Self-Implemented Human Responsibilities

Author
Andreas Sjöstedt
Last Updated
há 11 anos
License
Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
Abstract
This thesis looks at motivational forces between work, development and responsibility. Especially the factors self-actualization and altruism. A narrative literature review is combined with a survey study to identify related findings and trends in literature and how these match the contemporary society and people's beliefs. It is found that the economic view of man as being uttermost selfish, is reflected in peoples' views of work-motivation, and even in people's view of 'the will to help'. However, this view of man cannot be motivated by recent psychological findings, and neither is it as visible when asking survey-participants more self-reflecting questions. The conclusion is that altruism is, for some reason, hidden away, but is an intrinsic part of human motivation. It is also hypothesized that a society which guarantees every citizen a basic salary, or other types of basic rights, with no counter performance required in return, can use higher motivational needs such as self-actualization and altruism to motivate a more prosocial and more creative work-force. \emph{keywords: altruism, motivation, volunteering, effectivity, responsibility}
\documentclass[titlepage]{article}
%line spacing 1.5 means 1.3 using linespread
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage{wallpaper}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{titling}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[colorinlistoftodos]{todonotes}
\usepackage[%
  titleformat=italic,% Titles in italic 
  titleformat=commasep,% A comma between athors and title 
  titleformat=all,% Always show a title (or a short title)
  commabeforerest,% A comma after title 
  ibidem=strict,% 
  citefull=first,% The first citing in full form 
  oxford,% The oxford style
  super,% Footnotes 
  dotafter=true,% 
  see,% An extra optional argument as a prenote 
  idem
]{jurabib}
\usepackage{float} %to be able to use H for the pictures
\newcommand{\subtitle}[1]{%
  \posttitle{%
    \par\end{center}
    \begin{center}\large#1\end{center}
    \vskip0.5em}%
}
\linespread{1.3}
%---------Acknowledgement
\makeatletter
\newcommand\ackname{\emph{Acknowledgements}}
\if@titlepage
  \newenvironment{acknowledgements}{%
      \titlepage
      \null\vfil
      \@beginparpenalty\@lowpenalty
      \begin{center}%
        \bfseries \ackname
        \@endparpenalty\@M
      \end{center}}%
     {\par\vfil\null\endtitlepage}
\else
  \newenvironment{acknowledgements}{%
      \if@twocolumn
        \section*{\abstractname}%
      \else
        \small
        \begin{center}%
          {\bfseries \ackname\vspace{-.5em}\vspace{\z@}}%
        \end{center}%
        \quotation
      \fi}
      {\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi}
\fi
\makeatother
%---Acknowledgement


\title{Self-Implemented Human Responsibilities}

\subtitle{From a forced need for money to an intrinsic will to help}
%
\author{Andreas Ekberg Sjöstedt\\ Lund University\\ 
%\\Uppdated version can be found at \\ cnqjbbcchdct
}
\date{January 10, 2014}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{document}
\ThisULCornerWallPaper{0.3}{UR} %size, name
\ThisLRCornerWallPaper{0.4}{LR}
%\ThisLRCornerWallPaper{0.6}{waived2}
\ThisLRCornerWallPaper{0.6}{waived3}
\maketitle

\pagenumbering{Roman}


\begin{abstract} %uncategorized is put here for now
This thesis looks at motivational forces between work, development and responsibility. Especially the factors self-actualization and altruism. A narrative literature review is combined with a survey study to identify related findings and trends in literature and how these match the contemporary society and people's beliefs. 
It is found that the economic view of man as being uttermost selfish, is reflected in peoples' views of work-motivation, and even in people's view of 'the will to help'. However, this view of man cannot be motivated by recent psychological findings, and neither is it as visible when asking survey-participants more self-reflecting questions. 
The conclusion is that altruism is, for some reason, hidden away, but is an intrinsic part of human motivation. It is also hypothesized that a society which guarantees every citizen 
a basic salary, or other types of basic rights, with no counter performance required in return, can use higher motivational needs such as self-actualization and altruism to motivate a more prosocial and more creative work-force. 
\emph{keywords: altruism, motivation, volunteering, effectivity, responsibility}
\end{abstract}
%word-count: 149 (150-250), %keywords
\begin{abstract}
Denna uppsatts undersöker motiverande krafter mellan arbete, utveckling och ansvar. Speciellt faktorerna självförverkligande och altruism. En litteraturstudie kombineras med en enkätstudie för att identifiera relaterade rön och trender i litteraturen och hur dessa överensstämmer med dagens samhälle och människors synsätt. Det visar sig att den ekonomiska synen på den mänskliga personen som ytterst självisk återspeglas i människors syn på arbetsmotivation och även i människors syn på ”viljan att hjälpa". Dock kan denna syn på människan som inte motiveras av nya psykologiska rön, och inte heller framträder dessa drag när man ber enkät-deltagarna mer självreflekterande frågor. Slutsatsen är att altruism har, av någon anledning, gömts undan, men att det är en naturlig del av den mänskliga motivationen. Det görs också en hypotes om att ett samhälle som garanterar alla medborgare en grundlön, eller andra typer av grundläggande rättigheter, utan krav på motprestation, kan i gengäld använda högre motiverande behov såsom självförverkligande och altruism, för att motivera en mer ansvarstagande och kreativare arbetskraft.
\emph{nyckelord: altruism, motivation, ideellt arbete, effektivitet, ansvarstagande}
\end{abstract}
\begin{acknowledgements}
Att vandra i mörkret kan vara mysigt. Men att få hjälp är bättre.
Tack så hjärtligt Lu Ren för dina bra råd och din konstruktiva vägledning.
Tack också till Merima Kursumovic för dina kommentarer.
\end{acknowledgements}
\tableofcontents 
\newpage
\pagenumbering{arabic}

\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{page}{1}

\subsection{Background} 
It is quite logical to want to consider what human rights implementation currently depends on, if one wants to maximize human rights implementation. If we know its dependencies, we can look for potential problems in the human rights implementation apparatus before the problems arise. We have to be open to the fact that there may be many distinctive implementation systems which each will have different opportunities and different problems. A reliant human rights implementation model could be one that either cannot falter, or at least one which is accompanied by parallel implementation systems, if the other one does falter. 
 
