Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
INTRODUCTION
Heroes. Can it be true that in today’s modern world that heroes still exists? Does a red-caped
stranger will just rush at a speeding car with no brakes? Does a black-caped crusader will fight
for those who are oppressed, or an amazon princess ready to fight for what is right? We are
greatly amassed by pop culture on superheroes. From movies, music, shirts and other things, we
are surrounded with those superheroes. Some of us greatly adored these characters as if they
were true, but in fact they are just another man’s pigment of imagination, a creative thought, a
fictional character. A group of people with special powers who has the characteristics, the power,
the guts to stand up for what is right; to face injustices and evil. Whether we idolized them or not,
we know for a fact that they are just fictional. Little do we know that heroes really do exist?
These heroes are unlike those superhero characters you adored. They are just ordinary people,
who are doing an extraordinary act. Anyone can be a hero within their own capabilities. It does
not necessarily mean to be a hero means to have special powers. Even little things can be
considered a heroic act. Take one instance, for example, a group of college students in
Meycauayan College, who helped push a busted jeep in front of the campus. They are known
now as MC Pushers. Their simple act of kindness could be considered as a heroic act, as it is
difficult to do such altruistic act without expecting anything in return. Helping an old woman to
cross the highway, give back the extra change the saleslady gave you, or even return the wallet
you found, all of these are an act of heroism. So, if being a hero is so easy, then why not
everyone is doing it? Can heroism be learn? Or is heroism already innate in a person?
1
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Definition of Heroism
To begin this analysis, we first define heroism. Whereas heroes and heroism are generally
defined in terms of courage and risk of one’s life as well as nobility of purpose (e.g., American
Heritage Dictionary, 2003; Oxford English Dictionary, 2003), these definitions do not clearly
indicate that it is the conjunction of risk taking and service to a socially valued goal that yields
heroic status. Yet, actions that have both of these attributes are far more likely to yield heroic
status than actions that have only one attribute. Thus, people who take risks merely for pleasure
or to attract attention, as in extreme sports, are not deemed heroic, nor are people who serve
valued social goals without risk to their own life or health, as in community volunteering.
Consistent with our definition of heroism, the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, which was
established by Andrew Carnegie (1907)1 to honor heroes, recognizes the necessity of both risk
and service to others in identifying heroes as individuals who voluntarily risk or sacrifice their
life for others’ benefit (Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, 2002)2. Consistent with this definition,
actions recognized as heroic are ordinarily performed voluntarily in the sense that they are not
coerced by external pressures or at least go beyond the bounds of the behavior ordinarily induced
by external pressures, as in the case of military heroism. In this article, we therefore consider as
heroes only individuals who choose to take risks on behalf of one or more other people, despite
the possibility of dying or suffering serious physical consequences from these actions. Heroism
can be identified within the broader category of prosocial or helping behaviors,2 most of which
do not involve much risk to the helper. It is the acceptance of risk to one’s life that calls for valor
or courage and thus transforms prosocial behavior into heroism. These actions, like other
1
Carnegie, A. (1907). Deed of trust. In Carnegie Hero Fund Commission: Annual report (pp. 9–11). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
2
Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. (2002). Requirements for a Carnegie medal. Retrieved September 11, 2002.
2
prosocial behavior, need not be motivated by pure altruism in (Batson’s, 1991) 3 sense of “a
motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare” (p. 6). As we illustrate
in this article, various motives could underlie helping another person by means of acts dangerous
to oneself. Before examining heroic actions of women and men, we consider some insights about
Philanthropy
Philanthropy (from Greek φιλανθρωπία) etymologically means "love of humanity" in the sense
benefactors' (by identifying and exercising their values in giving and volunteering) and
beneficiaries' (by benefiting) parts. The most conventional modern definition is "private
initiatives, for public good, focusing on quality of life". This combines the social scientific aspect
developed in the 20th century with the original humanistic tradition, and serves to contrast
philanthropy with business (private initiatives for private good, focusing on material prosperity)
and government (public initiatives for public good, focusing on law and order)4.
Instances of philanthropy commonly overlap with instances of charity, though not all charity is
philanthropy, or vice versa. The difference commonly cited is that charity relieves the pains of
social problems, whereas philanthropy attempts to solve those problems at their root causes (the
difference between giving a hungry person a fish, and teaching them how to fish). A person who
3
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social–psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4
These distinctions are analyzed by Olivier Zunz, Philanthropy in America: A History.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012
3
Etymology
The word was first coined as an adjective by the playwright Aeschylus in Prometheus
Bound (5th century BC), to describe Prometheus' character as "humanity loving" (philanthropos
tropos), for having given to the earliest proto-humans who had no culture, fire (symbolizing
technological civilization) and "blind hope" (optimism). Together, they would be used to
improve the human condition, to save mankind from destruction. Thus humans were
distinguished from all other animals by being a civilization with the power to complete their own
good works benefiting others. The new word, φιλάνθρωπος philanthropos, combined two words:
φίλος philos, "loving" in the sense of benefitting, caring for, nourishing; and ἄνθρωπος
anthropos, "human being" in the sense of "humanity", or "human-ness." The first use of the noun
form philanthrôpía came shortly thereafter (c. 390 BC) in the early Platonic dialogue Euthyphro.
