'Empathy-altruism is a form of altruism based on feelings for others.
The social exchange theory basically states that altruism does not exist unless benefits outweigh the costs. C. Daniel Batson disagrees. He feels that people help out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other person.[1] The key ingredient to helping is empathy. According to his 'empathy-altruism hypothesis', if you feel empathy towards another person you will help them, regardless of what you can gain from it (1991). Relieving their suffering becomes the most important thing. When you do not feel empathy, the social exchange theory takes control.'
The issue with this question is that you're trying to define something that cannot be defined. When you say "better" I get lost on what the objective is. Based on circumstances, one or the other could matter. It all comes down to what exactly you are aiming for.
Sometimes it is smart to follow the herd to survive, sometimes it's bad to follow the herd for reasons of pride.
This is a quote from Ralph Ellison's highly charged novel, 'The Invisible Man', which is about the plight of blacks in a white racist society. In those circumstances the quote makes sense but I'm not sure how applicable it is for most of us most of the time.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Not just better, that IS life.
I agree with Blake, "I must create a System or be enslaved by another's."
(apologies for the paraphrase William but you know I got the gist
It depends on the essence you are born with and what happens there after to that essence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism
'Empathy-altruism is a form of altruism based on feelings for others.
The social exchange theory basically states that altruism does not exist unless benefits outweigh the costs. C. Daniel Batson disagrees. He feels that people help out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other person.[1] The key ingredient to helping is empathy. According to his 'empathy-altruism hypothesis', if you feel empathy towards another person you will help them, regardless of what you can gain from it (1991). Relieving their suffering becomes the most important thing. When you do not feel empathy, the social exchange theory takes control.'
The issue with this question is that you're trying to define something that cannot be defined. When you say "better" I get lost on what the objective is. Based on circumstances, one or the other could matter. It all comes down to what exactly you are aiming for.
Sometimes it is smart to follow the herd to survive, sometimes it's bad to follow the herd for reasons of pride.
This is a quote from Ralph Ellison's highly charged novel, 'The Invisible Man', which is about the plight of blacks in a white racist society. In those circumstances the quote makes sense but I'm not sure how applicable it is for most of us most of the time.
Absurdity is equally as atrocious, whether you die for one or the other is of no consequence. Equally as awful as living with one.
It is better, yes, to develop one's will and consciousness than to be led around like sheep, played like sock puppets by the "Powers that Be".
Yes.
Ralph Ellison thought so.
Yes, that's I think wars are so wrong.
Ron Paul could tell you the answer to that ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLv8c2nlF0E :)