CHAPTER I

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

heroism that emerge from psychological theory and research.

Philanthropy

Philanthropy (from Greek φιλανθρωπία) etymologically means "love of humanity" in the sense

of caring, nourishing, developing and enhancing "what it is to be human" on both the

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

practices philanthropy is called a philanthropist.

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

creation through education (self-development) and culture (civic development), expressed in

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

accurately reflect the word usage in American English.

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

non-profit organizations" (Lester, C. E., 1883)7.

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

Academy's philosophical dictionary defined Philanthropia as "a state of well-educated habits

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

described as "philanthropic and democratic".

The replacement of Classical civilization by Christianity replaced philanthropy with Christian

theology and soteriology, administered through the Roman Catholic Church's ecclesiastical and

monastic infrastructures. Gradually there emerged a non-religious agricultural infrastructure

based on peasant farming organized into manors, which were in turn organized for law and order

by feudalism. For a thousand years classical humanism hibernated in forgotten manuscripts of

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

expressions of Renaissance humanist philosophy is Pico della Mirandola's famous 15th-

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

philanthropia". Henry Cockeram, in his English dictionary (1623), cited "philanthropie" as a

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

Religion in 17th century Europe, secular alternatives such

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

organizations; these proliferated from the middle of the century.

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.

Philanthropists, such as anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce, began to adopt active

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

the turn of the 19th century.

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

opportunities (Zunz, 2010)11.

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

$50,000 and $75,000 a year), who give an average of 7.6% (Kavoussi)12.

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

Organizations such as Opportunity

International and Kiva (microlending), Raise5 (microvolunteering), or Charitykick (micro-

donating) leverage crowdfunding philanthropy to raise money for charity. Global Giving allows

individuals to crowd-fund community development projects in low-income

countries. GiveDirectly facilitates direct cash transfers to individual low-income households in

East Africa. Zidisha is a nonprofit person-to-person microlending website which uses an eBay-

style marketplace to allow individuals in developing countries to crowd-fund loans from

individual web users worldwide. Vittana is an online platform that allows low-income youth in

developing countries to crowd-fund tuition for higher education.

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

include Peter Singer, Dustin Moskovitz and Toby Ord.

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

and volunteer work.

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

admin could lead to resources being focused on the best activities.

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

controlled trials are considered to be a reliable form of scientific evidence in thehierarchy of

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

be smaller than it appears (Todd, 2013)19.

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

organizations are performing cause prioritisation research.

The cause priorities of effective altruists include: poverty in the developing world, the suffering

of animals in factory farms, and humanity's long-term future.

EMPATHY-ALTRUISM

Empathy-altruism is a form of altruism based on feelings for others.

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

is "empathic concern". According to his 'empathy-altruism hypothesis', if you feel empathy

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

social exchange theory takes control.

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

guilty if they did not help.

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

reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily

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

evolve within a population.

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

an instance of reciprocal altruism:

1. the behaviour must reduce a donor's fitness relative to a selfish alternative;

2. the fitness of the recipient must be elevated relative to non-recipients;

3. the performance of the behaviour must not depend on the receipt of an immediate benefit;

4. conditions 1, 2, and 3 must apply to both individuals engaging in reciprocal helping.

There are two additional conditions necessary "…for reciprocal altruism to evolve:"

 A mechanism for detecting 'cheaters' must exist.

 A large (indefinite) number of opportunities to exchange aid must exist.

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

through backwards induction—a possibility suggested by game theoretical models.

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

particular emphasis on altruistic morality.

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

spontaneously self-centered, Buddhism encourages us to focus love and compassion on others,

and thus can be characterized as "altruistic." Many would agree with the Dalai Lama that

Buddhism as a religion is kindness toward others

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

liberate one to nirvāna.

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

results for the "actor" (de Silva, 1998).30

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,

known as Niyama Dhammas (Davids, 2007)31:

1. Kamma Niyama — Consequences of one's actions

2. Utu Niyama — Seasonal changes and climate

3. Biija Niyama — Laws of heredity

4. Citta Niyama — Will of mind

5. Dhamma Niyama — Nature's tendency to produce a perfect type

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

up for others, non-violence and compassion for all living things.

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

practiced is different for householders and monks. They are:

1. Non-violence (Ahimsa);

2. Truthfulness (Satya);

3. Non-stealing (Asteya);

4. Celibacy (Brahmacharya);

5. Non-possession or non-materialism (Aparigraha);

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

recommends conquering anger by forgiveness, pride (ego) by humility, deceit by straight-

forwardness and greed by contentment.

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

principles of non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, celibacy and non-possessiveness with their

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

phenomena: wealth, strength, power, largesse." (Scheler, 1961)37

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

upper force (Luzzatto, 1997)41.

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

society and its relation to divinity (Ashlag, 2006)43.

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

what you were coached in the house of the Guru."

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

volunteering recruits for doing the same (Ralhan, 1997)44.

