true altruism exist?
-What are the benefits of altruism?
What kind of altruism we need?
By answering these questions, the author is trying to understand the
nature of altruism. To give the answers to these questions is quite
difficult task itself. But by the method of comparing different views
and arguments, the author thinks it will be possible to create a
precise picture of such contradictory phenomenon as altruism. The
theoretical analysis of the concepts of altruism gives the possibility
to do future empirical research and easier to understand such things
as the participation in a variety of voluntary actions, NGO sector
work and etc.
WHAT IS ALTRUISM? ORIGINS AND DEFINATIONS OF TERM
ALTRUISM
Exploring the content of the term of "altruism" is a controversial
task. On the one hand, altruism is a phenomenon, that is familiar to
everyone, but from other hand it is crucial question about the
existence of altruism and its definition as a scientific term. Therefore
the starting point of analysis of altruism is to ensure that this
phenomenon exists in society and try to define it.
There are various activities, which appear as altruistic behavior:
selfless aid to another person, support and treatment of weak
people, care of each other, self-sacrifice in war, patronage and
charity - all behavioral acts, more or less are filled with altruism. It is
quite common to think that altruism it is some good and positive
behavior of human. Also a lot of empirical studies are held in order
to prove that such a thing as altruism exists in human nature.
Inferences from empirical studies, most notably those of Samuel and
Pearl Oliner(1988) and Krisn Renwick Monroe(1996), strong
support the existence of altruistic acts and underlying altruistic
personalities. Yet, despite abundant and persuasive evidence that
altruists exist, their personalities remain puzzling. They appear to
involve inconsistent or paradoxical elements. The issue is a critical
importance: the incoherency of altruistic personality would
undermine the possibility that there are persons for whom genuine

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
concern for the good of others is an integral part of personality.
(Seglow, 2004: 86)
In reviewing literature on helping behaviors, volunteerism, and
altruism, the term altruism takes on a variety of definitions. In some
instances, it is used with any sort of prosocial, overt helping
behavior. Simply put, to be altruistic is to help, regardless of the
motivations that drive the helping behavior. In other cases, altruism
included helping or volunteering in situations in which no obvious
external rewards were granted for the helping behavior. Within the
existent literature, this seemed to be the most common usage of the
term. (Weiler, 2003: 11)
The French term altruism was firstly introduced by Auguste Comte
in his Systeme de Politique Positive. It combined the Latin alter
with ui and literally meant to this other. Altruism, as Comte
intended it, is a moral concept and means selfless motives of man,
entailing deeds for the benefit of others (Scott, Seglow, 2007: 1).
According to Comte, the principle of altruism, says: "To live for
others." Comte wished to see ethics to develop only out of our social
relationships. Altruism was centrally about promoting others
people's interests, and morality was the triumph of altruism over
egoism. Comte saw the origins of sympathy, socialization and
altruism in the animal world. With the emergence in the midnineteenth century of a science of the brain, Comte also believed that
sympathy and altruism could be shown to originate from specific
areas of the brain (Scott, Seglow 2007: 15).
Unfortunately, this easy and short Comte principle To live for
others doesnt make us satisfied, rather makes us to think that the
concept of altruism is not as simple as it seems at first glance. Why I
have live for other? Who are others and why they need my help?
What means live for other? What part of my life I have to live for
others? etc. We can continue asking questions, that no doubt make
us more confusing, but we can use these questions as a guidance,
that helps us to systematize key paradigms about altruism.
Paradigmatic views of philosophers and sociologists give the
possibility to organize the whole range of approaches that exist
about altruism today. In the paper we go through several key
paradigms of altruism, by emphasizing its ambiguity.
Many scientists come to an agreement on the definition of true
altruism. True altruism is in our minds performing an act without
even thinking about the consequences or acknowledging the
possibility of what you gain from it.(Batson 1991: 10) We can find
also this idea in following two conceptualizations of altruism:

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
I. Conceptualization of altruism that was made by Stephen Post
(2002), who proposes following critical aspects of altruism:
1) Altruism must involve action that have goal to help another. If
another person's welfare is an unintended or secondary
consequence of behavior motivated primarily to further one's own
welfare, the act is not altruistic.
2) Altruism sets no conditions. The purpose of altruistic act is
helping another; there is no anticipation or expectations of reward
for the altruist. (Post 2002: 107)
II. Conceptualization of altruism in THE book of Seglow, J.( 2004)
The ethics of altruism:
Altruism is done in the absence of expectation of gain- receiving
external rewards;
Altruism manifests an absence of concern for the self, or more
accurately, the subjection of concern for safety or material wellbeing
of the self the concerns for the others;
Altruism manifests care marked by a significant degree of
inclusiveness that renders irrelevant such characteristics as the
gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, of the others toward
whom concern is shown. (Seglow, 2004: 89)
We can see that altruism involves actions that are called good deeds.
Good deeds are the starting point and altruism has its origin from
good deeds.
Good deeds < -------- > Altruism < -------- > True altruism
One problematic dilemma for lot of scholars and ordinary people is
to distinguish altruism and true altruism. One way to distinguish
these two types of altruism is to distinguish the motives behind
altruism and true altruism. These two above conceptualizations of
altruism were chosen also specifically in order to show the critical
points, on which we try to focus our attention, namely these critical
points are: motives of altruistic behavior and altruist's expectations
of rewards; altruism limits and inclusiveness. These critical points
led many people to doubt on true altruism existence. It is important
for rest of us to consider whether we act altruistically because of
desires or on the basis of reason, or perhaps both. How far can I go
being altruist? What can be limits of good deeds to others: is it till the
goal is achieved or something else serves as constraint? Here in

