Altruism and the Indispensability of Motives

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Altruism and the Indispensability of Motives. / Peacock, Mark; Schefczyk, Michael; Schaber, Peter.

in: Analyse & Kritik , Jahrgang 27, Nr. 1, 01.05.2005, S. 188-196.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Peacock M, Schefczyk M, Schaber P. Altruism and the Indispensability of Motives. Analyse & Kritik . 2005 Mai 1;27(1):188-196. doi: 10.1515/auk-2005-0111

Bibtex

@article{91b87e8f12464c28b7029b7899b2bd7e,
title = "Altruism and the Indispensability of Motives",
abstract = "In this paper we examine Fehr{\textquoteright}s notions of “altruism”, “strong reciprocity” and “altruistic punishment” and query his ascription of altruism. We suggest that, pace Fehr, altruism cannot be defined behaviourally because the definition of altruism must refer to the motives of actors. We also advert to certain inconsistencies in Fehr{\textquoteright}s usage of his terms and we question his explanation of altruism in terms of {\textquoteleft}social preferences{\textquoteright}. ",
keywords = "Philosophy",
author = "Mark Peacock and Michael Schefczyk and Peter Schaber",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2005 by Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart.",
year = "2005",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1515/auk-2005-0111",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "188--196",
journal = "Analyse & Kritik ",
issn = "0171-5860",
publisher = "De Gruyter Oldenbourg ",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Altruism and the Indispensability of Motives

AU - Peacock, Mark

AU - Schefczyk, Michael

AU - Schaber, Peter

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2005 by Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart.

PY - 2005/5/1

Y1 - 2005/5/1

N2 - In this paper we examine Fehr’s notions of “altruism”, “strong reciprocity” and “altruistic punishment” and query his ascription of altruism. We suggest that, pace Fehr, altruism cannot be defined behaviourally because the definition of altruism must refer to the motives of actors. We also advert to certain inconsistencies in Fehr’s usage of his terms and we question his explanation of altruism in terms of ‘social preferences’.

AB - In this paper we examine Fehr’s notions of “altruism”, “strong reciprocity” and “altruistic punishment” and query his ascription of altruism. We suggest that, pace Fehr, altruism cannot be defined behaviourally because the definition of altruism must refer to the motives of actors. We also advert to certain inconsistencies in Fehr’s usage of his terms and we question his explanation of altruism in terms of ‘social preferences’.

KW - Philosophy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044808603&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1515/auk-2005-0111

DO - 10.1515/auk-2005-0111

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 27

SP - 188

EP - 196

JO - Analyse & Kritik

JF - Analyse & Kritik

SN - 0171-5860

IS - 1

ER -

DOI