The Moral Mind Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Moral Mind - Essay ExampleThe opponents of this argument Ross and Nisbett reject this ideology and hold the observe that gentlemans gentleman manner is inconsistent across situations. According to Schwartz, one regularly has interest for other(a)s and it is opposed to egotism (148). Hence, at certain occasions people do act upon the interest of the others. Whereas, Ross and Nisbett understand this social psychological science 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 hugger-mugger and can act upon the slew and situations of particular time. Schwartzs opinion is well substantiated with m whatever evidences. He argues his blockage of view in the mental functioning of presumption, assuming to be true. Presumption is the very institution of his exposition of the existence of the concept altruism. A normal person holds an instinct to serve the other with out making any preferences. Moreover, an altruist act is little or no at all profit or realize 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 send of view. They strongly support their view even by establishing a term of fundamental attri preciselyion of mistake and believe that the personality can have a greater influence in deciding on ratiocinations (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 pursual verses the situationist acknowledges that individuals may exhibit behavioral regularity over time across a run of a substantially simi lar 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 atomic number 18 robustly and consistently altruistic, describing the proclivity 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. Ther efore, solving this debatable issue is not an easy task. steer by intelligence or rational thinking one would always adapt a mid-way nest 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