Socrates is reported to have said that his "pouring out" of his thoughts freely (without charge) to
his listeners was his philanthrôpía. The ancient Greek word for culture as education was the whip
In the first century BC, both paideia and philanthrôpía were translated into Latin by the single
word humanitas, which was also understood to be the core of liberal education studia
humanitatis, the studies of humanity, or simply "the humanities". In the second century
AD, Plutarch used the concept of philanthrôpía to describe superior human beings. This
Classically synonymous troika, of philanthropy, the humanities, and liberal education, declined
with the replacement of the classical world by Christianity. During the Middle Ages,
philanthrôpía was superseded by caritas charity, selfless love, valued for salvation. Philanthropy
was modernized by Sir Francis Bacon in the 1600s, who is largely credited with preventing the
word from being owned by horticulture. Bacon considered philanthrôpía to be synonymous with
4
"goodness", which correlated with the Aristotelian conception of virtue, as consciously instilled
habits of good behaviour (Aristotle, & Irwin, T., 1985)5.Then in the 1700s, an influential lexical
figurehead by the name of Samuel Johnson simply defined philanthropy as "love of mankind;
good nature" (Johnson, S., 1979)6 This definition still survives today and is often cited more
gender-neutrally as the "love of humanity." However, it was Noah Webster who would more
The precise meaning of philanthropy is still a matter of some contention, its definition being
largely dependent on the particular interests of the writer employing the term. Nevertheless, there
are some working definitions to which the community associated with the field of "philanthropic
studies" most commonly subscribes. One of the more widely accepted of these is the one
employed by Lester Salamon, who defines philanthropy as "the private giving of time or
valuables (money, security, property) for public purposes; and/or one form of income of private
Classical Philanthropy
The Ancient Greek view of philanthropy — that the "love of what it is to be human" is the
essential nature and purpose of humanity, culture and civilization — was intrinsically
philosophical, containing both metaphysics and ethics. The Greeks adopted the "love of
humanity" as an educational ideal, whose goal was excellence (arete)—the fullest self-
development, of body, mind, and spirit, which is the essence of liberal education. The Platonic
5
Aristotle, & Irwin, T. (1985). Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
6
Johnson, S. (1979). A dictionary of the English language. London: Times Books.
7
Lester, C. E. (1883). Lester's history of the United States: Illustrated in its five great periods: Colonization, consolidation, development,
achievement, advancement. New York: P. F. Collier.
5
stemming from love of humanity, a state of being productive of benefit to humans". Just as
Prometheus' human-empowering gifts rebelled against the tyranny ofZeus, philanthropia was
also associated with freedom and democracy. Both Socrates and the laws of Athens were
theology and soteriology, administered through the Roman Catholic Church's ecclesiastical and
based on peasant farming organized into manors, which were in turn organized for law and order
monastic libraries.
When it was rediscovered in the Italian Renaissance, humanism consisted of a specific academic
curriculum: grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy, or ethics, designed to train
laymen for effective leadership in business, law, and government. One of the clearest literary
century Oration on the Dignity of Man, which echoes the philanthropic myth of human creation,
though with the Christian God as the Promethean Creator. Francis Bacon in 1592 wrote in a
letter that his "vast contemplative ends" expressed his "philanthropia", and his 1608 essay On
Goodness defined his subject as "the affecting of the weale of men ... what the Grecians call
synonym for "humanitie"(in Latin, humanitas) — thus reaffirming the Classical formulation.
Modern Philanthropy
Philanthropy began to reach its modern form in the Age of Enlightenment — after the Wars of
6
as Rationalism Empiricism and Science, inclined philosophers toward a more progressive view
of history. This tendency achieved an especially pure articulation in the Scottish Enlightenment
8
(McCully, 2010) especially in the works of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of
Shaftesbury and Francis Hutcheson, who proposed that philanthropy is the essential key to
human happiness, conceived as a kind of "fitness"—living in harmony with Nature and one's
own circumstances. Self-development, manifested in good deeds toward others, was the surest
way to live a pleasing, fulfilling, and satisfying life, as well as to help build a commonwealth
community.
Influenced by these ideas, and as a facet of the expansion of civil society, charitable and
philanthropic activity among voluntary associations and rich benefactors became a widespread
cultural practice. Societies, gentleman's clubs and mutual associations began to flourish
in England and the upper-classes increasingly adopted a philanthropic attitude toward the
disadvantaged. This new social activism was channeled into the establishment of charitable
This emerging upper-class fashion for benevolence resulted in the incorporation of the first
charitable organizations. Captain Thomas Coram, appalled by the number of abandoned children
living on the streets of London, set up the Foundling Hospital in 1741 to look after these
unwanted orphans in Lamb's Conduit Fields, Bloomsbury. This was the first such charity in the
world and served as the precedent for incorporated associational charities everywhere.
Jonas Hanway, another notable philanthropist of the era established The Marine Society in 1756
as the first seafarer's charity, in a bid to aid the recruitment of men to the navy9. By 1763, the
society had recruited over 10,000 men and it was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1772.
8
George McCully, Philanthropy Reconsidered (A Catalogue for Philanthropy Publication, 2008, 1–21.
9
N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649–1815(New York: W. W. Norton & Company: 2004), 313.
7
Hanway was also instrumental in establishing the Magdalen Hospital to rehabilitate prostitutes.
These organizations were funded by subscription and run as voluntary associations. They raised
public awareness of their activities through the emerging popular press and were generally held
in high social regard — some charities received state recognition in the form of the Royal
Charter.
campaigning roles, where they would champion a cause and lobby the government for legislative
change. This included organized campaigns against the ill treatment of animals and children and
the campaign that eventually succeeded in ending the slave tradethroughout the British Empire at
During the 19th century, a profusion of charitable organizations were set up to alleviate the awful
conditions of the working class in theslums. The Labourer's Friend Society, chaired by Lord
Shaftesbury in the United Kingdom in 1830, was set up to improve working class conditions.
This included the promotion of allotment of land to labourers for "cottage husbandry" that later
became the allotment movement. In 1844 it became the first Model Dwellings Company —
organizations that sought to improve the housing conditions of the working classes by building
new homes for them, at the same time receiving a competitive rate of return on any investment.
This was one of the first housing associations, a philanthropic endeavour that flourished in the
second half of the nineteenth century brought about by the growth of the middle class. Later
associations included the Peabody Trust and the Guinness Trust. The principle of philanthropic
intention with capitalist return was given the label "five per cent philanthropy" (Tarn, 1973)10.
10
Tarn, J. N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: CUP
8
In 1863, the Swiss businessman Henry Dunant used his personal fortune to found the Geneva
Society for Public Welfare, which became the International Committee of the Red Cross. During
the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Dunant personally led Red Cross delegations that treated
soldiers. He shared the first Nobel Peace Prize for this work in 1901.