\emph{Dependency of the state --} 
Human rights today are declared in treaties between nations, and it is therefor perhaps not so strange that "states are the key implementers of human rights" \citep[p. 38]{harrington2010global}. 
This would logically mean that people who live in well-functioning states with high welfare, where welfare means the minimal level of well-being, have a higher probability of having their rights implemented, compared to people who live in a weak or mal-functioning state. 
 
This dependency also makes space for other problems: what if a minority become regarded as an enemy of the state? %This is something that has happened in some places of the world and time, and the minorities have been left to vapor, at best, on the outer rim of the nation-states.\todo{Don't want a ref here, feels inappropriate} 
 
Another problem is that nation-states themselves are \emph{dependent on the economy}. Both the local economy and the global economy. If one of these falters, then the main providers of human rights, the nation-states, are left with little muscles to fulfill their promises, and their people are inevitably left to suffer the consequences.  
 
%What about resources? 
The economy itself has many dependencies, the largest one being the existence and movement of resources. It is a self-regulating mechanism, but the regulation regulates towards profit, and not sustainability or bio-diversity, which is yet another possible long-term weakness of today's system. 
 
All of this, and more, suggest that there may be a better system. 
 
These problems are not new; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Red Cross, or Doctors Without Borders, are all governmental and non-governmental international organizations that work to protect humans when their nation-states fail to do this for them. They are all, however, supposed to be temporary solutions, and work more as a relief, than a permanent replacement of an existing state. 
 
So if we look for high well-being for everyone, not only for certain citizens of certain states, and if we wish to go beyond the state's dependence of the economy, we need to look elsewhere.
 
\emph{Dependency of the labour market --} 
Once inside the state, an individual will hopefully get the education and the healthcare, he or she needs to maintain a healthy and happy life, able to do the work they need, to support a healthy life-standard, and to contribute to the society and the environment which they affect. 
 
Within the state, we are dependent on not only the economy, but the labour market as well. Everything in a modern state is built around the economic transaction system. Food, clothes, and sometimes education, are commodities to be sold and bought. To enjoy these benefits of society one requires some type of salary to the household. This creates yet another dependence: having a job. A nation may be able to provide for their unemployed citizens at times when they do not find a proper job themselves, but this requires not only a strong state, but a willing state as well. Similar to NGOs and UNHCR, these solutions are most of the time not regarded as anything but temporary, and are not exactly known to leave people in a position of confidence or in high mental well-being. 
 
Technology is evolving, and it is evolving fast. Modern inventions such as open source 3D printers, and the spread of knowledge about self-reliance, such as hydroponics or Earthships,\cite{earthship-iwantone} have emerged within the last decades. This provides people with many different types of knowledge that allows people to grow their own food, download and print brand new products\cite{reprap}, or make their personal necessities out of raw materials and even waste\cite{recyclebot}. 
 
The open-source technology to be resource-independent also means that people get the power to take care of their own resources, and resource management. Welfare in this model therefor becomes intrinsically dependent on personal responsibility for ecological sustainability, as compared to be dependent on continued economic growth. 
 
Another trend that has taken place is the discussion of 'basic income'.\cite{walter1989basic},\cite{haagh2013basic}. The key idea is that each citizen is guaranteed with a basic income, no matter of working-status, and is thus liberated from the need to work in order to provide for oneself and one's family. People can then work out of free will as compared to out of necessity. This also means that geeks who write Wiki-pedia articles, and provide free technologies that can be used for both good and bad, have more time (and more reasons?) to develop things for free.
 
The latter one of these is still state-dependent, but liberates humans from the stress of being forced to have a job that they may not find any deeper, or contextual, meaning in. 
 
Both basic income or models for self-reliance, gives people the choice to put fewer concerns on survival and focus instead on well-being or other personally chosen agendas. At least in theory. These ideas are all new, and leads to a series of questions which this thesis aims to answer. 


Is it possible to upheld motivation to work ou of free will? Is it possible to work for others, and take responsibility for others out of free will? Is it possible to motivate a completely free workforce to take responsibility of both their own, and other people's human rights, independently from money or other extrinsic rewards?

%---
%\subsubsection{From resource independent humans to human rights} 
%----Lu change, didn't want just one sub chapter
%So what are the most fundamental and basic factors in the human rights implementation model today?
%It all comes back to work, states, economy and humans. How much can we take away?
%The only thing we cannot take away is humans. If we take away humans from the equation, we will not have any humans that can perceive Human Rights and it therefore goes to our list of Constituting-Implementers. 
%\begin{enumerate} 
%\item Humans 
%\caption{List of the smallest actor in Human Rights Implementation} 
%\end{enumerate} 
%------- 
These models put humans in a freer context. A new system would then be to find a chain from the smallest constituent, the human, to human rights implementation as stable and as fast and all-encompassing as possible.
So how do we go from free humans to human rights as quickly as possible? What motivates free humans, resource independent, to help themselves and others where there may be no external force in the form of states, physical strength, or the like, that control their actions? Even when there is no democratic feedback-loop in which they regulate themselves? It is impossible to model such a free system from theoretical reasoning or believe that such a model can be trusted enough to be regarded as evidence that such an anarchy-like system is achievable out from the start. It is way too complex. Humans depend on human-to-human interactions and on society, which in turn depends on society-to-environment and society-to-society interactions and a lot more interactions. Without rules, it might be a never-ending game of changes, but to what end? It would be of our benefit to know if different contexts give different attributes to the overall form to the body of all these interactions. However, chaos is not necessarily the end game, and might actually be a part of a more complex society, which is not only perhaps closer to how humans work, but allow for a much more direct and evolutionarily adoptable feedback system between human and the environmental needs and its implementation.
%\begin{figure} 
%\centering 
%\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{New_SNA_segment.png} 
%\caption{\label 
 
What a state-independent system would need, however, is to identify a chaotic context which increases the likelihood of self-regulating positive interfering human-to-human activities. In plain English: a system where some, or all, actions are reinforced and leads to more actions of a similar kind. Furthermore, this in a way that adapts to the surrounding. I have even stronger demands; I want to identify an environment which leads to a specific subgroup of human actions, that is the type of human actions which leads to the implementation of human rights for any human within a reasonable range of the system.  %Humans in this paragraph does not need to be humans, but can be any working node, but for the cause of simplicity, we define a node as a human.
 %	With less correct phrasing: in what context does humans help eachother under the auspicies of human rights?


