I would like to make the argument whether prosocial behavior is selfish or selfless. Firstly, What does it mean to be prosocial? Prosocial behavior is an act that is positively valued by society (A. Trace, Lecture 2, 2012), or they can be acts that intentionally benefit another human being. Secondly, I believe that prosocial behaviour can be both selfish and selfless, completely depending on the person who is doing the act.
The evolutionary approach argues that gender role division is a consequence of the adaptation to the challenges and circumstances faced by our ancestors. This suggests that the role differences we observe are more a product of our biological inheritance and evolution than social factors acting on our behavior. As evolutionary theory is a biological approach to gender development, it suggests that our genes have coded aspects of human behavior because they were or are adaptive. However a debate to this approach is the nature vs. nurture approach, nature supporting the evolutionary approach being that we have evolved through survival and adaptation to the situations and therefore passing on the adaptive genes of the survivors. Nurture on the other hand is a view, is a view proposed by the social approach suggesting that behavior is affected by socialization and environment.
The nature-nurture debate is all about whether genetics (nature) or our environment (nurture) is responsible for our behaviour and development. Early theorists believed that our personality, intellect, behaviour and gender role were determined by our genes and therefore could not be changed. But an increasing amount of evidence has proved these theorists wrong, and our development as an individual is learnt through the environment we live in. One developmental stage of an individual that psychologists have the nature-nurture debate about is the intelligence stage. The nature side of that intelligence is present at birth and we already have a set amount of intelligence.
Contrast Theories Explaining Altruism in Humans Altruism according to evolutionary theory is a behaviour that reduces the fitness of the altruistic individual but increases the fitness of the individual receiving help (Okasha, 2008). Fitness is a central tenet in evolutionary theory. It refers to an individual’s capacity to pass on copies of his or her genes to the next population (Rosenberg & Bouchard, 2008). On the face of it, altruism does not make much sense from an evolutionary point of view, as the behavior seems unlikely to have been transformed into an adaptation. Adaptations, which are driven by natural selection, are features especially important for an animal’s survival.
So this correlates with humans having a very aggressive violent past dealing with defending territories, sexual selection, and natural selection. On the other hand, biological anthropologist, Robert Sussman “rejects the theory that human aggression is an inherited propensity, arguing instead that violence is a product of culture and upbringing” (Sussman, 15-16). Humans are a much more established than any other species, we learn from what we surround ourselves with. Therefore, humans are not inherently violent. Human aggression is all based off of our great ape ancestors.
1. In the Neostoic view (such as held by Martha Nussbaum and Carl Ratner) emotions are just the other side of the coin of our rational and moral reasoning which composes our world-view, (a set of concepts, values, beliefs and emotions that can change due to new insights and experiences). Let's look at this Neostoic view of the emotions as cognitive and evaluative personal judgements, and how they are also connected to cultural (macro) attitudes, beliefs and social relations. Nussbaum says that it is as important to nourish and cultivate prosocial emotions (love, compassion, peace, goodness) as to create institutions of justice. Her Neostoic view of emotions springs from the stoic philosopher Hrisip.
It moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. In this essay I will examine the Ethical Theory of Utility, its background and its influence upon society to determine if Utilitarianism can be expressed in the phrase “ The greatest good for the greatest number.” U·til·i·tar·i·an·ism 1 [Columbia Encyclopedia] Noun: • The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. • The doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be... Background Jeremy Bentham was the father of Utilitarianism, he was of the left liberal view, influenced by the French revolution and by many enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume.
Prosocial behaviour comprises all kinds of human acts, which are deemed positive by society, are carried out voluntarily and intend to benefit someone else (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). In real life it is often based on both egoistic and altruistic motives (Jonas, Stroebe & Hewstone, 2007). Altruism on the other hand is regarded as a subcategory of prosocial behaviour, which premises that benefiting someone else is the ultimate goal of the helper, whereby a reward is neither desired, nor needed on behalf of the helper himself (Batson, 1991). The display of altruism would therefore indeed be a human selfless act per definition. However, whether true altruism really exists is a highly controversial issue among social psychologists.
At first glance, the concept of Cultural Relativism provides an insightful, well-defined perspective on culture and society; however, upon further inspection we can dissect the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism to reveal its setbacks. As James Rachels refers to them, the 1st and 4th claims made by traditional Cultural Relativists, that different societies have different moral codes and that the moral code of our own society is one of many, go hand in hand and follow logically from each other. These claims depend on the contextual definition of “moral code,” and for this argument we will consider these claims to be reasonable and thus we can interpret them as true. When it comes to the 2nd and 3rd claims made by Cultural Relativists, that the moral code of a society determines what is right and what is wrong and that there is no objective standard that can be used to judge each society’s code, we begin to see the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism pull apart at the seams.
Thus, valence of experience ought to impact buyers' item quality recognitions. That is, buyers with an ideal internet shopping background will see an item to have preferred quality over those with an unfavorable affair, particularly on the off chance that they are new to the item. Teas & Agarwal (2000), in his study, “E-tailer Reputation and Perceived Product Quality” Notoriety of the e-tailer is gathered from informal correspondence, level of publicizing, and brand value (Teas and Agarwal, 2000). Past studies propose that verbal suggestion assumes an imperative part in diminishing the measure of data buyers prepare and is utilized as a choice making heuristic to surmise item quality. Brand name (or notoriety) has been found to influence quality