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
following parts of the paper we continue to try out ways of
dissolving or defusing these matters, concerning the term of
altruism.
Certainly, motivation is one of important components of altruistic
behavior. In definition of term altruism in Altruism in humans
Batson C.D. also introduces altruism as motivational state with the
ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare(Batson, 2011: 20).
Batson shows, that motivation is not simply a drive or impulse- a
push from within-but a goal directed. Batson emphasizes, that
altruist desires some imagined change in society or in environment
and he has certain motives to reach this change. If this change has
reached, the goal has reached and motivational state disappears.
Altruism is shown as behavior, that meets the conditions, that it is
motivated by concern for others, or by conscience or moral principle
(or by some combination of these) (Seglow, 2004: 89) In contrast to
social scientists, that often focus on the view that altruism is
motivated and altruistic acts are genuine and significant, the
biologists use altruism to refer to actions that benefit the
reproductive success of the others at expense to the self, making no
reference to motivation or conscious intentions (Post, 2002: 4). But
we can advance more in understanding the term of altruism if we
exploring the motivation of altruists and look at some skepticism
that have been debated over altruism whether it genuinely exists.
2. WHAT MOTIVATES ALTRUISM?
Over the existence of altruism has been a debate, often hotly, for
centuries. One reason for heated debate is whether if altruism exists,
what the motives of altruism are.
One further central feature of altruistic behavior: that it is impossible
to be an altruist without having altruistic motives, without, that is
the desire to help another at some cost to oneself. Motives are
central to altruistic behavior because they are that power people to
bear the costs which altruism entails. (Seglow, 2004: 146)
What are the motives that guide people to help others? It would
seem very simple, but there are ulterior motives. From the childhood
we have idea that we have to help others, when they need help.
Gradually, this idea is deeply rooted in our minds that we do not
even think sometimes, and whether to provide this help and what
the true motive of pursuing to help. Some people are more pragmatic
to this dilemma of helping others, for example, they help others
because the others have helped him or they help others, because

SCS Journal

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
they want to use others help in future, as it is well-known principle I
used to help you and now you will help me." It is fundamental aspect
about human nature: Is everything we humans do, no matter how
noble and seemingly selfless, actually direct toward benefiting
ourselves?
On the basis of all written above it seems that true altruism doesnt
exist and it is a fairy tale, myth, in which we like to believe. Or maybe
we will need change our opinions about true altruism. What is wrong
if person will be altruistic, by helping others, if he even has some
own motives to help? Even in religious texts we can find that
altruistic person is motivated by some own motives as following
religious scriptures in order to avoid doing sins.
The meaning of altruism was strongly used in the Jewish and,
especially, the Christian tradition of ethics. If we look religious texts,
altruism is often identified with the Golden Rule- do unto others as
you would have them do unto you (Scott, Seglow, 2007: 2). If a term
of altruism may be considered apparent in the Judeo-Christian moral
commandment of love your neighbor as yourself, then Jesus can be
viewed as the ultimate champion of this Christian outlook on
altruism. Jesus teachings extended loving ones neighbor to loving
ones strangers and enemies (as ones self). Altruistic, or selfless,
acts are only considered so if they are extended not only to ones
friends and family, but to strangers and enemies as well. Jesus
teachings imply that to be altruistic is to be unselective in regards to
whom goodwill is offered to.(Weiller, 2003: 4)
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the phenomenon of altruism
involves taking the interests of another as the goal of one's actions,
not only in relation to expression of love of another human being,
but also as an expression of love to God, so the Golden Rule is not
unique to this tradition, but is found in many other religions as well.
For example, the Hindu Mahabharata holds that: One should not
behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.
This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish
desire. Confucianism instructs each person to: try your best to treat
others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find
that this is the shortest way to benevolence.( Scott, Seglow 2007: 7)
Expression Golden Rule in explaining of altruism was introduced
also by Christian Woff in his work Philosophia Practica Universalis
(1978). Wolff shows the duties toward others were the same as
duties towards oneself. Wolff promotes the obligation of a person to
love others as they love themselves, he insists on an unequal
distribution of this love.( Scott, Seglow, 2007 11)

SCS Journal

10

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
Religious concepts of Golden Rule brings us to conclude that
altruistic behavior is caused by special social norms and moral sense.
We behave altruistically, because such behavior is accepted in our
society (Alvin Ward Gouldner calls this concept "following of social
norms"). Since early childhood, we know the words of Jesus Christ:
"Love neighbor as yourself" or "Trait others as you would have them
to trait you! Of course, that are golden rules of Christianity, they
remind us of the need to balance our own interests with the interests
of the group and, thus, contribute to the survival of the group.
A. Gouldner found two main social norms: is the norm of reciprocity
and the norm of social responsibility. The norm of reciprocity
suggests that we ought not to cause harm, and to assist those who
have assisted us. As for people who are clearly in a dependent
position and unable to reciprocate: children, the poor, the disabled
and others, who are unable to respond to as much as they get - our
help is motivated by other social norm as the norm of social
responsibility. (Berezina 2001) The theory of morality, social norms
has also been common among developmental psychologists,
especially those who study moral development.
Another interesting aspect about motivation according to the
religion is that the motives of such altruistic behavior can be reward
as everlasting life- the life after the death. It means that the action is
performed with the primary motivation of receiving reward.
For instance, even Aristotle recognized that people often seek to
benefit their friends but also to benefit themselves. Selfishness is
often threaded as an attribute of the bad man. But things are not so
simple, because in acting in a way that is motivated by the interests
of one's friends, one is acting both for the friend's sake and, by an
extension of one 's feeling, for oneself. Each person is, Aristotle
thought, a sort of friend to themselves, and thus he blurs the
distinction so central today between self and other. ( Scott, Seglow
2007: 5)
Interacting with each other, people are constantly exchanging,
sharing not only material things, money or belongings, but also
emotions, attitudes, feelings, moods. Providing assistance to
someone, we consciously or unconsciously expect remuneration. We
pay to get it. Rewards can be both external and internal. The man,
whom we helped today may be useful for us tomorrow, he can put in
a good word for us. We give something in order to get something
back.