%---ANDREAS HAS RREAD THIS AS ITS WHOLE OK!


\subsection{Purpose} 
 
This thesis aims to deepen the understanding of the following questions: 
\begin{description} 
\item[Motivation to work] 
What happens to our will to work if our basic rights are always fulfilled? 
\item[Motivation to grow] What happen to our will to develop ourselves and the society if we are not bound by monetary incentives? 
\item[Motivation to help] Where does our will to be responsible and to help come from? How does our intrinsic qualities for moral match up with the contemporary motivational model? Is money the best way to motivate engaging helpful behavior? 
\end{description} 
 
 
\section{Method} 
The social constructionist perspective is taken to serve the purpose of creating a better understanding of how different environmental and psychological factors affect each other in an open and wider context. 
 
This is done so that a new framework, based on new perspectives and contemporary knowledge of human altruism, can be used for new takings on both human rights' analysis and its adjacent subjects. This framework can also be used by other themes and factors included in this analysis. 
 
One part of this thesis is a narrative qualitative literature review using primarily articles from psychology, especially within the areas related to motivational psychology. 
The literature review aims to explore how factors affect each other and are thematically organized according to their main focus. The themes can be explained by:   

\begin{itemize} 
\item{Motivation by Maslow's hierarchy of needs} 
\item{Motivation to maintain one's own needs: Motivation to paid and un-paid work in today's society} %NGO, clerical workers, 
%\item{Motivation to work, study and develop the society} 
\item{Altruism: Motivation to help others} %keywords:  
\end{itemize} 
\emph{Most central keywords are: empathy, empathic behavior, altruism, altruistic motivation, prosocial behavior, NGO, clerical workers, motivation, work motivation, motivation to volunteer, moral development.} 
 
In order to deepen our understanding of our society's view of motivation, work and moral, a qualitative survey with nine open questions is used, and analysed, within each theme. This is then compared to the literature reviews.

\subsection{Philosophical perspectives on method: Positivism vs social constructionism} 
Social constructionism represents the assertion that observations and conceptualizations are man-made constructions, and therefore, proposes brand new approaches to analyze society from new angles by creating new frameworks of interconnected factors. 
This thesis looks at inter-connectivity and relationships between different psychological and environmental factors. It is thus close to social constructionism. This is to be compared against positivism, which believes in the objective and fundamental truth. Positivism also assumes that this truth can be measured and proven as a subjective-independent truth.\cite{alvesson2009reflexive}

 
\subsection{Method approaches of the literature reviews: Narrative vs meta-analytical review} 
The meta-analytic review is practical for investigating a lot of research within one hypothesis. The narrative literature review, on the other hand, allows the exploration of more abstract concepts by investigating a large amount of topics and see how they interconnect. It can also be used for re-interpretation. This is very powerful for investigating a new area, and a potent tool to propose new theoretical models, which later can be examined experimentally. 
 
This thesis with the inter-connectivity of various factors and their meaning for theoretical investigations of alternative societies, and as a tool to analyze the contemporary society, is best answered by the narrative literature review. This because it is an area which is unexplored in its holistic approach and should be so until proper pre-investigation of the dynamics of its constituents has been properly examined so that a logical theory can be built. Other ways to describe these properties are the close, but not identical, descriptive literature review, or traditional literature review. This is to be opposed to the systemic literature review. It can also be described as a qualitative, as opposed to, a quantitative, literature review.\cite{rumrill2001using},\cite{king2005understanding}

\subsection{Materials} 
Surveys and literatures which test chosen models are the primary materials. This is used to analyze models and people's beliefs regarding these topics. Secondary material will be used for finding theories, identifying models and when searching for definitions.

\subsection{Survey method}
10 people answered surveys containing three groups of questions. The aim from the analysis is quality. The open type of questions gives them the encouragement to go as deep as they feel they need. By giving as little pre-hand information as possible, it is hoped that more superficial patterns will also be visible, as well as deeper and more reflective one with the open nature of the questions.
After the first 10 people filled in the survey, the survey was closed and saved. One additional participant handed in hem's survey after the analysis had begun, and was therefor not included in the research.

Kent Löfgren, lecturer at Umeå University, provides an excellent introductory-video in how to analyze qualitative interview data, which has had an influence in the below chosen methodoloy.\cite{kent2000video}
The response from each person was coded to an ID number to preserve anonymity.  
The data was then gone through and clustered. Clusters were named in light of the concepts conceived from the literature review and the overarching theories of humanistic motivation.  The themes found to be important went on to the next part, which was to look for relations and patterns between these labeled themes and answers. This was done %\todo{(yes relationship can be between a cell and the multicellular body)} 
at times vertically - through patterns through the respondents' own answers, but also horizontally - comparing everyone's answer to each question. 
Associations to theories and concepts from the preceding literature reviews were then done. 
Discussions were added both as a last step, but also, when appropriate, between each step of the process. 

