tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post3163849600986273895..comments2010-03-10T17:37:48.172-05:00Maja Djikichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16522265542660035768Maja.Djikic@gmail.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-57845726137539037692010-03-10T17:37:48.168-05:002010-03-10T17:37:48.168-05:00Thank you, Anonymous, for this comment. I agree that this is an argument; the issue, as it seems to me, is what you want to follow from it. If you focus on intangible satisfaction for a benefactor then you might conclude that humans are essentially individual and that all we need to consider are individual rewards (satisfactions), but it's possible that what follows from altruism is that human life has an inherent social element, and this opens up a different perspective.Keith Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16419339550879570935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-64061094537189188282010-03-10T15:37:33.632-05:002010-03-10T15:37:33.632-05:00True altruism is an illusion: no person can ever perform an action that is soley to benefit of someone else, for doing something good for someone else will envitably lead to some sort of intangible satisfaction on the part of the benefactor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com