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

such as a god. It cannot independently bestow reward or punishment (Sivananda)45.

The Heroism of Women and Men

The human propensity to commemorate heroes appears to be a universal feature of human

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

to play subordinate roles. When monotheism developed, there remained no possibility of

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

congruent with evidence of heroic behavior in natural settings.

Psychological Theory and Research Relevant to Heroism in Women and Men

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.

The Relation Between Gender and Risk Taking

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

In contrast to psychologists’ attention to risk taking in understanding male psychology, their

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

to place the needs of others before their own.

Heroism and Gender

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

conventional research methods. Despite the popularity of research on bystander intervention in

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

generalizations that they enshrine in their theories.

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

act the right thing, to do what is right.

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

students of Meycauayan College.

EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESIS

The story of “MC Pushers” does have a significant effect on the attitudes reflected by the

students of Meycauayan College.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

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

of great benefit to the following:

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

and future ones develop socially acceptable characteristics.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

ALTRUISM - the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of

others

BANALITY - the condition or quality of being banal, or devoid of freshness or originality

HEROISM - “to act in a prosocial manner despite personal risk.”

MC PUSHERS – a group of college students, studying in Meycauayan College that helped push

a busted jeep to make it start.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

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

environment of the study.

33
As this is a case study, the use of retrospective data makes the data less reliable, as its

completeness is unsure. Information may be insufficient and compromised by faulty memory,

biased recalling, mood of the subject being interviewed.

34
 CHAPTER II

RESEARCH DESIGN

This research study is an experimental research, manipulating the independent variable (IV) in a

controlled situation so that measurements in preciseness can be taken.

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

expression of ideas, memories, feelings and thoughts.

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

probability sampling techniques, where the selection of units is made randomly.

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

need because they thought it is the right thing to do.

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

will be the breaking point of unleashing the inner heroism in them.

37
 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

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,

unnerving and genuinely altruistic.

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

a character that one can be proud of.

38
 REFERENCE

"The 2011 Online Giving Report, presented by Steve MacLaughlin, Jim O'Shaughnessy, and

Allison Van Diest".

Aristotle, & Irwin, T. (1985). Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Aronson, E.; Wilson, T. D.; Akert, A. M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah

Publishers. pp. 120–130.

Ashlag, Yehuda (2006). Building the Future Society. Thornhill, Canada: Laitman Kabbalah

Publishers. pp. 175–180.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social–psychological answer. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

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.

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

September 11, 2002.

Carnegie, A. (1907). Deed of trust. In Carnegie Hero Fund Commission: Annual report (pp. 9–

11). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Davids, Rhys (2007). Buddhism. Lightning Source Incorporated. p. 119.

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

psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

George McCully, Philanthropy Reconsidered (A Catalogue for Philanthropy Publication, 2008,

1–21.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grutter, Alexandra S. (2002). "Cleaning symbioses from the parasites'

perspective".Parasitology 124: S65–S81.

Hook, S. (1943). The hero in history: A study in limitation and possibility. New York: Day

Hoskin, Ben. "Problems with "Overhead Costs" as a metric"

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,

December 14, 2012

Johnson, S. (1979). A dictionary of the English language. London: Times Books.

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

Middle-Class Americans Do". The Huffington Post.

40
Klapp, O. E. (1948). The hero as a social type. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,

1948). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT T-00545.

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:

Colonization, consolidation, development, achievement, advancement. New York: P. F. Collier

Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of

manhood—At work, in relationships, and in family life. New York: Dutton.

Leviticus 19 and Matthew 22

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.:

Fountain. pp. 10–11.

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

possible. What do you do?"

Monaghan, P. (1990). The book of goddesses & heroines (Rev. ed.). St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn.

N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649–1815(New

York: W. W. Norton & Company: 2004), 313.

Neusner, Jacob Eds (2005). Altruism in World Religions. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ.

Press. pp. 79–80.

Nichomachean Ethics IX.4 1166a1

41
O. P. Ralhan (1997). The great gurus of the Sikhs. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd.

p. 253.

Olivier Zunz, Philanthropy in America: A History (2012).

Padmasiri de Silva (1998). Environmental Philosophy and Ethics in Buddhism. Palgrave

Macmillan. p. 41.

Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 88–89.

Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 95–96.

Scheler, Max (1961). Ressentiment. pp. 96–97.

Sivananda, Swami. Phaladhikaranam, Topic 8, Sutras 38–41.

Stephens, C. (1996). "Modeling Reciprocal Altruism". British Journal for the Philosophy of

Science 47 (4): 533–551

Summa Theologica, II:II Quaestio 25, Article 4

Tarn, J. N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: CUP

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.

Todd, Benjamin J. "Just What Is 'Making a Difference'? - Counterfactuals and Career

Choice". 80,000 Hours. Centre for Effective Altruism, July 2013.

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

Theory and Moral Practice.

World Health Organization, "Global Burden of Disease"

42
Zunz, O. Philanthropy in America: A History.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,

2012

43