Observe the structure of a narrative literature review. Qualitative data analysis \emph{ ``does not proceed in a linear fashion"}\cite[p. 111]{elo2008qualitative}. It is about looking at things from many different angles, re-conceptualize, discuss, and re-conceptualize again. A normal 'Theory,Method, Result, Analysis and Discussion'-method cannot accomplish this in one step. Instead, this chain of methods is consistently re-applied on different levels of the data. Both to briefly cover large areas of research to search for fundamental differences, but also to identify possible connections between factors, which may be helpful to fulfill the goal of this thesis. 
 
\subsection{Limitations} 
Qualitative literature reviews do not use empirical methods to prove data or simple-factored cause and effects, and are therefore not a logical choice to prove things. Their strength is among other things to open up new angles, in which society can be explored and analysed, connecting research to tell a different story. It can sometimes be used to create a new theoretical framework on which today's society can be assessed. This can be followed-up later with more empirical methods and models, based on the newly conceptualized framework. This freedom, however, may mean that this thesis is more prone to subjectivity than more quantitative methods.\cite{rumrill2001using} The virtue is that it is more independent of the norm, and can be released from subjectivity en masse — which at times, until disproved, may pose as objectivity. 
   
The participants in the survey can be regarded as a slightly homogenous group. Most people are students, as the study has been conducted on campus. The sample size and the size of the respondents answers allow some themes to be categorized, but cannot provide any information of how widely represented these beliefs are in the general population with any measure of certainty. This is also normally not the purpose of a qualitative analysis. Instead, preliminary trends are identified.
%--Andreas wouldn't mind the references here to be neater
\subsection{Survey ethics} 
Surveys with open questions is a part of this thesis. The survey was accessed through a link and completed on the client side, anonymously. No Ip-addresses were saved together with the answers. The volunteers were informed that their answers would be used, at least in a bachelor thesis at Lund University under the subject of Human Rights, and that it may be used in other places as well. The questions is not understood to ask for any sensitive information from the participants.

\newpage 
\section{Basic motivational theory and Maslow's hierarchy of needs} 
To have a Human Rights implementation model were people implement their own and other people's human rights out of free will, we will need to investigate human motivation for normal actions and later more specifically, for motivation to help others and taking responsibility for both, oneself and things that are not a part of the self-concept. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the most basic theory of the humanities' motivational theories, and will be our reference through this thesis.

\subsection{Maslow's hierarchy of needs - The first version}  
\begin{figure}[!h] 
\caption[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, By User:Factoryjoe, CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]{Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs} 
\centering 
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth] 
{450px-Maslow_27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs_svg} 
\end{figure} 
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the predominant theories of motivation. Maslow formulated this hierarchy of needs with a positive perspective on human motivation. Instead of focusing on what goes wrong with sick individuals, he created a model for well-functioning humans, and what they strive for. The model was created to answer a set of needs and was conceived to answer some questions in psychology, and was built mostly from his own experiences in clinical observations.\cite{maslow1943theory}.   

The original model consists of five parts in total, starting with basic needs that are necessary for survival, and ending with more complex needs, such as the need for self-actualization. 
 
The first level is the \emph{-- Physiological needs --} such as food, water, sleep and homeostasis. After this he puts \emph{-- Safety needs --} such as security needs, needs for law and order, stability and limits. 
\emph{Love and belongingness needs --} is the third category. This refers to our need to be, and feel, loved. It includes things such as our need to have friendships, good family relations, and a place in the group. 
\emph{Esteem needs --} is the fourth category of needs and includes things such as confidence, the need to achieve mastery, the need to be regarded for one's abilities and achievements, and to be respected by others. 
\emph{Self-actualization --} is the fifth need. It is located at the very top of the original model. It is described as the process of becoming who you were meant to be, or who you want to be. Maslow himself said under this category that"A musician must make music, an artist must paint art, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy".\cite{maslow1958dynamic} It is to be regarded as a highly subjective need, which takes a different form in different subjects.\cite{kenrick2010goal}
%Another characteristics of self-actualisation, is that it is a state of emergence, or becomming, rather than a static state of beeing.\cite{maslow1968toward} - he doesn't write that, at least not what I can see.


\subsection{The second and the third version of needs, with seven and eight levels of needs} 
 
The next need he added was\emph{-- Self-transcendence}. Maslow added self-transcendence as an important addition to the hierarchy of needs by the year 1969.\cite{maslow1969farther} This part, which may be considered a bridge to other psychological theories and motivations, such as altruism, has, however, been rather neglected. This is at least true if one compare the attention this model got to the amount of attention his initial theory received. 
 
Maslow has a quite elaborated explanation for self-transcendence, and it would take up to much space to re-account for his entire interpretation of its meaning. Maybe he did not know himself how to explain it. My subjective attempt would limit itself to my understanding of the word, but more importantly, to its meaning. If you study Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you may notice how people focus upon the needs before this one, maybe because a natural tendency to focus on the products first established, proposing a rigid but inflexible academic world. But maybe because some of his later topics were on such an abstract level that an accepted language for it was yet to be established. It seems though as if he has tried to follow his previous model, moving from the very local deficiency needs, to small positive needs, to larger, more complex needs and then naturally, to expand the ground even further, to excel not only oneself but to further others as well. Some of the over thirty points of explanation for the word self-transcendence mention the transcendence of the ego, of selfishness, and even the overall transcendence of one's lower needs.\cite[p. 272]{maslow1972farther} 
 
The enjoyment of cultural-pluralism and to "live in the realm of Being"\cite[p. 272]{maslow1972farther} are two other conceptually separate points that he uses to elaborate on this abstract concept. All of these varieties may be regarded as somewhat flavored of Maslow's personal philosophical influences. On the other hand, maybe it is an attempt to include as much as possible. 
 
My attempt to give a short description of self-transcendence would be to elaborate on the transcendence of the self-perceived concept of the self.    

%My attempt to give a short description of self-transcendence would be to describe it as the process/concept of the transcendence of the self-percieved concept of the self.