SCS Journal

11

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
Some individuals will aid another in order to create a state of
indebtedness in the latter; in some cases the agent intends to exploit
that indebtedness at a late time. (Post 2002: 44) We can say that one
motivation of altruist can be helping in order to gain internal rather
than external rewards. This approach has been common among
social psychologists, that defines altruism in a way that includes
benefiting another as a means to benefiting another as a means to
benefit oneself - as long as the self-benefits are internally rather than
externally administered (Batson, 2011: 26-27).
One of motivation to behave altruistically is helping other people
because of the desire to overcome the negative state, which the
altruist sees at the moment. For instance, seeing someone else's grief
or suffering, whether one wants to get rid of it. By helping, it
eliminates the source of their own unpleasant feelings. Batson
named this motivation as benefiting another in order to reduce
aversive arousal caused by witnessing the other's suffering.
Batson assumes that altruism is motivation to benefit another as
means to reduce ones own distress caused by witnessing the others
distress. The idea that acting to reduce another's distress might be
motivated by desire to reduce vicarious personal distress has a long
history in Western thought. It was expressed by Thomas Aquinas,
Thomes Hobbes, Bernard Mandeville, and William McDougall. But
none of those thinkers considered such motivation to be altruistic.
(Batson, 2011: 27) We can also consider other situations where a
person helps another person because of the desire to escape from
their own negative feelings. By helping, he is trying to fix their own
unpleasant feelings and erase them from his everyday life. We are
ready to serve, help those in need just because they do not wish that
something like this happened to us. For us the important thing is that
our house or family would not come to this problem.
We can also assume that love for another can also motivate altruistic
acts. The helping agent experiences vicariously the pleasure he or
she assumes the love object is experiencing.
According to some researchers (J. Darley, . Latane) on human
behavior has an impact situation: the presence or absence of other
people (potential viewers a good deed can encourage its
implementation, on the other hand, the presence of other potential
helpers allows a person to pass by in need of assistance). Other
researchers (D.Macmillen, J.Ostin) link the altruistic behavior of the
human to his emotional position (feelings of guilt increases in human
the desire to do good deeds, and bad mood reduces to do good
deeds). Finally, an important role can play the actual personal

SCS Journal

12

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
characteristics of people (the capacity for patience, self-restraint).
(Berezina 2001)
An alternative way to understand what the motives may be altruistic
behavior is to consider the various typologies of altruism.
TYPES OF ALTRUISM
This paragraph is directed to explore types of altruism. It is quite
essential to study this aspect, because as we have seen the nature of
motives of altruistic behavior is not homogeneous.
C.R BADCOCK TYPOLOGY OF ALTRUISM
One of typology of altruistic behavior was suggested by Badcock,
who examines altruistic behavior from a perspective that combines
Darwinian sociobiology with psychoanalysis. He divides altruism
into three forms: reciprocal, kin, and induced altruism.
Kin altruism preserves genetically related others at the expense of
the individual.
Reciprocal altruism takes place when each of two individuals
performs an action beneficial to the other. Thus, reciprocal altruism
benefits both parties, and kin altruism promotes the survival of the
species, at times at the expense of the individual altruist.
Induced altruism is the most problematic form of altruism. He states
that induced altruism takes place, whenever one organism
promotes the fitness of another at its own expense and without
reciprocal benefit to itself or benefit to its genes. Induced altruism
describes selfishness from the point of view of the exploited party.
Thus, induced altruism benefits the individual who induces the
altruistic behavior in another, and/or a third party. The central
feature of induced altruistic behavior is that the altruistic individual
acts in a manner to benefit another, often without having freely
decided to do so. (Seelig, Dobelle, 2001: 2)
SOBER AND WILSON TYPOLOGY OF ALTRUISM
Another typology, that was introduced by Sober and Wilson to
distinguish evolutionary altruism from psychological altruism.
Evolutionary altruism. Evolutionary altruism reverse to behavior by
one organism that reduce its reproductive fitness-its potential to put
its genes in the next generation relative to the reproductive fitness

