The Moral Mind - Essay Example

? (Word Count: 1056) The Moral Mind Different ideas and contradicting viewpoints always play a significant role in makingthorough interpretation of esoteric concepts. This essay would analyze two major critical study approaches of human behavior. To be more specific, this essay intends to understand human way of thinking and the execution of activities considering different aspects. On the one side, it is Barry Schwartz who holds the opinion of altruism in human, the very nature of selflessness and a feeling of belonging for the other. The opponents of this argument Ross and Nisbett reject this ideology and hold the view that human behavior is inconsistent across situations. According to Schwartz, one normally has interest for others and it is ‘opposed to egoism’ (148). Hence, at certain occasions people do act upon the interest of the others. Whereas, Ross and Nisbett understand this social psychology in a different manner as a kind of ‘fascinating things about human behavior’ which can either validate or contradict it (187). They understand that human behavior is mysterious and can act upon the circumstances and situations of particular time. Schwartz’s opinion is well substantiated with many evidences. He argues his point of view in the mental functioning of presumption, assuming to be true. Presumption is the very basis of his explanation of the existence of the concept altruism. A normal person holds an instinct to serve the other without making any preferences. Moreover, an altruist act is little or no at all profit or benefit oriented. To substantiate his argument he explains certain fields of study such as biology, economics and psychology. Whereas, he is totally being criticized by Ross and Nisbett as they stick on to a different and unique point of view. They strongly support their view even by establishing a term of ‘fundamental attribution of error’ and believe that the personality can have a greater influence in deciding on decisions (189). Furthermore, personality and human behavior have tremendous influence in every action performed by him. But the situation and the sudden movements always do not encourage an act of altruism. It is a normal understanding that at a particular situation, a person acts accordingly. This concept is better explained in following verses “the situationist acknowledges that individuals may exhibit behavioral regularity over time across a run of a substantially similar situation” (Ross& Nisbett 199). Therefore, they strongly argue that the behavior is completely unreliable. An unreliable human behavior is subjected to change with the change in situation; whereas, the former concept of altruism is further substantiated on the basis its perfection which only possible through a whitewash over the egoistic motives. Ultimately, Schwartz accepts and understands the challenges associated with it such as ‘individualism, atomism and egoism’ but he is optimistic and says “altruism becomes not impossible but ubiquitous” (.149). However, overcoming every problem is coupled with clear understanding and rational thinking. The tension prevailing is nothing but a contradict view. On the one side Schwartz argues that humans are robustly and consistently altruistic, describing the tendency or the instinct to serve others; while on the other side Ross and Nisbett contradict this view by substantiating their view of inconsistency across situations. Therefore, solving this debatable issue is not an easy task. Guided by intelligence or rational thinking one would always adapt a mid-way approach as it is well said that virtue lays in the middle. Before coming to a final decision one should always look at both pros and cons of both points of view. The positive sides of the altruistic attitude are remarkable as humans do such kind of activities in their day-to-day life. Similarly, on the other side, the argument for situational act is not a negligible ideology as many at circumstances some hesitate to perform certain good actions. On the flip side, both ideologies have own incredible negative sides. For instance, an altruist does not do or serve the other on all occasions irrespective of negative influence or impact. At the same time, there are examples one performs activities consistently without considering any situation. Hence, this tension caused due to contradict views can only be resolved by understanding the concept thoroughly. Therefore, one should always act upon the fact that the human is enriched with altruistic nature simultaneously there are circumstances when these selfless acts are rejected by himself. By analyzing both contradicting views in a critical manner, one can gain a wide knowledge regarding both these aspects of ideology or thinking. A rational thinker can no longer make any kind of partial approach to any of these concepts. Only by overlooking factors, one might say that situational traits seem to be more practical while other seems to be more of theoretical and abstract. But measuring them on a scale one can witness an equal weight of both, neither of them experiencing any kind of upper hand. Though these remain as contradictory issues it can be changed or transformed with a better thinking or interpretation. It is not the matter either what they normally do with their altruist attitude or what they reject forced by certain situations. Hence, a better interpretation is demandable in this case in order to establish peace on these contradictory views. Firstly, it is not required of us to do what we do normally inspired by the altruistic nature but what we are suppose to do for a better cause realizing the real needs of the sufferer or seeker. At the same time, one should do every good act without making any priorities or considering its aftermath. In the conclusion, it is crystal clear from the discussion that both Schwartz and Ross & Nisbett differ in their ideology and are capable of substantiating their views with relevant examples and evidences. Initially, Schwartz proved his argument to be true similarly Ross and Nisbett also excelled in their inference making. Thus, altruism and situations are two diverse concepts which cannot be interconnected. At the same time, making an inference or comment over the topic is not effortless because it needs or demands a rational thinking of a philosopher. Therefore, only a critical and logical approach can offer a better solution to this contradictory outlook. Finally, one should realize the fact that altruism is a unique concept which is interrelated to presumption while behaving inconsistently is entirely a different concept. So, instead of inter connecting them, one should take and analyze them individually. Works Cited Nadelhoffer, Thomas et al. (Eds). Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings. John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print. Read More