%\subsection{Motivation to work - Selfishness and responsibility}
%\subsubsection{Maslow and work}
%    According to Maslow, the motivation to work depend on how far in the hiererchy we have reached.
%    Malislow's hiererchy of needs clearly states that we have a need of self-actualization. This point to the fact that people who have lower needs fulfilled, and therefore are by the motivation to survive, not bound to work, still have motivation, but of another kind, more aligned with who they are, to work.
An additional two categories have been found in Maslow's notes and would be described as the \emph{-- Aesthetic needs --} which is as it sounds, the need to have and perceive harmony and balance. The other category which was added was the \emph{-- Cognitive needs --} which includes needs such as the need to gain knowledge. The aesthetic needs is placed on the sixth level, counting from the most basic needs as number one. The cognitive needs is placed on the fifth level with the same counting. This leaves us with a final pyramid of eight levels of needs. However, among the published papers, the updated model with six needs (the sixth needs being self-transcendence), would represent the final published model as proposed by Maslow. Nevertheless, if one include Maslow's notes, then the final hierarchy would constitute an eight stories tall pyramid.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Egypt_and_Alexandria}
\caption[Maslow's hiererchy of needs with 8 levels. CC-ZERO, CC0]{Maslow's hiererchy of needs with 8 levels.}
\label{sra_brost}
\end{figure}
% \caption[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, By User:Factoryjoe, CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]{Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs} 
% \centering 
% \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth] 
% {450px-Maslow_27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs_svg} 

%-----------Andreas agrees, swiftly, up to this point (actually a few backs
%--------Andreas use this to cover large areas, only read certain parts. Starts here.
\subsection[Critique]{Critique of the hierarchical nature of Maslow's model} 
Maslow suggested that these needs are fulfilled in a hierarchical manner, where the basic factors are more likely to be fulfilled before the higher categories. This would mean overlapping of motivational categories between adjacent categories only, but Wahba, Mahmoud A and Bridwell, Lawrence G, showed that most empirical tests, points to an overlap even in non-adjacent categories. \cite[p.221]{wahba1976maslow} 
 
Self-actualization needs, however, seemed to be the only factor which consistently appeared relatively independent of the other categories, following Maslow's prediction to some extent.\cite{wahba1976maslow}. Even so, some newer research, agrees with the more hierarchical structure, leaving the topic open for debate.\cite{taormina2013maslow}


\subsection{Other models} 
\emph{The Expectency Theory —} This theory is built to model individuals expected work motivation for individuals that want to maximize their own satisfaction and minimize their dissatisfaction. The motivation is a product of how much the subject wants a reward, the perceived likelihood that the action will lead to the expected performance and that this performance will lead to a reward.\cite{vroom1965motivation} These three steps are sometimes factored as \emph{Valence:} The value of the outcome. \emph{Instrumentality:} The belief that my actions will result in this outcome. \emph{Expectancy:} How much I believe I can complete these actions. 
One weakness of this theory is that it assumes a strict correlation between rewards and performance. This is not always the case, and quite often, other factors such as the role-perception and ability is needed to add weight to this model.\cite{lawler1973expectancy} 
 
\emph{Alderfer's ERG Theory —} This theory is an attempt to update Maslow's 5-levels' hierarchy of needs. Alderfer groups Maslow's categories into three super-categories: Existence, Relatedness and Growth.\cite{alderfer1969empirical} \emph{Existence} can be compared to the physiological and safety needs, \emph{Relatedness} corresponds to esteem needs and love/belonging needs, while \emph{Growth} corresponds best to self-actualization, but it also includes the intrinsic part of esteem needs. Growth is the need to develop oneself. 
 
Another difference is that Alderfer's theory is not hierarchy based, and motivation can be triggered in a non-hierarchical order. 
 
\emph{The Drive-reduction Theory --} The drive-reduction theory for motivation was created by Clark L. Hull.\cite{dewey2007psychology} The drive-reduction theory is an extension to the drive theory, which sees psychological drives as instincts. These drives are triggered by homeostatic disturbances.\cite{seward1956drive} When these disturbances, or negative state of tensions, are created, the organism is driven to take action to return to a state of relaxation or homeostasis.


\subsection{Conclusion} 
Maslow's model can explain an array of motivational needs, from personal responsibility to self-transcendence. The theory suggests that we, by nature, will not be satisfied only by satisfying basic human needs such as food and company, but that we are naturally inclined to seek self-improvement, and a never-ending greater sense of meaning and purpose in our lives. 
 
Not much has been written about self-transcendence compared to self-actualization. This is rather sad since it is one possible link to motivation. It is one of this paper's intents to investigate preliminary altruistic motivation, and review, from a psychological point of view, if indeed, fulfilled lower needs still leaves room for other forms of motivations, which may motivate humans to work. If not, if work for bread and family is all there is, then I would personally suggest that we keep the current economic model which is built around the assumption that we are selfish by nature \cite{edgeworth1881mathematical}. Maybe there is even one model which doesn't start from the egocentric motivation as the absolute fundament, but perhaps one which starts with altruism altogether? Who knows for now, but ought to look deeper into altruism to learn more about this. 
 %--------------------weird grammar
Let us start by comparing Maslow's hierarchy of needs to people's motivation to work. Let us also look at if there is any difference in people who work for NGOs, and what motivates their work.  

The aim is to necessary connections between human motivation for different types and different forms of responsibility, such as working for oneself, working for others, working for payment versus working to be responsible, etc.. This can be used to find out what motivates people to do the work which is necessary to maintain society and keep a workforce active which will have the necessary drives to protect both society, and the environment which the society needs and effects. 
 
It would be good if a chain of motivations can be independent of money. To know this, we need to know what makes us tick. Is it all about the money? 



\newpage 
\section{Reaching for self-actualization: Motivation to work and to study} 
If everyone has their basic rights fulfilled, with no need to work in order to survive, then according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we will move up in the ladder and find other forms of motivation. 
Furthermore, if the employment serves a higher purpose, such as working for an NGO, as a doctor, working in eldercare, or contributing to society through conducting science; then maybe the motivation can come from an unselfish motivational mechanism. We will look at this in subsequent chapters. 
 