SCS Journal

13

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
of one or more organism (Batson, 2011: 24). Evolutionary altruism is
defined entirely in terms of fitness effects without any reference to
how the individual thinks or feels about its actions. If an individual
increases the finesse of its group, relative to other groups, while
decreasing its own finesse, relative to other individuals in the same
group, then it qualifies as an evolutionary altruist. (Post, 2002: 184)
Roughly speaking, inclusive fitness is a measure of how many copies
of an organisms genes will exist in subsequent generations (Stich,
Roedder, 2008: 12).
Psychological altruism. Psychological altruism is defined entirely in
terms of the thoughts and feelings that motivate behavior, regardless
of their ultimate consequences. If I value the welfare of others as an
end in itself, rather than as means to the end of my own welfare, then
I am a psychological altruist.( Post, 2002: 184-185) Psychological
altruism reverse to a motivational state with the ultimate goal of
increasing another's welfare. (Batson 2011, 24) Psychological
altruism is the notion that has been center stage in philosophical
debates since antiquity. An organism is psychologically altruistic if
and only if it has ultimate desires for the well-being of others, and a
behavior is psychologically altruistic if and only if it is motivated by
such a desire. ( Stich, Roedder, 2008: 12)
It is important to see, that evolutionary altruism and psychological
altruism are logically independent notions neither one entails the
other. It is also logically possible for an organism to be a
psychological altruist without being an evolutionary altruist. For
example, an organism might have ultimate desires for the welfare of
its own offspring. Behaviors resulting from that desire will be
psychologically altruistic but not evolutionarily altruistic, since
typically such behaviors will increase the inclusive fitness of the
parent ( Stich, Roedder, 2008: 12). In contrast with the concept of
evolutionary altruism, psychological altruism is property that
applies only to individuals who have minds (Post, 2002: 18).
B. SEELIG AND L.ROSOF TYPOLOGY OF ALTRUISM
B. Seelig and L. Rosof have divided altruistic behavior into four
categories. Type I altruism is the instinctively based, species
preserving behavior of animals and humans. Type II altruism is the
ability to experience conflict free pleasure in fostering the success
and/or pleasure of another. Type II altruism develops out of Type I
and co-exists with it. Type II altruism can also be regarded as an
autonomous ego function. This form of altruism includes the ideal
parental altruism, in which a parent enjoys fostering the childs
achievement of the childs own goals. Type III altruism is altruism

SCS Journal

14

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
that is drawn into conflict. It has pathologic elements. (Seelig,
Dobelle, 2001: 2)
For example, if a parent has a psychological need to have a child who
achieves certain career goals, the child may feel forced to gratify the
parent by becoming the sort of adult the parent wants. In this case,
the parental altruism is actually a technique to induce altruism in
the child. The parent generally believes he or she is altruistic and the
child, while behaving altruistically toward the parent, is strongly
conflicted. Type III altruistic behavior can be highly adaptive, while
still serving defensive purposes. Pleasing ones parent in ones career
choice can result in achieving a successful career with much
gratification, despite the fact that least in part, an act of induced
altruism. Although Type III altruism is often adaptive, Type IV
altruism, or pseudo-altruism is maladaptive, or adaptive in only a
severely pathologic way. It involves significant constriction in the
ability to obtain gratification directly. Examples of Type IV altruism
can be found in many joyless self-denying martyrs who have severe
masochistic and narcissistic character pathology. Type IV altruists
have a compulsive need to sacrifice themselves and take care of
others. Often there is an absence of pleasure in the sacrificial caretaking behavior. (Seelig, Dobelle, 2001: 2)
KOLM AND YTHER TYPOLOGY OF ALTRUISM
One of typologies of altruism is suggested by Kolm and Yther, who
divided altruism in 2 groups: normative altruism and
hedonistic,natural altruism. This typology is a great asset when
trying to understand the term of altruism. The Kolm and Yther model
of altruism explains the different motivations for performing an
altruistic action (morally and hedonistic, naturally grounded). The
scheme, that shows altruism diversity is following:

SCS Journal

15

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal

Scheme 1. Typology of altruism (Batson, 1991: 13)

I. Hedonistic, natural altruism is when a person performs altruistic
actions because he believes that pleasure is the ultimate
achievement in life (Batson, 1991: 13). Kolm explains that: Natural
altruism can easily be seen as genuine and proper altruism, but it can
also be seen, on the contrary, as an extension of egoism, because it
rests on ones pleasure. (Kolm and Ythier, 2006: 60). According to
this quote, hedonistic, natural altruism is ambiguous in the sense
that it rests on the emotions of the altruistic person, which may have
both a positive or negative impact on the action performed.
According to the model, the person may do it to alleviate her own
pity because he dislikes being unhappy himself which he would
inevitable feel to further into the model we see a distinction between
three different kinds of hedonistic, natural altruism in terms of
motivation. (Batson, 1991: 14)
- Affection implies that the altruistic performer knows the receiver
and therefore wants to make a positive situation for the receiver in
order to bring her in a more favorable situation. According to Kolm
and Ythier this entails that the altruistic person derives pleasure

SCS Journal

16

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
from seeing the receiver happy and feels grief when the receiver
feels grief. (Kolm and Ythier, 2006: 59).
- Pure hedonistic altruism concerns the altruistic behavior, which is
aligned with emotional contagion. Emotional contagion is when the
altruistic person observes a certain feeling in another person and
then assumes that specific emotion. The difference between
emotional contagion and affection are that emotional contagion
tends to happen on an unconscious level. (Kolm andYthier, 2006:
56).
The other branch, normative altruism, deals with three different
types of empathy; direct empathy, assumed empathy, and own
empathy. Direct empathy rely on how people feel based on their
expression (physical, verbal, written) where assumed is what you
imagine the other person to be feeling according to her situation,
tastes, sensibility etc. (Kolm andYthier, 2006:58). Own empathy is
what you imagine you would feel yourself given you were in the
other persons situation (Kolm and Ythier, 2006: 58).
- Moral hedonism. When a person is subjected to moral hedonism
she values pleasure as something, that should be available to
everybody and therefore she feels an urge to help a person who is in
a less favorable situation than herself. Her motivations could be of
either compassion or pity in the sense that she feels upset that the
person she attempts to help, is in a difficult situation or she could
feel compassionated about helping a certain cause simply because
she believes it is preferable to feel pleasure over pain. (Kolm and
Ythier, 2006: 58).
II. Normative altruism is based on reasoning in a rational way so the
altruistic person who performs the action does it on the assumption,
that seeing people become happier is a value in itself. People who are
hedonistic become happy when seeing other people uplifted, which
therefore makes them value pleasure over pain. To illustrate the
difference; hedonistic altruists help other people because they
experience joy or happiness when seeing an improvement of another
persons situation, whereas the normative altruists are altruistic
because of an ethical code she follows which makes her value that
other people should feel good. (Kolm and Ythier, 200: 57, 60).
The kind of altruism, which has its origin in norms and values, can be
divided into two additional branches. The first is moral intuition
which is based in the natural form of morality, this means that it
operates on an unconscious level; therefore, moral intuition does not
need to be argued or reasoned but rather just followed as a code of