Philanthropy became a very fashionable activity among the expanding middle classes in Britain
and America. Octavia Hill and John Ruskinwere an important force behind the development of
social housing and Andrew Carnegie exemplified the large scale philanthropy of the newly rich
in industrialized America. In Gospel of Wealth (1889), Carnegie wrote about the responsibilities
of great wealth and the importance of social justice. He established public libraries throughout
the English-speaking countries as well as contributing large sums to schools and universities.
Other American philanthropists of the early 20th century were John D. Rockefeller and Henry
Ford. The sheer size of their endowments directed their attention to addressing the causes and
instruments, as distinct from the symptoms and expressions, of social problems and cultural
In recent decades, wealth creators in new high tech sectors have turned to second careers in
philanthropy at earlier ages, creating large foundations. Individual philanthropy began to be chic,
attracting celebrities from popular arts. Commercial movies and television adopted the idea, and
many initiatives have been led by wealthy individuals such asBill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Nonetheless, according to studies by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the rich (those making over
$100,000 a year) give a smaller share, averaging 4.2%, to charity than those poorer (between
11
Olivier Zunz, Philanthropy in America: A History (2012).
12
Kavoussi, Bonnie. "Rich People Give A Smaller Share Of Their Income To Charity Than Middle-Class Americans Do". The Huffington Post.
9
Modern Philanthropy
Philanthropy has been affected in various ways by technological and cultural change. Today,
many donations are made through the Internet (see also donation statistics).13
donating) leverage crowdfunding philanthropy to raise money for charity. Global Giving allows
East Africa. Zidisha is a nonprofit person-to-person microlending website which uses an eBay-
individual web users worldwide. Vittana is an online platform that allows low-income youth in
EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM
Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that applies evidence and reason to
determine the most effective ways to improve the world. Effective altruists aim to consider all
causes and actions, and then act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact
(Matthews, 2015)14.It is this broad evidence-based approach that distinguishes effective altruism
from traditional altruism or charity. While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have
focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies much more broadly,
e.g., to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be
13
"The 2011 Online Giving Report, presented by Steve MacLaughlin, Jim O'Shaughnessy, and Allison Van Diest".
14
Matthews, Dylan (April 24, 2015). "You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as possible. What do you do?"
10
estimated to save and improve the most lives . Notable people associated with the movement
Philosophy
Effective altruism begins with a personal commitment to making a change in the world and
caring enough to remain engaged in the long-term and focused on best practices that make a
difference. The resources that a philanthropist then gives are directed toward efforts that bring
the desired positive change to fruition. Effective altruism differs from other types
of philanthropy in that the outcome maximizes social good. Many philanthropists do not give in
the attempt to maximize social good. Obligatory giving such as Zakat, reciprocal giving, giving
to an issue that has affected one's personal life and giving for notoriety may not be high impact
because the emphasis is not consciously centered on social outcomes. Effective altruism focuses
on the results of one's donations as well as other methods of accomplishing good, such as career
Overhead Cost
Traditional charity evaluation has often been based on prioritizing charities with minimal
overhead costs and high proportional spending on projects. However, effective altruist
organizations reject this standard as simplistic and flawed (Hoskin, 2015)15. Dan Pallotta argues
that charities should be encouraged to spend more on fundraising if it ensures they increase the
amount they can allocate to the charitable service overall. Additionally, a study by Dean
Karlan "found that the most effective charities spent more of their budget on administrative cost
than their less-effective competitors" presumably because spending on administration costs may
15
Hoskin, Ben. "Problems with "Overhead Costs" as a metric"
11
include analyses of whether a particular activity is effective or not. Thus, the extra spending on
Cost Effectiveness
Effective altruists seek to identify charities that achieve a large amount of good per dollar spent.
For example, they select health interventions on the basis of their impact as measured by lives
saved per dollar, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved per dollar, or disability-adjusted life
years (DALY) averted per dollar. The DALY is a key measure employed by the United
Nations World Health Organization in such publications as its Global Burden of Disease16.This
measure of disease burden is expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability or
early death.
The primary method of measuring impact is the randomized controlled trial. Randomized
evidence that influences healthcare policy and practice because randomized controlled trials
reduce spurious causality and bias. Certain medical interventions (likevaccination) are already
backed by high-quality medical research, and so there is a lower burden of proof for charities
doing these types of programs.17 The following academic groups do randomized controlled trials
on other types of interventions as well: Poverty Action Lab and Innovations for Poverty Action.
Effective giving is an important component of effective altruism because some charities are far
more effective than others.[15] Some charities simply fail to achieve their goals. Of those that do
succeed, Give well reports that some achieve far greater results with less money.[16] The health
16
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, "Global Burden of Disease Study 2010", The Lancet, December 14, 2012
17
World Health Organization, "Global Burden of Disease"
12
improvements of high impact projects can be 100 times more effective than low impact
projects.[17]
Counterfactual Reasoning
Effective altruists argue that counterfactual reasoning is important to determine which course of
action maximizes positive impact. Many people assume that the best way to help people is
through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services (Hosler,
2011)18. Since charities and social-service providers usually can find people willing to work for
them, effective altruists compare the amount of good somebody does in a conventional altruistic
career to how much good would have been done had the next-best candidate been hired for the
position. According to this reasoning, the impact of choosing a conventional altruistic career may
The earning to give strategy has been proposed as a possible strategy for effective altruists. This
strategy involves choosing to work in high-paying careers with the explicit goal of donating large
sums of money to charity. Benjamin Todd and William MacAskill have argued that the marginal
impact of one's potentially unethical actions in such a lucrative career would be small, since
someone else would have done them regardless, while the impact of donations would be large
(William, 2013)20.
Cause prioritization
Although there is a growing emphasis on effectiveness and evidence among nonprofits, this is
usually done with a single cause in mind, such as education or climate change ( Karnofsky,
18
Hosler, Aimee (14 June 2011). "10 "helping" professions and how to train for them". Schools.com.
19
Todd, Benjamin J. "Just What Is 'Making a Difference'? - Counterfactuals and Career Choice". 80,000 Hours. Centre for Effective Altruism,
July 2013.
20
William MacAskill (2013). "Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
13
2013)21.Effective altruists, however, seek to compare the relative importance of different causes
(MacAskill, 2013)22.
