Generosity
The world is a far better place than most of us imagine. The Swedish statistician Hans Rosling proved that a few years ago with hard data. But why do most people perceive the world differently? Rosling showed that many of us are equipped with outdated mental models and plagued by cognitive bias. According to Rosling, the world is a better, kinder, and more generous world in many ways. At least for human animals. The planet has primarily been domesticated.
On a beautiful planet filled with awe and wonder, we have recently discovered that survival of selfish genes does not imply selfish individuals. On the contrary, evolutionary competition is a shared endeavor. It means sharing, giving, altruism, what we generally call generosity. Within Darwinian thought, generosity implies family members sacrificing for one another, helping when there is no prospect of payback— or being willing to risk life and limb to protect one’s people or avenge harms done to them. But Darwin seems outdated mainly.
People demonstrably tend to behave cooperatively and share benefits and burdens fairly with unrelated individuals, even when this involves some personal sacrifice. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective because this serves the transmission of genes, even if the motive is opportunistic. This fits with the idea that people who do good in public, may be motivated by a desire to gain a reputation for generosity. Perhaps when no one is looking, they are not generous at all. Do you agree? Is this reciprocal generosity sustainable and is pure altruism, from an evolutionary perspective, a dead end? The current war in Ukraine has hammered this down: generosity is a must in an interconnected world in which all of us depend on other nations and cultures. Without globally shared wellbeing, the world will forever be in danger and threaten to get out of balance. Which in the Anthropocene, can have devastating consequences. How far should our generosity go? Should it include other species? Being generous and humane to them, seems to benefit our species too.
Philosopher Peter Singer accentuates effective altruism based on a simple idea: “we should do the most good we can. Obeying the usual rules about not stealing, cheating, hurting, and killing is not enough, or at least not enough for those of us who have the great good fortune to live in material comfort, who can feed, house, and clothe ourselves and our families and still have money or time to spare.” According to Singer, a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place. Living an entirely moral life consists in doing the most good we can. Are you generous? Where are you on the continuum between a minimally acceptable ethical life and an entirely ethical life? Why are we there? Are you fully aware of the importance of generosity to others and the Other? Have you felt the meaning of generosity in your own life? Does generosity give sense to life? Do you think people can really be motivated by a selfless concern for others?
Can you?
Peter Dupont, moderator
Back to Chapter Generosity ideations
Back to Chapter Generosity homepage