SCS Journal

17

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
ethics as opposed to the rational moral which arguably is based on
the reasoning process. (Kolm and Ythier, 2006: 60).
The actions, which come from social norms that may be viewed as
altruistic, are referred to as an obligation, which society finds
desirable. Thus it may not necessarily be an actual altruistic action
because it may be based on societys expectations of what a good
action is and not what the altruist herself considers a good action.
Consequently, a person can perform an action because she assumes
that it is in the interest of society or other more local institutions
which make it possible to perform an altruistic action out of an
egoistic motivation. (Kolm and Ythier, 2006: 82).
In the rational branch two aspects of altruism are introduced. The
first branch, the selfish branch is based on altruistic actions which
are grounded in the hypothesis that the altruistic person can imagine
herself in a position that is less favorable, (the receivers position),
which is her motivation for her supportive action. This is what the
model refers to as substitution, which is something that is often
related to empathy, compassion or pity7. (Kolm and Ythier; 2006:
68).
Putative reciprocity is similar to the substitution, but includes one
extra addition that the altruistic person has to take into
consideration, when evaluating if the action should be performed or
not. Substitution is when the performer is only imagining her in the
receivers position, whereas putative reciprocity is when she
imagines if their roles switched she would like to be offered help by
somebody in a position to provide it. ( Batson, 1991: 16)
The second aspect of the rational branch includes two different
altruistic motivations impartiality and universalization.
Impartiality is when the altruistic actions are rooted within the
ability to be an impartial spectator, who views others objectively
when considering what is best or fair for them. The action the
receiver prefers is something, that the impartial spectator sees as
beneficial for that specific person and therefore she performs the
altruistic action due to her sense of justice, fairness or equality.
Universalization is when the altruistic person contributes with help,
assistance or material supply even though this is insignificant in
itself, meaning that her help does not matter in the large perspective.
This rationalization presupposes that one person with this view
would be motivated to act accordingly to the assertion that everyone
would act similarly in the same context or situation. (Kolm and
Ythier, 2006: 71).

SCS Journal

18

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
The last typology of Kolm and Yther sees as very useful tool in future
empirical research concerning altruistic behavior among various
social groups. For instance, the typology can be used in order to
compile a questionnaire for the young people in order to explore
their motivation to do voluntary work and participate in various
charity and social projects. This typology concludes on how various
factors influence altruism and shows both altruistic and egoistic
motivations can be reasons for performing altruistic acts.
This brief overview of typologies of altruism once again is
acknowledgment that altruism exists, but show how debatable is
whether we deal with altruism or not true altruism. How altruism
can be presented, in other words the specific content of altruism
depends on many factors and situations, and often is quite pragmatic
to draw a particular line between different types of altruism. We
need to look within ourselves and search for own values and
motives, which lead to our definition of altruism. Therefore the
analysis of motives of one or another form of human altruistic
behavior is difficult, because only we now about our real motives.
LOOKING AT ALTRUISM THROUGH PRISM OF EGOISM
One way to understand that is altruism, it is to think about its
opposite term- egoism. The term altruism was just introduced in
contrast to egoism, which is a motivational state with the ultimate
goal of increasing one's own welfare (Batson, 2011: 20). Even
Auguste Comte, the coiner of the term altruism, was in no doubt, that
the chief problem of human life is the subordination of egoism to
altruism. The whole of social science consists therefore in duly
working out this problem, the essential principle being the reaction
of collective over individual life (Seglow, 2004: 49).
If we look at Batson concepts of altruism and egoism, altruism and
egoism have much in common. Each reverse to a goal-directed
motive; each is concerned with the ultimate goal and motive; and for
each the ultimate goal its to increase someone's welfare. Only
difference is that egoism is one's own welfare and altruism is
someone's welfare. But if person increases at the same time both
welfare, then with what we are dealing with an altruist or an egoist?
To be sure, this definition of altruism rules out as non-altruistic only
helping behaviors that involve the expectation of external rewards.
It does not eliminate the possibility that heroic rescuers were selfinterested in seeking internal rewards. Some researchers have
suggested that, although another person benefits materially, helping
behavior is directed towards the helper's own psychological state.