 
A key question is the motivation to work, if everyone lives in a civilization with all their basic rights fulfilled independent on their employment status and independent on any monetary economy, then we need to know whether or not individuals will still engage in the work-type of activities. If they do not, then we risk a society where everyone stays home and watch cartoon until the end of their time. If that is good or not is another debate. 
 
 
It would be good to investigate different sources of motivation for the type of activities which the continuation and development of society may require, such as work and education. Not all types of work will be necessary in such a society, since monetary incentives in itself is not mandatory, however, certain types of jobs, which increase the minimal subjective well-being, or the welfare, will still be needed if we are to find a system that maximizes this factor. 
We can begin by comparing clerical workers to both workers at NGOs and to high-paid workers and see, both why people work with what they do, and see what types of motivation there is for work. Maybe money is not the only, or even the best, way to motivate people to contribute to society. 
 
 
\subsection{Work motivation and Maslow's hierarchy of needs} 
According to Maslow's model, the motivation to work would depend on how far in the hierarchy one have reached. 
Maslow's hierarchy of needs proposes that we have an intrinsic need for self-actualization, which is higher than the need for food, safety or even for self-esteem.

 
But this need is high up in the hierarchy of needs. It suggests that if we have our lower needs fulfilled, and have therefore transcended the motivation to survive and are thus not bound to work for this reason, still have motivation, but of another kind. A kind which is more aligned with whom we are. 
 
This suggests that individuals who choose a work more in terms of their own free will, and not out of obligation, will have an intrinsic motivation, leaving the extrinsic motivation behind.  
 
%\subsection{incorporate these two paragraphs into the section above} -Ludit 
%This corresponds with the theory that people who are not motivated by lower needs, such as the need for survival, still are motivated by higher needs, such as the need for self-actualization. 
 
The type of work for people who are not bound to the requirements to work similar constraints, would be motivated by free will and their own choices, and is in some regards thus closer to contemporary volunteers in NGOs than to clerical workers or other employees in for-profit organisations. 
 
An article looking at NGOs in Sri Lanka looked at motivational factors and how they differ between different working groups after the tsunami in Sri Lanka 2004. They found that the motivational level were higher in non-governmental organizations. In addition, they were perceived as fulfilling more of Maslow's needs than in the private sector or the governmental sector \footcite{6638442620100601}, which illustrates that other types of human motivators not only exist, but may even be stronger motivation if added to, or replacing the motivation for lower needs. 
 
Compare this to the theories of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Here we will find research, which shows that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can both work in synergy in some cases,\cite{amabile1993motivational} but also that extrinsic motivation may be motivating in the short term, but is ultimately demotivating in the long run.\cite{benabou2003intrinsic}  

Another research has looked at similar things, as why people choose to work for NGOs if they have other options which provide better pay, better personal stability and more. Wessarat et. al's preliminary study showed that most people who worked for NGOs in Sothern Thailand, were mainly educated people, and consequently they asked themselves this: "why are these people working in NGOs? They are well qualified to work even in firms (and probably earn better pay) but they chose to work in NGOs!"\cite{wesarat2008qualitative} 
This is rather interesting, not only because it shows that people are motivated by more things than pay, but also what type of background and security people can be expected to have if they choose to volunteer in this type of organisations. 

\subsection{Motivation for volunteering and NGOs} 
Bruyere et al. looked for causes of engagement in environmental volunteers. The study assessed 401 volunteers from six different organisations to find out why people spend their free time to help the environment. It is possible that some people do it to boost their career, or to help the nature, or maybe to get new friends. The largest motivator among the volunteers were, however, to help the environment.\cite{bruyere2007identifying} 
So it is possible to take larger responsible then necessary, out of free will and genuine care. And apparently, educated people, for some reason, may be more likely to do this. This suggests that free will and education are both important ingredients for work motivation for work that includes global responsibility. 
To start a volunteering program is, however praiseworthy, not the same thing as finishing it. Another study co-related what factors that initially motivated volunteers by looking at 148 long-term volunteers, and found among other things, that 'helping the environment' and 'learning' were good initial motivators for commitment for volunteers, but also that the motivation changed over time, suggesting a less static picture of motivation in NGOs.\cite{ryan2001predicting} 
 
\subsubsection{Compare to Maslow's hierarchy of needs} 
All of these commitments and types of works, represents motivational factors from higher categories from Maslow's hierarchy of need. Indeed, e who work for free to help the nature, all can be placed in the top three categories of the sixth level model. Educated people, and people who engage in activities in order to learn, fits well in the fourth category, which represents esteem needs: self-confidence, worth, strength, capability and adequacy of being useful and necessary in the world.\cite{maslow1943theory} When it comes to learning new things, it may somewhat fit also in the fifth category, self-actualization. It makes one wonder if these higher needs are by nature more independent from the need for money? 
It is nevertheless clear that it is not primarily the need for food, safety, law or order, or even social needs, which are the predominant motivator for these NGOs in developing countries and environmental protection organizations. It may furthermore represent a movement from work from lower needs to motivation of higher needs, re-affirming the belief that implementing everyone's basic rights will still leave room for work, but of a different kind. It also shows, that motivation from higher needs can be of a responsible kind. 
 
\subsubsection{Clerical workers and paid workers} 
Maslow assumed that very few of the people at his time would reach the top of his hierarchy. 
 
Fulfilling the basic rights is a way to help people reach higher in this hierarchy. Today's world has a different hierarchy also, an economically based one. Here, certain values about purpose and good work are cultivated, defending an uneven distribution of economic rewards and profit. The importance of money may give people the feeling that employment which is more important rewards you with more pay. This may be why people who take care of aged people are in some places lower in the social hierarchy than people who take care of technology. Elderly people do not generate profit, or require formal education. It requires qualities of another type instead. 
 