Effective altruists attempt to choose the highest priority causes based on whether activities in
each cause area could efficiently advance broad goals, such as increasing human or animal
welfare. They then focus their attention on interventions in high priority areas. Several
The cause priorities of effective altruists include: poverty in the developing world, the suffering
EMPATHY-ALTRUISM
The social exchange theory states that altruism does not exist unless benefits outweigh the
costs. C. Daniel Batson disagrees. He holds that people help others in need out of genuine
concern for the well-being of the other person (Aronson, 2005)23 . The key ingredient to helping
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
Batson recognized that people sometimes helped out of selfish reasons. He and his team were
interested in finding ways to distinguish between the motives. Students were asked to listen to
21
Karnofsky, Holden. "Strategic Cause Selection". The GiveWell Blog. GiveWell. June 2013.
22
MacAskill, William (May 20, 2013). "What is Effective Altruism?". Practical Ethics blog.
23
Aronson, E.; Wilson, T. D.; Akert, A. M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14
tapes from a radio program. One of the interviews was with Carol. She talked about her bad car
accident in which both of her legs were broken. She talked about her struggles and how behind
she was becoming in class. Students who were listening to this particular interview were given a
letter asking the student to share lecture notes and meet with her. The experimenters changed the
level of empathy by telling one group to try to focus on how she was feeling (high empathy
level). The other group did not need to be concerned with that (low empathy level). The
experimenters also varied the cost of not helping. The high cost group was told that Carol would
be in their same psychology class after returning to school. The low cost group believed she
would finish the class at home. The results confirmed the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Those in
the high empathy group were almost equally as likely to help her in either circumstance, while
the low empathy group helped out of self-interest. Seeing her in class everyday made them feel
Five Studies Testing Two New Egoistic Alternatives to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
The authors set out to show that empathy motivates other-regarding helping behavior not out of
self-interest but out of true interest in the well-being of others (Batson et. Al., 1988)24 . Two
hypotheses that counter the empathy-altruism hypothesis are addressed in this article:
1) Empathy Specific Reward: Empathy triggers the need for social reward which can be
gained by helping.
2) Empathy Specific Punishment: Empathy triggers the fear of social punishment which can
be avoided by helping.
24
Batson, C. D.; Dyck, J. L.; Brandt, J. R.; Batson, J. G.; Powell, A. L. (1988). "Five Studies Testing Two New Egoistic Alternatives to the
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (1): 52–77.
15
RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM
reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other
organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. The concept was initially developed
by Robert Trivers to explain the evolution of cooperation as instances of mutually altruistic acts.
The concept is close to the strategy of "tit for tat" used in game theory.
The concept of "reciprocal altruism", as introduced by Trivers, suggests that altruism, defined as
an act of helping someone else although incurring some cost for this act, could have evolved
since it might be beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a reverse situation
where the person whom I helped before may perform an altruistic act towards me (Trivers, R.L.,
1971)25.
Putting this into the form of a strategy in a repeated prisoner’s dilemma would mean to cooperate
unconditionally in the first period and behave cooperatively (altruistically) as long as the other
agent does as well (Dawkins, 2006)26. If chances of meeting another reciprocal altruist are high
enough or the game is repeated for a long enough amount of time, this form of altruism can
This is close to the notion of "tit for tat" introduced by Anatol Rapoport, although there still
seems a slight distinction in that "tit for tat" cooperates in the first period and from thereon
always replicates an opponent’s previous action, whereas “reciprocal altruists” stop cooperation
in the first instance of non-cooperation by an opponent and stay non-cooperative from thereon.
25
Trivers, R.L. (1971). "The evolution of reciprocal altruism". Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.
26
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene (30th Anniversary ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
16
This distinction leads to the fact that in contrast to reciprocal altruism, tit for tat may be able to
restore cooperation under certain conditions despite cooperation having broken down.
Stephens shows a set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions “(Stephens, C. 1996)27… for
3. the performance of the behaviour must not depend on the receipt of an immediate benefit;
There are two additional conditions necessary "…for reciprocal altruism to evolve:"
The first two conditions are necessary for altruism as such, while the third is distinguishing
reciprocal altruism from simple mutualism and the fourth makes the interaction reciprocal
(Grutter, 2002) 28 . Condition number five is required as otherwise non-altruists may always
exploit altruistic behaviour without any consequences and therefore evolution of reciprocal
altruism would not be possible. However, it is pointed out that this “conditioning device” does
not need to be conscious. Condition number six is required to avoid cooperation breakdown
27
Stephens, C. (1996). "Modeling Reciprocal Altruism". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4): 533–551
28
Grutter, Alexandra S. (2002). "Cleaning symbioses from the parasites' perspective".Parasitology 124: S65–S81.
17
RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT
Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote altruism as a very important moral
value. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism and Sikhism, etc., place
Buddhism
Altruism figures prominently in Buddhism. Love and compassion are components of all forms of
Buddhism, and are focused on all beings equally: love is the wish that all beings be happy, and
compassion is the wish that all beings be free from suffering. "Many illnesses can be cured by
the one medicine of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human
happiness, and the need for them lies at the very core of our being" (Dalai Lama).29
Since "all beings" includes the individual, love and compassion in Buddhism are outside the
opposition between self and other. It is even said that the distinction between self and other is
part of the root cause of our suffering. In practical terms, however, since most of us are
and thus can be characterized as "altruistic." Many would agree with the Dalai Lama that
In Buddhism, karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or
"result". Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in
thechain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities"
(Pali sankhara) and "action" (Pali bhava). Any action is understood to create "seeds" in the mind
that sprout into the appropriate results (Pāli vipaka) when they meet the right conditions. Most
29
The phrase "core of our being" is Freudian; Bettina Bock von Wülfingen (2013)."Freud's 'Core of our Being' Between Cytology and
Psychoanalysis". 226–244.
