# Which philosophy assumes we want to help others? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 26, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187 "2011-11-26T22:03:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/21 "2011-11-28T17:56:48Z")
Rousseau, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/22 "2011-11-28T20:16:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A request: can we leave religions out of the discussion? > > Thanks. I doubt whether it is possible to answer your original question meaningfully while excluding all reference to religion. Until very recent times, virtually everybody who thought seriously (or even not-do-seriously) about human nature did so within some sort of religious framework, and, even now, most people who think about the matter probably do so against a background of some sort of religious belief. Their views about human nature will not really make sense divorced from that context. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/23 "2011-11-28T22:06:24Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > I doubt whether it is possible to answer your original question meaningfully while excluding all reference to religion. Until very recent times, virtually everybody who thought seriously (or even not-do-seriously) about human nature did so within some sort of religious framework, and, even now, most people who think about the matter probably do so against a background of some sort of religious belief. Their views about human nature will not really make sense divorced from that context. That’s a fair point, but it’s one thing for a philosophy to sprout from someone and have it mesh with his religion. Aquinas on numerous subjects comes to mind. It’s another to have the theory be part of the religion. But for what I am looking for, a religious component makes it unhelpful. That’s why I thought moving into to psychiatry/physiology might be helpful. For instance, is their a component of dopamine release when we help people, etc. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/24 "2011-11-29T15:39:41Z")
Rousseau is the only philosopher I’m aware of who definitely stated that people are inherently good and only become evil when they are corrupted by society. How inherently good humans came to create wicked, corrupt societies, he does not say. In any case, Rousseau was a pretty corrupt character himself. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/25 "2011-11-29T16:10:59Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > How inherently good humans came to create wicked, corrupt societies, he does not say. The process should be utterly familiar to anyone who has ever sat on any form of committee. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/26 "2011-11-30T03:51:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Love that quote! Thanks. I think maybe another way at this is through the altruism angle. I’m wondering if humans are, as a default, hard-wired for altruism. It seems we might be, as 1) we do have empathy and 2) altruistic acts make us feel good. I forgot which philosopher it was who questioned if an act can be completely altruistic, because we derive personal pleasure from such actions. > > What I’m ultimately trying to get a better understanding of is how we assess whether we should help someone, when it is in our power to do so. If you drop a book and your hands are full, it costs me very little to pick it up for you, so I likely will. If you have a flat and don’t know how to change it, the cost of me helping is higher, so the odds of me changing it for you go down. It sounds like you are interested in the social science aspect, i.e. the economics of altruism. This may be a little daunting, but there are 2 Handbooks on the subject, if you have access to a university library. Don’t be reluctant to skip over the indecipherable greek letters. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 1: Foundations (Handbooks in Economics) [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Economics-Giving-Altruism-Reciprocity/dp/0444506977/ref=pd_sim_b_1) Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 2: Applications (Handbooks in Economics) [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Economics-Giving-Altruism-Reciprocity/dp/0444521453) There may be something there. Or there may be nothing there. But the Handbook series tends to provide a very good roundup of economic research, and those editions were published last decade. Here’s a website that may be relevant: [http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/](http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/) Low grade ore I think, but it may have a few nuggets. Robert Wright may or may not have something to say. I enjoyed _The Moral Animal_ but have not read this one: [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679758941/ref=nosim/0sil8) You might also google for _Altruism in Experiments_, Prepared for the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2007 by James Andreoni, William T. Harbaugh, and Lise Vesterlund. Read the abstact and the first couple of paragraphs. Skip to the conclusion. Then circle back or try pulling the references if you feel like it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/27 "2011-11-30T07:23:51Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It sounds like you are interested in the social science aspect, i.e. the economics of altruism. > > This may be a little daunting, but there are 2 Handbooks on the subject, if you have access to a university library. Don’t be reluctant to skip over the indecipherable greek letters. > > Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 1: Foundations (Handbooks in Economics) [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Economics-Giving-Altruism-Reciprocity/dp/0444506977/ref=pd_sim_b_1) > Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 2: Applications (Handbooks in Economics) [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Economics-Giving-Altruism-Reciprocity/dp/0444521453) > There may be something there. Or there may be nothing there. But the Handbook series tends to provide a very good roundup of economic research, and those editions were published last decade. > > Here’s a website that may be relevant: [http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/](http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/) > Low grade ore I think, but it may have a few nuggets. > > Robert Wright may or may not have something to say. I enjoyed _The Moral Animal_ but have not read this one: [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679758941/ref=nosim/0sil8) > > You might also google for _Altruism in Experiments_, Prepared for the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2007 by James Andreoni, William T. Harbaugh, and Lise Vesterlund. Read the abstact and the first couple of paragraphs. Skip to the conclusion. Then circle back or try pulling the references if you feel like it. This looks very interesting. Thanks so much! I’m going to try to get through some of it this weekend. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187/28 "2011-11-30T11:48:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks for the post, particularly the last link. But what I’m really trying to find is if there is a philosophy of human behavior (non-religious) that posits that we are wired to not just “be” good, but to, more actively, “do” good. Look to [science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Scientific_viewpoints) for that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-philosophy-assumes-we-want-to-help-others/604187.md?page=1)