So let us look at success in the contemporary world. 
investigation 1. Are rich people happier? 
In one research, 100 people from Forbes's list of wealthiest Americans were compared to 100 arbitrarily picked out people. The average level of subjective well-being were higher than the average level of the randomly selected group. When the two groups were asked to identify keys of happiness, the wealthier group focused more on factors that fit under self-esteem and self-actualization then they did on the lower needs such as physiological needs and security needs.\cite{diener1985happiness} This fits Maslow's model: when a group of people reach a high level of wealth, they focus less on physiological needs, and more on higher needs. It also shows that complete success in today's world may mean you have satisfied the first two groups of needs, but not necessarily higher than that. The study also shows that the unhappy people in the wealthiest group of people were only modestly happier than the unhappy randomly selected group of people, suggesting that complete success may add a bit to human needs, but it just doesn't fill the quota as complete success in terms of high subjective well-being, etc.. 
\subsubsection{Conclusion - Reaching the top} 
We seem to have identified two parallel work forces that seem to be motivated by other types of motivation than mere survival and safety. Either by becoming one of the richest people in America, or by doing volunteering work. 



\subsection{Motivating innovation and scientific contributions to society}  
Antikainen et al. investigated open innovation communities and identified common factors among participants and maintainers. They received answers to open questions from 12 participants and five maintainers and analysed the answers and sorted them accordingly. They identified a range of important factors for motivation in open collaboration such as:\cite{antikainen2010motivating}  
\begin{itemize} 
\item{community cooperation} 
\item{learning new ideas} 
\item{having entertainment} 
\end{itemize} 
Suggesting that monetary rewards are not the best, and definitely not the only, necessary mean for stimulating innovation. 

All of these factors correspond to the top three levels of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Love/belonging for community cooperation, esteem for learning new ideas, and self-actualization for both learning new ideas and possible for having entertainment (self-actualization is always hard to categorize). 
One of the limitations of this study is the studies size. 17 (12 plus 5) participants may be good as a preliminary qualitative analysis, but larger samples would give more accurate results. Additionally, the very nature of open questions is also a good way to create a hypothesis, but further research would be required to see if whether or not these factors co-relate with participation, and commitment, in an open innovation environment.  
 
\emph{Education --} 
Does the motivation to study have any other base than 'lower needs motivation'? Is reward and punishment better than free will, self-actualization, or other forms of intrinsic motivation? 
 
First of all, extrinsic motivation may in the long run undermine intrinsic motivation.\cite{benabou2003intrinsic} So choosing a field to study based on the will to survive, get economical benefits, or because of other rewards and extrinsic goals, may not be a completely throughly thought, or good, idea.  Other authors seem to agree, Daniel Pink writes in his book "Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us" that rewards are not the best way to have their employees to do their finest work, instead he suggests that people do their best when the employee finds \emph{intrinsic meaning} in their work. \cite{pink2010drive}. 
 
Richard Bowman had a similar theme in his paper "Rethinking what motivates and inspires students" and argues that the best learning environment is one that answers to three intrinsic needs in the student, (explanations of the words are rephrased): 
\begin{enumerate} 
\item Autonomy - The free choice 
\item Mastery - Learn and develop 
\item Purpose - Find meaning for what they do. 
\cite{bowman2011rethinking} 
\end{enumerate} 
None of them corresponds to the lower needs in Maslow's hierarchy. In fact, they all fit quite well in the self-actualization and esteem category. 
 
All in all, all these research suggests that we will not lose engagement in our students if we focus on other motivational factors than high-paid status jobs.


\subsubsection{The will to grow}
It would be a good thing to rethink focus, away from a reward based system. Both NGOs, "successfull people" and the best students have focus on motivation which is charactherized by free will and aimed towards meaning,  purpose, esteem and self-actualization. Students and other humans have, as Maslow was getting at, rephrased by Alderfer, \emph{an intrinsic drive to grow}.  What is more, if you rethink the contemporary working and study environments, people may engage in their work even more in a system where work and money are not mandatory. It would at least fulfill more in of the humanistic motivational needs. 

%The focus on growth suggests adaptibility between the student motivational theories and the E.R.G. (G stands for 'growth').


 %--------Andreas use this to cover large areas, only read certain parts. Ends here.
\section{Survey - Motivation for Work and Study} 
\subsection{Questions} 
Three open questions were chosen to get a view of people's opinions on what motivates people to work and to study. The questions aim to understand both what they think the general motivation is, as well as what motivates them themselves. Furthermore, one question was added to shed extra light on what they think about the use of money as a source of motivation for work. 
The following questions (translated from the original survey) were used: 
\begin{quote}Q1:What do you believe the main motivational force to work and study is? — Q2: Do you believe that money is necessary to motivate people to work? — Q3: What motivates you in your work/studies? \footnote{Question 1-3, \emph{Survey}, Translated from Swedish to English} 
\end{quote} 
 
\subsection{Analysis} 
Everyone perceived money as an important motivator for work (10 of 10). Some (5 of 10) thought that other motivators existed, or can exist. Two of these explicitly said that it would be nice if it were possible to have other motivators than money, without suggesting if it would be realistic or not. 
 
People gave fewer symmetrical answers, when answering the two more self-reflecting questions. 
In the question of what motivates themselves, one person answered money as their only motif. An additional three people answered money plus other factors. 
 
About half (5 of 10), mentioned at least one factor related to either existence (3 of 10), or money (3 of 10), of which one had an overlapping answer in these categories. The rest (5 of 10) did not mention economic incentives, or existence at all as their motivation to work. Most people did not mention it explicitly (7 of 10). At the same time, everyone mentioned it as a 'must have' for the earlier question 'motivation to work'. 
 
The most common factor for what motivated people was 'growth' of different types (7 of 10). Such as: \begin{quote}"I find it to be developing and interesting"\footnote{ID16, \emph{Survey answers}}\end{quote} 
And: \begin{quote}"Fulfill my dreams, and because it is fun and stimulating to learn new things"\footnote{ID18, \emph{Survey Answers}} 
\end{quote} 
 
It also seems as though money is motivated as a way for people to support themselves and their family (suvival/existence), and as a way to reach some level of their perceived understanding of life-quality. 
 