SCS Journal

19

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
The maintain that, because helping behavior is directed at
improving the helper's own internal state or avoiding self-censure
it is, in fact, an egoistic act with pro-social effect. (Seglow, 2004: 89)
Christine Korsgaard has put one of the problems about altruism as
follows: Human beings are subject to practical claims from various
sources-our own interests, the interests of others, morality itself.
The normative question is answered by showing that the points of
view from which these different interests arise are congruent, that
meeting the claims made from one point of view will not necessarily
mean violating those that arise from another. And that in turn shows
how the threat is conceived. The threat is that the various claims
which our nature makes on us will tear us apart. The concern is that
morality might be bad or unhealthy for us. We reply to the challenge
by showing that morality's claims are not going to hurt us or tear us
apart. Here the elaboration consists in calling into question the
implicit contrast between egoistic and altruistic concerns, and
offering a corresponding rapprochement between on us which are
generated from these different sources.( Seglow, 2004: 49)
If we define egoism it as much care and love to myself in comparison
with the care and love for others, we will announce that all people
are selfish without exception. Let's calculate how much time we
spend on ourselves and how many for others. And find out that in
almost all cases, spending more time for ourselves than for others.
This is a dream, and food, and body care, dressing and undressing,
and studying, and recreation, and hobbies. This shows that we think
more about ourselves than about others love ourselves more than
others, care more about ourselves than about others.
In Nietzsches (1878/1984) Human, All Too Human, any social
instinct (that is, any behavior performed to help another) is said to
be derived from the communal seeking of pleasure and elimination
of pain. That is, acting for the will of the good is, in effect, acting for
ones self, therefore leaving little room for altruism. Nietzsche
(1901/1967) in Will to Power, goes so far as to deem an altruistic
mode of valuation as one that is ill-constituted and sets individuals
up for a life of self-denial, slavery, inferiority, and poverty, and that
selfless tendencies amongst individuals are signs of weakness.
(Weiler, 2003: 3) Altruism, for Nietzsche, was the most hypocritical
form of egoism, grounded in resentment of others' success. The
altruistic person used their own low self-worth to measure the value
of others' activities.( Scott, Seglow,2007: 18) Nietzsche sees the
cause of altruism in the poetic interest of those who have lacked the
experience of love and thus construct a mistaken idolized context in
which this love can occur. For Nietzsche, the tendency to think of

SCS Journal

20

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
others and not oneself comes from a sense of pity.(Scott, Seglow,
2007: 19)
The dominant Western view, more in line with the writings of
Nietzsche, discounts altruistic potential in favor of egoism. In
Hobbes (1651) classic Leviathan, he stated, they (men) are in
that common condition which is called war; and such a war as is of
every man against every manAnd the life of man, solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short. and that, No man gives but with intention
of good to himself, because gift is voluntaryand the object is to
every man his own good. Western philosophers who took similar
stances on the altruism-egoism debate were La Rouchefoucald
(1691), who believed that self-love was the motive behind all mans
actions; Bentham (1789/1876) the utilitarian thinker whose mission
was to teach individuals how to cultivate a life of selfish interests,
with a legislature that makes laws that allow each man with selffocused desires to glean the greatest amount of happiness from the
multitudes. (Weiler, 2003: 4)
Other thinkers and writers, however, took a more moderate
position; that is, they argued for the existence of altruism while still
maintaining that self-interest can remain a salient and powerful
motive. Hume (1740/1896) argued that there was more than selfinterested motives underlying compassion for others: the key for
Hume was sympathetic concern, which he deemed a natural
(whereas base selfish motives were, for Hume, unnatural)
predisposition amongst all men. Kant (1785/1889) initially
proclaimed that it was the duty of all to abide by the commandment
to love neighbors, even enemies. To fulfill ones duty, however, may
not be categorized as either altruistic or egoistic; it is simply the
satisfactory achievement of an obligation. (Weiler, 2003: 5)
Modern sociologists, for instance Batson suggests in this situation
that: A single motive cannot be both altruistic and egoistic. To seek
to benefit both self and other implies two ultimate goals, and each
new ultimate goal defines a new goal-directed motive. Both altruistic
and egoistic motives can exist simultaneously within a single
individual. An individual can have more than one ultimate goal at a
time, and so more than one motive. That is, an individual can be
pursuing more than one desired state. If both altruistic and egoistic
goals exist, are of roughly equal attractiveness, and lie in different
directions, then the individual will experience motivational conflict
(Batson, 2011: 22)
We can say that egoism- is when a person takes care of himself in
harm to the detriment of others, through others, when it is a conflict

SCS Journal

21

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
situation "either-or" (clash of personal interests and the interests of
others, either one or the other, no middle choice) a person makes a
choice in own benefit and harm to others.
Batson also suggest that motives of altruism can not be negative, but
could instead be the fact that you feel better about yourself, in
knowing that you did something good for another person. True
altruism on the other hand we believe only exists in the moment of
the given situation. The act itself can start out as being truly
altruistic; it can be an instinctive sincere action where the aspect of
self-gain does not even occur. However, if the person afterwards
feels uplifted and better about him-/her we think that it reverts to be
just an altruistic act. (Batson, 2011:10)
We can not be so categorical in the way of distinguishing between
altruism as purely positive quality and egoism as something
negative. In both cases, should be the golden mean. It would seem
that in an effort to help others there is nothing wrong and bad, but
consider how to find golden mean of altruistic acts in detail.
ALTRUISM LIMITS, INCLUSIVENESS AND BENEFITS
It is strange to say that altruism should have limits. But we have to
mention this aspect, because altruism may also have negative
consequences. In the soft version, altruism means more care of
others than about myself. In the hard version, it may mean caring of
others at the expense of myself, until self-destruction.
That's why the more nuanced question about altruism is: when
should I be altruistic? and who need my altruistic acts. In a world
of strangers, where are many needy people, but also many others
who could respond to their need, how should I decide when it is my
turn to help? Or should it always be my turn, so long as there are
people in need? (Seglow, 2004: 110)
That's why Wolff has improved original religious Golden Rule. Wolff
put attention that altruistic behavior is limited by situation and
ability. Wolff concretes that people have the obligation to help those
who are in need, but in so far as one is capable of doing so. The duty
does not extend to putting oneself in danger. Wolff expresses this
clearly in his reflections on rendering assistance(Scott, Seglow, 2007:
10).
Oscar Wilde in his play Ideal husband" says: Self-sacrifice should
be prohibited by law, as it corrupts those who make sacrifices.
Additionally, people have noticed that altruism can have devastating,