18
types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one in the wheel ofsamsāra; others will
Buddhism relates karma directly to motives behind an action. Motivation usually makes the
difference between "good" and "bad", but motivation also includes the aspect of ignorance; so a
well-intended action from an ignorant mind can easily be "bad" in that it creates unpleasant
In Buddhism, karma is not the only cause of all that happens. As taught in the early texts, the
commentarial tradition classified causal mechanisms governing the universe in five categories,
Jainism
The fundamental principles of Jainism revolve around the concept of altruism, not only for
humans but for all sentient beings. Jainism preaches the view of Ahimsa – to live and let live,
thereby not harming sentient beings, i.e. uncompromising reverence for all life. It also considers
all living things to be equal. The first Thirthankar, Rishabh introduced the concept of altruism for
30
Padmasiri de Silva (1998). Environmental Philosophy and Ethics in Buddhism. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 41.
31
Davids, Rhys (2007). Buddhism. Lightning Source Incorporated. p. 119.
19
all living beings, from extending knowledge and experience to others to donation, giving oneself
Jainism prescribes a path of non-violence to progress the soul to this ultimate goal. Jains believe
that to attain enlightenment and ultimately liberation, one must practice the following ethical
principles (major vows) in thought, speech and action. The degree to which these principles are
1. Non-violence (Ahimsa);
2. Truthfulness (Satya);
3. Non-stealing (Asteya);
4. Celibacy (Brahmacharya);
A major characteristic of Jain belief is the emphasis on the consequences of not only physical but
also mental behaviors. One's unconquered mind with anger, pride (ego), deceit, greed and
uncontrolled sense organs are the powerful enemies of humans. Anger spoils good relations,
pride destroys humility, deceit destroys peace and greed destroys everything. Jainism
The principle of non-violence seeks to minimize karmas which limit the capabilities of the soul.
Jainism views every soul as worthy of respect because it has the potential to become Siddha
(Param-atma – "highest soul"). Because all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness
is essential in one's actions. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness
towards all, whether the creatures are great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic
20
organisms. Jainism acknowledges that every person has different capabilities and capacities to
practice and therefore accepts different levels of compliance for ascetics and householders. The
"great vows" (mahavrata) are prescribed for monks and "limited vows" (anuvrata) are prescribed
for householders. In other words, the house-holders are encouraged to practice the five cardinal
current practical limitations while the monks have to observe them very strictly. With consistent
practice, it will be possible to overcome the limitations gradually, accelerating the spiritual
progress.
Christianity
Altruism is central to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospel, especially in the Sermon on the
Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. From biblical to medieval Christian traditions, tensions
between self-affirmation and other-regard were sometimes discussed under the heading of
"disinterested love", as in the Pauline phrase "love seeks not its own interests." In his
book Indoctrination and Self-deception,Roderick Hindery tries to shed light on these tensions by
contrasting them with impostors of authentic self-affirmation and altruism, by analysis of other-
regard within creative individuation of the self, and by contrasting love for the few with love for
the many. Love confirms others in their freedom, shuns propaganda and masks, assures others of
its presence, and is ultimately confirmed not by mere declarations from others, but by each
person's experience and practice from within. As in practical arts, the presence and meaning of
love becomes validated and grasped not by words and reflections alone, but in the making of the
connection.
21
St. Thomas Aquinas interprets 'You should love your neighbour as yourself (Holy Bible)32 as
meaning that love for ourselves is the exemplar of love for others. 33Considering that "the love
with which a man loves himself is the form and root of friendship" and quotes Aristotle that "the
origin of friendly relations with others lies in our relations to ourselves, 34 he concluded that
though we are not bound to love others more than ourselves, we naturally seek the common good,
the good of the whole, more than any private good, the good of a part. However, he thinks we
should love God more than ourselves and our neighbours, and more than our bodily life—since
the ultimate purpose of loving our neighbour is to share in eternal beatitude: a more desirable
thing than bodily well-being. In coining the word Altruism, as stated above, Comte was probably
opposing this Thomistic doctrine, which is present in some theological schools within
Catholicism.
German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two ways in which the strong can help the weak.
One way is a sincere expression of Christian love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security,
strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one’s own life and existence".(Scheler,
1961)35 Another way is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ... nothing but the
urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people’s business."(Scheler,
1961)36 At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is
really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite
32
Leviticus 19 and Matthew 22
33
Summa Theologica, II:II Quaestio 25, Article 4
34
Nichomachean Ethics IX.4 1166a1
35
Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 88–89.
36
Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 95–96.
37
Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 96–97.
22
Islam
In Islam, the concept 'īthār' (( )إيثارaltruism) is the notion of 'preferring others to oneself'. For
Sufis, this means devotion to others through complete forgetfulness of one's own concerns,
where concern for others is rooted to be a demand made by Allah on the human body, considered
to be property of Allah alone. The importance lies in sacrifice for the sake of the greater
good; Islam considers those practicing īthār as abiding by the highest degree of nobility.
(Rutherford, 2004)38 This is similar to the notion of chivalry, but unlike that European concept,
in i'thar attention is focused on everything in existence. A constant concern for Allah (i.e. God)
results in a careful attitude towards people, animals, and other things in this world. (Neusner,
2005) 39 .This concept was emphasized by Sufis of Islam like Rabia al-Adawiyya who paid
attention to the difference between dedication to Allah (i.e. God) and dedication to people.
Thirteenth-century Turkish Sufi poet Yunus Emre explained this philosophy as "Yaratılanı
severiz, Yaratandan ötürü" or We love the creature, because of The Creator.For many Muslims,
i'thar must be practiced as a religious obligation during specific Islamic holidays. However, i'thar
is also still an Islamic ideal to which all Muslims should strive to adhere at all times.
Judaism
Judaism defines altruism as the desired goal of creation. The famous Rabbi Abraham Isaac
Kook stated that love is the most important attribute in humanity (Kook et. Al., 2005)40. This is
defined asbestowal, or giving, which is the intention of altruism. This can be altruism towards
humanity that leads to altruism towards the creator or God. Kabbalah defines God as the force of
38
M (2004). Key Concepts in the Practice of Sufism: Emerald Hills of the Heart. Rutherford, N.J.: Fountain. pp. 10–11.
39
Neusner, Jacob Eds (2005). Altruism in World Religions. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press. pp. 79–80.
