swa 7

John Waggett

Mrs. Mikhaylova

English 102

9/15/11

Altruism

            Judith Lichtenberg’s short writing, “Is Pure Altruism Possible?”, dwells with the possibility that complete selfishness can actually occur. Lichtenberg gives examples of what can be thought of as altruism, and then she attaches some counter arguments stating that altruism is always for some sort of profit for the person of who is acting. However, then she mounts her theory that people can do good for others not just for some sort of personal satisfaction, but for the wellbeing of the person in need.

            Lichtenberg seems to be very into her topic of conversation, and it is evident that she has spent time researching different and opposing theories. The idea that one can be that unselfish, even Christ-like, captivates her and the reader. It is an age old question, but one that is sure to be contemplated for years to come. Lichtenberg wants to show that it is possible to be altruistic by doing well for the benefit of others, and if this makes you feel better about yourself on the inside then it is still considered to be altruistic and should be viewed in such light. The author has to be trying to convey this message to all sorts of age groups, race and gender because the argument is eternal and not just associated with a particular culture. Regardless that this worldly view is probably viewed in high esteem around the globe, there are surprisingly some cultures that would frown upon altruism. Therefore, one would need to have some sort of religious background and most likely a functioning conscious to understand the message Lichtenberg is trying to get across to the reader. The vast majority of people reading this article are sure to be living in the United States of America so it would suite most American because the norm for people living her are Christian so this is sure to help with getting the message across as well.

            Lichtenberg develops her argument fairly clearly, she could be a little more clear in the middle of her text as to which side she believed until waiting until the end to say that she does in fact state her belief that altruism does and can exist even in our ever growing malevolent world today. The argument that Lichtenberg produces would fall under the multi-sided argumentative category due to how she shows both her side and the opposing side, and Lichtenberg does give of pretty decent synopsis of the opposing side’s philosophy’s towards how altruism may be impossible. Thankfully, she does a fantastic job of describing what altruism is and both sides of the argument so the reader does not have to go research the topic. Therefore, Lichtenberg has recognized and responded to alternate views which all can but make her agreement more effective and able to believe.

            Due to the ethical appeal of the writing, ethos, Lichtenberg has furthermore developed her writing and the appeal of her topic making her more respectable which most indefinitely results in making people take her side of that argument stating the altruism does exist. Lichtenberg also does an impressive job of using examples and it is equally apparent and boarder line obvious that Lichtenberg most likely has a significant amount of moral fiber. She believes in the good of humanity, and the possibility that one day we all can become one or at least make the world a better place to live in if people can unselfishly helping people. This argument deals more so with the logical than sympathetic side. It has to do with how the reader feels about to the certain topic on the inside and not a strictly sympathetic manner. Although, Lichtenberg does use some examples that would appeal to emotion she tries to stay away from the and focus on facts instead of strictly one’s beliefs. This is effective however because it makes her argument more believable to the reader. Lichtenberg’s argument is very intellectual and she does display her impressive vocabulary, but her writing is still able to be comprehended if one focuses on what point she is portraying. The complexity of her argument is still enough to confuse people, but the logical depth to her discussion requires an intellect value of the argument to be able to effectively develop her point to the reader. Lichtenberg’s tone also contributes a significant amount to developing her point. It is somewhat serious and also vaguely normal. She could just as well be having this conversation with a normal person whom she happens to be friends with, and this mellows out her conversation instead of trying to create some tense attitude of doom and gloom. She does not use much design or any pictures in her writings, but they doubtable could have helped to further her argument because it is not so much a show and tell argument.

            Lichtenberg’s uses of other philosopher’s belief’s definitely helps out her argument and makes it more believable to the reader which in turns makes her argument once more increasingly effective. I doubt the argument at hand would be taken into different account in most cultures because a conscious probably resides in all humans making them susceptible to the contents of her argument. Most people also have the ability to associate with her argument and her beliefs. We have all been in a situation where we could have helped a person but chose not to instead, and most likely we have also been in a situation where we helped someone for further benefit of ourselves or to make ourselves feel better. However, I doubt many people have been truly altruistic, which is the reason people strike such an interest in the topic at hand. Lichtenberg sticks to her argument and does not get side tracked which adds also to her argument as a whole, and can help make it more believable. Lichtenberg’s argument is well thought out and well developed as a whole. Her fundamental beliefs are thoroughly portrayed and captured throughout the course of her writing, and they capture the reader and force them to be drawn into the argument at hand.