SCS Journal

22

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
catastrophic consequences for those to whom it is directed.
Excessive care of others usually leads to the fact that these others are
almost literally no longer take care for themselves and become
dependents, parasites, spiritual and even physical disabilities.
However, there are many, who assume that altruism requires sellsacrifice, we have to raw our attention at least at two problems with
including self-sacrifice in the altruism. First, it shifts attention from
crucial question of motivation to consequences. It may involve no
self-sacrifice, but the ultimate goal may still be to increase the
other's welfare. Goals, not consequences, must be used to distinguish
altruism from egoism .Second, definition based on self-sacrifice
overlooks the possibility that some self-benefits increase as the costs
of benefiting another increase. The cost of being hero, martyr, or
saint may be very Great, but so may the anticipated reward. To avoid
these two problems, it best to define altruism in terms of benefit to
other, not cost to self. (Batson, 2011: 23)
We should not consider the costs of behaving altruistically, unless
these costs become so great as to leave the agent worse off than the
person she is trying to help. We should not draw distinctions
between people as being more or less eligible for our help-the extent
of their need is all that should concern us. And we should not
consider our own responsibility as in any way lessened by the fact
that there are others who might equally well help; indeed the less
others do to help, the greater our altruistic responsibilities become. (
Seglow, 2004: 115)
Another confusing part is inclusiveness: how altruist spreads
altruistic acts among needy people and how the potential altruist
views the person who needs help. A multitude of studies have shown
that altruism is significantly affected by perceptions of similarity
between giver and receiver. So for example, smartly dressed people
help other smartly dressed people more often that they help scruffy
people. More worryingly, perhaps, people are more likely to help
those who share physical features like skin color- in some
circumstances, for example, white people are less likely to help
blacks than they are other white people, though this depends on
whether they can justify the different treatment to themselves on
grounds other than race. People discriminate racially, in other
words, but they have a bad conscience about doing so, so they need
an excuse. Their altruism is also influenced by what they learn about
the political views of the would be recipient.( Seglow, 2004:111-112)
Good people, it might be said, would not discriminate: they would
help whenever help was needed and they were able to provide it.

SCS Journal

23

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
Perhaps people are being selective in their altruism because they are
willing to help their own poor but not everyone else's. Admittedly
they are using somewhat arbitrary criteria to decide who their own
poor are, but the underlying impulse is that of wanting to do one's
fair share, but no more than that, of the world's altruistic work.
(Seglow, 2004: 113)
This is theory of empathy of Daniel Watson. Very often people act
altruistically only because of personal sympathy. Under this theory,
we do truly altruistic only to those people that we like, we
sympathize. A person can experience empathy and to unfamiliar
people in any case if he likes them. Altruistic behavior is preceded by
sympathy, sympathy generates altruistic behavior. Altruism appears
as empathy, the concept of the emotional state of another person,
and the ability to share it. But if a person has not experienced the
same feeling like this, he cannot feel empathy to another.
For example, altruism, for Smith, expressed as self-sacrifice, is
directed to those who are close to us, and this is not the same as
putting oneself in the position of another. The latter involves moral
feeling and sympathy which is stronger than the feeble spark of
benevolence. The stronger aspect involves reason-principle
conscience and the perspective of an impartial observer, rather than
the love of one's neighbor. (Scott, Seglow 2007, 14)
Another aspect of altruism is we should also recognize that there are
many others who could help too. The question is: what is my fair
share of responsibility? How much can I be expected to do myself,
and how much can I properly leave to others? The more people
become available to help, the more responsibility for helping
becomes diffused. If I fail to help, and the victim suffers, I may be
part-responsible for what happens, but my responsibility is shared
with two, six or however many others there are present. And
responsibility shared is responsibility demised. To connect this to
diminished altruism, we only need to observe that altruism has two
sides to it: is praiseworthy to help people in need, but blameworthy
to fail to help them. If I fail to act in a multi-person case, I may miss
out on the praise, or self praise, that I would have received, but at
least I am not much to blame for what happens to the victim. So I am
less likely to do the altruistic deed. (Seglow 2004, 114 )
Each person bears an equal part of the cost or perhaps a share that
reflects each person's capacity for altruistic behavior, in line with the
famous formula from each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs. However one does the calculation, the idea is
that each person has an altruistic quota that he is supposed to

SCS Journal

24

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
meet, that he can be asked or in cases required to fulfill that quota,
but that he should not be asked to take anyone else's. Most people
won't fulfill their quota. ( Seglow 2004, 116) In the book Murphy
basic idea is that one should first work out what each person would
be required to do assuming full compliance by everyone else, and
then in situations of partial compliance one should do as much good
as one can, so long as the sacrifice involved does not exceed what
would be demanded under full compliance. (Seglow, 2004: 117)
Altruistic people can be met everywhere. One of the benefits of
altruism is that people, who are altruistic are more extrovert and
more sociable than others.
Monroe shows there is no direct link between socio-cultural
variables (that is, religion, family background, wealth, occupation,
family position, birth order, family size, community) and rescuing
behavior. By Monroe's account, that which distinguishes altruists
from their non-altruistic counterparts is perception of oneself as a
part of a common humanity rather than as more an isolated being.
(Seglow 2004, 91) Therefore altruism is widely promoted in our
society. An altruistic society helps to generate social capital in a
variety of different ways. The social interaction which altruism
involves brings more personal connections to participants, and thus
more people to call on to do a favor, help mind the children, or put a
job one's way. Many moral and political virtues, of value on their
own account and indispensable for a properly functioning polity, are
well maintained through social practices involving altruism. These
include tolerance, empathy, solidarity, and a willingness to
participate in political and social life. (Seglow, 2004:161)
Other thing that can be said here about altruism is that it gives
confidence - in their own abilities and capabilities. Altruistic act give
a sense of self-satisfaction, reduce feelings of guilt, increase our selfesteem, self-esteem, make you think about yourself a better. Very
often people who have committed a truly altruistic act (for example,
saving another life), said: If I did not, I could not then treat yourself
with respect. In the context of this theory, we can assume that
helping others displays egoism. Such kind of altruism is good for
health at least in the sense that a person does not suffer from pangs
of conscience, such actions do not violate our self-esteem, but also
allow you to get what you want.
One of the benefits is that altruism might bring is an increase in
opportunity freedom. This is because many of the social practices
which are the media of opportunity freedom rely upon people having
altruistic motives. Increasing the density of interaction between

