u/LawyerDifferent8880

View Poll

It is easy to understand why those lacking wealth or power struggle to engage in altruistic behavior: such actions require both the resources to offer others and the motivation to help them. If one is destitute while those around them are better off, one lacks both of these prerequisites.

Conversely, those who possess substantial wealth or power are well supplied with the resources necessary for altruism. The issue, then, lies in motivation. People generally act altruistically because they anticipate some form of return. This return is not limited to material incentives; it also includes intangible benefits such as trust and reputation. It is undeniable that the expectation of such returns often underpins altruistic behavior. Yet for someone with immense wealth or power, what meaningful return can realistically be expected? They are surrounded largely by people who are poorer and less powerful. Any return gained from helping such individuals is likely to be negligible. As a result, it becomes more reasonable for the wealthy to secure benefits by leveraging their wealth and power to influence others, rather than relying on altruism—a strategy with a low expected return. In other words, as long as they retain their wealth and power, they need not fear retaliation from the weakers, even if they behave somewhat selfishly.

Of course, even if this argument holds, it does not imply that all poor or wealthy individuals are inherently selfish. It merely proposes a hypothesis: if personal wealth and power affect altruistic tendencies, such patterns may naturally emerge.

According to this hypothesis, the middle class is most likely to engage in altruistic behavior. They possess sufficient resources to offer others, and because they care about the trust and reputation they maintain within their communities, they are also more easily motivated by altruism. One prediction derived from this hypothesis is that if the middle class declines and society becomes polarized between the poor and the wealthy, human altruistic behavior will likely diminish.

Spawned into it, we writhe about, desperately trying to escape the pain of the needles. Yet, no matter how we shift our posture, the pain merely moves from our backs to our bellies. If there is any way to escape that pain, it is only by using others as a cushion beneath us.

People condemn murder as one of the greatest sins because death is the most abhorrent thing for them, but if that's the case, how can they justify the act of childbirth, which imposes an inescapable death on others?

人類を巧みに家畜化して大繁殖に成功した生物種だという考え方