40
Kook, Abraham Isaac; Ben Zion Bokser (1978). Abraham Isaac Kook: The lights of penitence, The moral principles, Lights of holiness, essays,
letters, and poems. Paulist Press. pp. 135–136.
23
giving in existence. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto in particular focused on the 'purpose of
creation' and how the will of God was to bring creation into perfection and adhesion with this
Modern Kabbalah developed by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag, in his writings about the future
generation, focuses on how society could achieve an altruistic social framework (Ashlag,
2006)42. Ashlag proposed that such a framework is the purpose of creation, and everything that
happens is to raise humanity to the level of altruism, love for one another. Ashlag focused on
Sikhism
Altruism is essential to the Sikh religion. The central faith in Sikhism is that the greatest deed
any one can do is to imbibe and live the godly qualities like love, affection, sacrifice, patience,
harmony, truthfulness. The fifth Nanak, Guru Arjun Dev sacrificed his life to uphold 22 carats of
pure truth, the greatest gift to humanity, the Guru Granth. The ninth Nanak, Guru Tegh Bahadur,
sacrificed his head to protect weak and defenseless people against atrocity. In the late
seventeenth century, Guru Gobind Singh Ji (the tenth guru in Sikhism), was in war with
the Moghul rulers to protect the people of different faiths when a fellow Sikh, Bhai Kanhaiya,
attended the troops of the enemy. He gave water to both friends and foes who were wounded on
the battlefield. Some of the enemy began to fight again and some Sikh warriors were annoyed by
Bhai Kanhaiya as he was helping their enemy. Sikh soldiers brought Bhai Kanhaiya before Guru
Gobind Singh Ji, and complained of his action that they considered counter-productive to their
41
Luzzatto, Moshe Ḥayyim (1997). The way of God. Feldheim Publishers. pp. 37–38
42
Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah Publishers. pp. 120–130.
43
Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah Publishers. pp. 175–180.
24
struggle on the battlefield. "What were you doing, and why?" asked the Guru. "I was giving
water to the wounded because I saw your face in all of them," replied Bhai Kanhaiya. The Guru
responded, "Then you should also give them ointment to heal their wounds. You were practicing
It was under the tutelage of the Guru that Bhai Kanhaiya subsequently founded a volunteer corps
for altruism. This volunteer corps still to date is engaged in doing good to others and trains new
Hinduism
Swami Sivananda, an Advaita scholar, reiterates the same views in his commentary synthesising
Vedanta views on the Brahma Sutras, a Vedantic text. In his commentary on Chapter 3 of the
Brahma Sutras, Sivananda notes that karma is insentient and short-lived, and ceases to exist as
soon as a deed is executed. Hence, karma cannot bestow the fruits of actions at a future date
according to one's merit. Furthermore, one cannot argue that karma generates apurva or punya,
which gives fruit. Since apurva is non-sentient, it cannot act unless moved by an intelligent being
culture. Heroes are honored in ancient cave paintings and in folklore and myth. Societies
transmitted stories of heroism in oral traditions and molded legends, folktales, and myths into
44
O. P. Ralhan (1997). The great gurus of the Sikhs. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd. p. 253.
45
Sivananda, Swami. Phaladhikaranam, Topic 8, Sutras 38–41.
25
poems, epics, and eddas (Carlyle, 1891; Hook, 1943; Klapp, 1948) 46 47 48
. Contemporary
societies maintain the tradition of honoring heroes not only in literary works but also in film,
television, and journalism. One striking feature of the heroes who have achieved public
recognition is that they are almost exclusively male. The phenomenon that we evaluate in this
article is the resulting cultural consensus that “The hero is undeniably he, the male of the human
species” (Lash, 1995)49. To explore this prominence of heroic men and the apparent infrequency
of heroic women, we define heroism and evaluate contexts in which heroic behavior occurs more
often in one sex1 than the other. The empirical evidence that we present consists of behavior that
arises from real-life decisions of men and women who have faced different degrees of danger in
a variety of situations. Finally, we evaluate whether the position of men and women in society
has created differential access to achieving recognition and commemoration for one’s heroic acts.
In Western culture, the linking of heroism and masculinity can be traced in myth and religion.
Myths of the creation of humans featured heroes who succeeded in bringing forth humans or
endowing them with the wisdom to cope with their environments. Given the association of
women with procreation, it is not surprising that the heroes of early creation myths of Western
cultures included deities of both sexes. Many goddesses such as Isis, Ishtar, Inanna, Demeter,
Cybele, and Cerridwen were portrayed as the equals of gods and as possessing powerful natural
forces of fertility and creation (Monaghan, 1990; Stone, 1978) 50 . Nonetheless, male deities
became more prevalent over time, and goddesses, to the extent that they continued to exist, came
intertwined pantheons of male and female deities. Fueled by medieval chivalric codes as well as
46
Carlyle, T. (1891). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. Chicago: McClurg.
47
Hook, S. (1943). The hero in history: A study in limitation and possibility. New York: Day
48
Klapp, O. E. (1948). The hero as a social type. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1948). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT
T-00545.
49
Lash, J. (1995). The hero: Manhood and power. New York: Thames and Hudson.
50
Monaghan, P. (1990). The book of goddesses & heroines (Rev. ed.). St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn.
26
shifts in religion, conceptions of ideal male behavior in Western culture came to feature
courageous behavior in the service of others (Hearnshaw, 1928; Keen, 1984). In this article, we
consider the extent to which this cultural association of heroism with men and masculinity is
Our requirement that heroism involves an unusual amount of risk to one’s life or health in
helping one or more other people frames our discussion of two themes: the psychology of risk
taking and the psychology of manifesting empathic concern with others’ welfare. We take into
account several bodies of theory and research that consider gender in relation to each of these
themes.
Consideration of risk taking as sex typed emerges mainly in two theoretical traditions: analyses
of the male gender role and of the possible evolutionary origins of sex differences in the
propensity to take risks. Role theorists identify societal influences that produce a socially
constructed male gender role, defined as shared expectations about how men do and should
behave (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) 51 . Many analyses of the male gender role have
included the element of risk taking. For example, maintained that the essential themes of
masculinity encompass the idealization of “reckless adventure, daring exploits, and bold
51
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H.