SCS Journal

25

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
residents makes it more likely that institutions like residents'
associations, nurses, youth clubs and so on will emerge. People
engage in these situations in part for mutual benefit, but, whenever
the density of interaction between people is increased, there is likely
to be some altruism involved too. We can measure freedom by
dimensions including range, value and density of social
opportunities. A more altruistic society may be freer. (Seglow,
2007:160)
Doing good to others, sacrificing themselves - a great romantic
image, glorified in our society. We are building from altruist's gods
or heroes. Christ, Prometheus, Mother Teresa, Giordano Bruno,
Gandhi - all of these individuals we honor, set as an example. But we
should not to forget it is easy to turn the altruist into a voluntary
victim. As I wrote - altruism is really important - especially when
there is nothing, and especially when they are not in a position to
support them. But if the altruism becomes as sacrifice and is the
norm of everyday life, it can destroy our lives. We can conclude that
altruism should be moderate, in principle, as well as selfishness.
There must be a balance between to give - to take. As Aristotle said:
the life should be balanced and that it's beauty. Excessive selfsacrifice and "help one's neighbor" in that no matter what, we can
see can lead to different consequences. After all, we live in a time
when many use the human conscience, compassion, sympathy, and
thereby, increase their level of selfishness and cynicism.
Selfishness. Egoism complete absence of altruism
Altruism
Sacrifice. Excessive altruism, bordering on the dismissive attitude
toward ourselves and our own interests

People whose purpose is only to their own well-being, self-interest,

end up having not much. How easily they came to their goal, stepping
over social norms and people, as quickly and easily can lose that they
have obtained. We all know about the law of the boomerang, and
that on someone else's misfortune cannot build your happiness, and
that the effort is directly proportional to the result. That's why
moderate altruism in contrast to egoism is much better, more stable
and durable for society.
To conclude and to answer to the question: What is altruism and
does it exist? Mostly common conclusion is that altruistic actions are
possible. But it is still debatable what particular motivations guides'
altruism. Motivation may be different: the desire to disperse our
genes into eternity, nurturing our ego, the performance of social

SCS Journal

26

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
norms, desire for self-assertion, need for approval and recognition,
fear of retribution of God, a philosophical approach to life, charity,
kindness or love. But we cannot definitively judge that motives were
due: altruistic or egoistic context. Even analyzing the theories of
altruism, there is no clear and convincing answer to the question of
the nature of altruism.
It remains true that altruistic motivations are hard to prove
absolutely. The selfish nature of human endeavor to obtain
compensation for their work. But do not be so categorical in defining
altruism as offering a sacrifice to another person. Altruism is
required in modern society, but we must give an additional aspect to
the meaning of altruism. We should promote altruism among people,
but do not forget about its moderation and balance between I and
other.
REFERENCES
Batson, C. D.(1991). The Altruism Question: Towards a socialpsychological answer.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Batson, C. D.(2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford ; New York : Oxford
University Press
Berezina, T. (2001) Egoizm i altruism v mezlitsnostnyh
vzaimodeistvijah. Otryvok iz monografii: Mnogomernja psihika.
Vnutrenni mir litsnosti.(
. . ..
. .) Available at:
http://experiment4.narod.ru/alt.htm
Kolm, S., Ythier, J. (2006). Handbook of the economics of giving,
altruism and reciprocity foundations volume 1-2. North-Holland.
Post, S. (2002). Altruism & altruistic love : science, philosophy, &
religion in dialogue. Oxford : Oxford University Press
Scott, N., Seglow, J. (2007). Altruism. Maidenhead ; New York: Open
University Press.
Seglow, J. (2004) The ethics of altruism. London ; Portland : Frank
Cass
Seelig, B., Dobelle, W. (2001) Altruism and the Volunteer:
Psychological Benefits from Participating as a Research Subject.
ASAIO Journal. Available at:

SCS Journal

27

Studies of Changing Societies:

Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus
Vol. 2'(4)2012
SCS Journal
http://bethseeligmd.com/resources/pdf/bjseelig_altruism-and-thevolunteer.pdf
Stich, S., Doris, J., Roedder, E. (2008). Altruism. The Handbook of
Moral Psychology ed. by The Moral Psychology Research Group,
Oxford University Press. Available at:
http://pdf-edu.com/1-philosophical-background.html
Weiler, E. (2003). Altruism, Volunteerism, and Personality. St. Marys
College of Maryland.
Available at:
http://www.smcm.edu/psyc/_assets/documents/SMP/Showcase/0
203-EWeiler.pdf

SCS Journal

28