Читать книгу Positive Psychology - Группа авторов - Страница 18

As said earlier, altruism in the egoism–altruism debate refers to a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare. It’s juxtaposed to egoism, defined as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing our own welfare. As these definitions highlight, altruism and egoism have much in common. Each refers to a motivational state; each is concerned with the ultimate goal of that motivational state; and, for each, the ultimate goal is to increase someone’s welfare. These common features provide the context for focusing on the crucial difference: Whose welfare is the ultimate goal – another person’s or our own?

(Note that “ultimate goal” in the two definitions refers to means–end relations in the psychological present, not to a metaphysical first or final cause, and not to biological function. An ultimate goal is an end in itself. In contrast, an instrumental goal is a stepping stone on the way to some other goal. Both instrumental and ultimate goals should be distinguished from unintended consequences – results of an action that aren’t a goal.)

Each of a person’s ultimate goals defines a distinct goal‐directed motive. Hence, altruism and egoism, which have different ultimate goals, are distinct motives even though they can co‐occur. Moreover, they are motivational states, not personal dispositions or traits. The disagreement in the egoism–altruism debate is over the nature of our motives – egoism versus altruism – not over the kind of people we are – egoists versus altruists.