M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27
excesses of all kinds” (p. 30), and (Levant and Kopecky, 1995)52 similarly included risk taking
and the ability to remain calm in the face of danger as aspects of the male role. In support of such
analyses, numerous studies of gender stereotypes have shown that the male gender role—or
cultural stereotype— includes attributes such as daring, adventurous, calm in a crisis, willing to
take risks, and stands up under pressure (Broverman, Vogel; Diekman & Eagly, 2000)53.
The Relation Between Gender and Manifesting Empathic Concern With Others
consideration of empathic concern with others has more often arisen in theories of female
psychology. For example, (Gilligan, 1982)54 maintained that the moral reasoning of women and
men differs, with women’s reasoning tending to display a logic based on caring and
responsibility to others, and men’s displaying a logic based on rights and abstract principles. In
addition, many feminist scholars have emphasized that women, especially mothers, are expected
Our review of research on the behavioral tendencies that we presume are most important to
heroism—taking risks and manifesting empathic concern with others’ welfare— shows that they
are gender stereotypical and somewhat sex typed in varied empirical assessments. Assumptions
regarding the roots of the sex differences in these tendencies are quite different in theories
emphasizing social roles and those emphasizing evolved dispositions. Whatever the origins of
these tendencies, if heroism requires both risk taking and the behavioral expression of concern
52
Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of manhood—At work, in relationships, and in family life.
New York: Dutton.
53
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.
54
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28
for others, it might be reasonable to expect that heroic behavior is supremely androgynous.
Although the physical demands of some heroic acts and the exclusion of women from social
roles and social contexts might depress female participation, many heroic acts would not reflect
these restrictions. Without such restrictions, the association of risk taking with cultural
definitions of masculinity and of empathic concern for others with cultural definitions of
femininity would lead to the prediction that heroic behavior is not distinctively associated with
either sex. Such possibilities have not been investigated because of the limitations of
emergency situations ,its implications for heroism are limited because the dangers that the
participants faced did not threaten them with death or physical injury. Therefore, to study heroic
behaviors, we sought data from situations in which people voluntarily exposed themselves to
life- or injury-threatening dangers in attempting to help others avoid some calamity. To study the
behavior of both sexes, we limit this analysis to situations in which men and women had
relatively equal opportunity to provide such help and omit settings that generally exclude women
(e.g., military battles). Because the settings that meet our requirements vary in degree of danger,
we place most emphasis on two data sets that document prosocial behavior that entailed a
substantial risk of death. We thus first consider the recipients of the Carnegie Hero Medal,
individuals honored for risking their lives by rescuing others in situations such as fires and
potential drownings. We then evaluate individuals honored as the Righteous Among the Nations,
non-Jewish individuals designated as having helped Jews avoid being killed by the Nazis during
World War II. We also consider three other categories of individuals who performed prosocial
acts involving considerable physical risk, albeit little likelihood of death: living kidney donors,
Peace Corps volunteers, and Doctors of the World overseas volunteers. Study of these five
29
groups permits us to examine the ideas that heroism is practiced by women as well as men but
that, depending on the specifics of heroic acts and their situational context, one sex may
participate more than the other. By considering a range of naturally occurring phenomena that
satisfy to differing degrees the definition of heroism, we also respond to complaint that
psychologists neglect to study phenomena in varied natural environments before they fashion
SYNTHESIS
This is a case study of the recent events that focuses on the frequent altruistic acts of
Meycauayan College Students. This study will generally tackle the observation of the researchers,
following the events of the “MC Pushers” incident. Also this study aims to answer the question if
the environment affects the reflection of the altruistic attitude of the students enrolled at the
college.
RESEARCH PARADIGM
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
According to Phillip Zimbardo, in his experiment, Standford Prison Experiment, that any man
has the ability to cross the line between doing what is right, or doing what is evil. We like to
believe that people who do terrible things are on the evil side of this line, while the rest of us are
good people who could never cross it. But this experiment and a body of social psychological
30
research revealed that everyone has the potential for evil — when in a behavioral context with
powerful situational forces operating to change how individuals think and act. Zimbardo, with
these in mind developed the “Banality of evil” that states that everyone has the capacity or the
potential to do evil. Later on, he proposed, with Franco, the “Banality of Heroism” the opposite
of the former, which is, everyone has the capacity or potential to do the right thing. The banality
of heroism concept (Zimbardo, 2006; Franco & Zimbardo, 2007) suggests that we are all
potential heroes waiting for a moment in life to perform a heroic deed. The decision to act
heroically is a choice that many of us will be called upon to make at some point in time. By
conceiving of heroism as a universal attribute of human nature, not as a rare feature of a few
superhuman figures, heroism becomes something that seems within the realm of possibilities for
every person – and through this accessibility to everyone, a more modern concept of heroism can
emerge. With this theory in mind, the researchers served this concept as the framework of the
study – that being a student will not hinder the students of Meycauayan College to be heroic, to
31
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Does the idea of fellow students doing an altruistic deed (MC Pushers) could start a chain
reaction that enables the students of Meycauayan College reflect the same altruistic attitude?
HYPOTHESES
NULL HYPOTHESIS
The story of “MC Pushers” does not have a significant effect on the attitudes reflected by the
EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESIS
The story of “MC Pushers” does have a significant effect on the attitudes reflected by the
This study focuses on the recent events that pertain to MC college student’s initiative to take
action, showing altruistic attitude and doing what is right in times of need. This study would be
Meycauayan College, College Department Students: As the main subject of this study, they
are the ones who would benefit from the study. The study focuses on the possibility of the
32
environment that makes the students have the characteristic of being a hero. If the question be
answered, the positive characteristic would be reflected on every students studying at the college.
Meycauayan College: Having your students known as being helpful and being a model of good
characteristics, it would be a pride to the college. Also the study would serve as an information
that the environment of the campus promote this kind of positive characters, enabling students
DEFINITION OF TERMS
ALTRUISM - the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of
others
MC PUSHERS – a group of college students, studying in Meycauayan College that helped push
The study focuses on the analysis of the MC pusher event. The sample will be taken from the
college students currently enrolled in Meycauayan College, and experienced the event. The
members of the MC pushers are also part of the study. Meycauayan College campus will be the
33
As this is a case study, the use of retrospective data makes the data less reliable, as its
34
CHAPTER II
RESEARCH DESIGN
This research study is an experimental research, manipulating the independent variable (IV) in a
The study uses qualitative approach. Through qualitative approach, one obtains data consisting
of words instead of numbers. Data can be gathered through self-reports, personal narratives, and
CONVENIENCE SAMPLING
The study uses convenience sampling. A convenience sample is simply one where the units that
are selected for inclusion in the sample are the easiest to access. This is in stark contrast to
INSTRUMENTATION
The study uses unstructured interviews on selected Meycauayan College Students, asking
questions whenever the researchers feel like asking. Through unstructured interview, the
researcher can explore interesting topics as they arise. Interviews are then done unscheduled and
eight (8) participants are drawn through convenience sampling techniques. The researchers used
open-ended questions about the topic, altruism. Then randomly selecting students, interviewing
them. The researchers also interviewed members of MC pushers for the experience of the event.
35
DATA GATHERING
The researchers uses unstructured interviews. Thus making each of the eight participants have
different questions. – as the researchers asked questions that they thought should be asked.
DATA ANALYSIS
From the gathered data from the interviews. One out of eight participants told the interviewers
that she won’t help if ever the need arises. One participant said that she will ask help from other
people before helping the person in need. Others directly told that they will help someone in
An MC Pusher was interviewed about the incident of pushing the jeep. The interviewer asked
him what drove them to help the jeep, he said that helping others seemed to be the right thing to
do.
36
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Through the unstructured interview, the researchers realized that the act that the group of
Meycauayan College students did, helping the busted jeepney, was not because of mere
obligation. It is a belief that they stood for. Helping others in need was not a big deal for them,
they did not even thought about being recognized, they just did the right thing. As to the other
Meycauayan College who had observed this rare showcase of admirable attitude, truly though
not everyone reflected the same altruistic attitude , but mostly from what we gathered, that
Meycauayan College students are altruistic at heart, even without the help of an instigator which
37
CHAPTER 4
According to Zimbardo, being a hero does not necessarily mean having unique, god-given and
excemptional powers and talents, that would make you a hero; even the smallest and simpliest
man can become one. The simple act of random kindness would serve as an act of heroism itself.
Ordinary people can do extraordinary things, however ordinary it may be. Just like what the
students of Meycauayan College did, it was excemptional, but it was a simple act that must be
admired – and it is. They are recognized for their selfless act that soon become the talk in the
campus. Does their act served as an example for the Meycauayan College students? Yes, it is.
They are the ones who showed this great act that any students of Meycauayan College can
imitate. Does this makes each of the students enrolled in Meycauayan College altruistic? No. Not
everyone of us can do, can initiate, can act selflessly. It is a desirable characteristic. Though
some can and will do selfless act without any recognition, some do not share the same
enthusiasm with it. Remember, that being a hero is a choice. Anyone can be one, but it takes one
to be one. You must be willing to risk everything in order to act like a hero. It is selfless,
Though we learned that not all students have this kind of characteristic, it is still pleasant to
know that most of the participant show that most have the characteristic. A true mark of an
Meycauayan College student is to have good moral character. And having an altruistic attitude is
38
REFERENCE
"The 2011 Online Giving Report, presented by Steve MacLaughlin, Jim O'Shaughnessy, and
Aronson, E.; Wilson, T. D.; Akert, A. M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah
Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah
NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D.; Dyck, J. L.; Brandt, J. R.; Batson, J. G.; Powell, A. L. (1988). "Five Studies
Carlyle, T. (1891). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. Chicago: McClurg.
Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. (2002). Requirements for a Carnegie medal. Retrieved
Carnegie, A. (1907). Deed of trust. In Carnegie Hero Fund Commission: Annual report (pp. 9–
39
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene (30th Anniversary ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of
the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and
similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social
1–21.
Hook, S. (1943). The hero in history: A study in limitation and possibility. New York: Day
Hosler, Aimee (14 June 2011). "10 "helping" professions and how to train for them".
Schools.com.
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, "Global Burden of Disease Study 2010", The Lancet,
Karnofsky, Holden. "Strategic Cause Selection". The GiveWell Blog. GiveWell. June 2013.
Kavoussi, Bonnie. "Rich People Give A Smaller Share Of Their Income To Charity Than
40
Klapp, O. E. (1948). The hero as a social type. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,
Kook, Abraham Isaac; Ben Zion Bokser (1978). Abraham Isaac Kook: The lights of penitence,
The moral principles, Lights of holiness, essays, letters, and poems. Paulist Press. pp. 135–136.
Lash, J. (1995). The hero: Manhood and power. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Lester, C. E. (1883). Lester's history of the United States: Illustrated in its five great periods:
Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of
Luzzatto, Moshe Ḥayyim (1997). The way of God. Feldheim Publishers. pp. 37–38
M (2004). Key Concepts in the Practice of Sufism: Emerald Hills of the Heart. Rutherford, N.J.:
MacAskill, William (May 20, 2013). "What is Effective Altruism?". Practical Ethics blog.
Matthews, Dylan (April 24, 2015). "You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as
Monaghan, P. (1990). The book of goddesses & heroines (Rev. ed.). St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn.
Neusner, Jacob Eds (2005). Altruism in World Religions. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ.
41
O. P. Ralhan (1997). The great gurus of the Sikhs. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd.
p. 253.
Macmillan. p. 41.
Stephens, C. (1996). "Modeling Reciprocal Altruism". British Journal for the Philosophy of
The phrase "core of our being" is Freudian; Bettina Bock von Wülfingen (2013)."Freud's 'Core of
Trivers, R.L. (1971). "The evolution of reciprocal altruism". Quarterly Review of Biology 46:
35–57.
William MacAskill (2013). "Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference". Ethical
42
Zunz, O. Philanthropy in America: A History.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
2012
43