\subsection{Trend analysis} 
Even though only three people mentioned money explicitly, and only half of them (5 of 10) mentioned existence as the most important motivator for work, everyone (10 of 10) agreed that money was necessary to motivate people to work. At least in today's society (some thought that alternative societies may cultivate alternative motivators more likely). 
 
Mentioning money as a main motivator seemed to be easy for people, while mentioning altruism was often accompanied by a disclaimer of wishful thinking or naivety. 
 
\begin{quote} "I have a naive whish to change the world"\footnote{ID3, \emph{Survey Answers}}\end{quote} 
Followed by 
\begin{quote} "I do not believe I have any capitalistic interests. But is that possible?" \footnote{ID3, \emph{Survey Answers}}\end{quote} 
 
Such unconfidence was not noticed when people stated they were motivated by monetary incentives: 
 
\begin{quote} 
"Money, money, money."\footnote{ID15, \emph{Survey Answers}} 
\end{quote} 
 
 
The overall trend in people's answers was easy to spot. Everyone agreed when asked upfront if money was necessary. When asked more reflectively about the most important motivators, then other things became more important. Nevertheless, few, or none, noticed the incongruence between their answers. Even more void, were the focus on money when they listed what THEY were motivated from, allowing them even smaller space to give a 'rehearsed' answers. The more reflective answers had less focus on money than the answers from the up-front money question would imply. 
The other important conclusion/trend, is the different certainty people showed when they spoke about different parts. For example, speaking about money as overall motivation was not so hard. Even if people disagreed about the virtue of money, there was no unconfidence in those voices that claimed that money was important, even though it did not necessarily reflect their own motifs behind their carrier choices. Growth was another factor, which seemed personally important to the respondents, and is worth mentioning, as it fits the E.R.G. Model. Altruism wasn't explicitly mentioned. %Purpose did not get much attention 
 
The answer from ID16 serves as a good illustration of this incongruance. Hem did put 'purpose' as the most important motivational factor for work. 
%However, in the next superficial question, hem said that money was the sole thing that is motivation enough for work. 
Just one line after, and with no association to the question before, hem puts, without hesitation, money as the only things that is motivationally sufficient as motivation for work. 
And hem's own motif was self-development and hem's personal interests (falls under intrinsic-esteem and self-actualization in Maslow's model). Money is void also here. 
 
\subsection{Conclusion} 
The obvious questions seem to trigger more automatic, and almost horizontally identical answers about motivation. There seem to be a lot of expectations about what to think about human motivation. But this homogeneity does not seem to be represented in their reflective answers, which imply that this homogeneity in is due to taught knowledge, as compared to reflected understanding. 
 
The general trend is a incongruance between the simple question 'is money necessary for work', and the more self-reflecting questions 'what motivates you?' and even sometimes 'what is the most important for you?' 
 
The easy answer that money is necessary comes with confidence, even when it contradicts their self-analytical answer before and after.  
 
Those who put their reflections into this part, and say that there are other motivators than money which may be enough, or even replacements, they say it with much smaller confidence.  


\section{The Will to Help: Altruism - A New Motivational Foundation} 
 
%---------------------------split in old vs new part
One of our strongest drives might be to survive (food and safety in Maslow's hierarchy), so given the choice to tend our own homes, or to provide our own food - when given the choice, or when given a citizen-salary - we would engage in that work, and sustain ourselves. 
 
The old economic model, however, is a way to organize selfish actions to produce a community that can be used to realize other people's human rights. Money can be used to buy other people their food. It can also be used to buy modern accessories and pieces of art, and generally, money can be used for all those things which are, and are not, necessary for survival. Currency does in this way serve a higher potential than pure egoism and self-survival. 
 
Since money gives people a form of power, it gives people the power to hire people who need to work for food and lodging, or to maintain a certain competitive lifestyle, or other ways to attempt to increase their subjective well-being. But then, it also gives powerful people the power to hire people to do things these people don't actually whish to do. What is more, it gives some people more power than others, and in this way, walks over-head of the political system, either democratic or other form of governance. But money has both the ability to fulfill the first level in Maslow's pyramid. But also to act as a collective tool to ensure people their human rights by external intervention from the state, or by donations. %(or not at all when it goes against some economic interests). 
But it is also a tool for hierarchies. It gives people with power control over people who need to take any job because they need to have their basic needs met. It can be used to keep a large part of the population chained to the first few levels of Maslow's pyramid. What is worse, this happens under the auspices that the employee helps the employed. But what help is there, except the help to survive? In some cases, people manage to find a job which allows them to actualize their inner dreams. But the chance exists also that people get trapped in a work they do not actually want. 
 
So the question remains, is egoism the only way to help others? Are we by nature, selfish beings? 
This is quite important, because if we are all driven by selfishness, then selfishness itself will be an important factor in the human rights' implementation package. But if humans have an intrinsic drive to help, then it would be possible to find workforce to help others out of other reasons than self-preservation, status, money, or even self-actualization. This is also important if we want to find a mechanism to implement other peoples' human rights independently of economic incentives. 
 
This section will go through two main philosophical points of views in regard to altruistic behavior, after that find the most appropriate psychological model which matches these views as good as possible. After this we will try to see if we can find matching literature studies to assess how good these models work in reality. Our last step is to see what other people believe about moral development, and were the human will to help, and to take responsibility. Will it match the literature?
 
The two themes in this section are:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Egoistic vs altruistic motivation to empathic behaviours
	\item Moral development
\end{enumerate}

But first, we will find a proper definition for altruism.

\subsection{Altruism} 
The definition I will use for altruism and egoism is the following. I will refer to altruism as juxtaposed to egoism. Using the definition for egoism as in "a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing one's own welfare", and with 
altruism we use the psychologist's definition as in "a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare".\cite{batson2010empathy} It basically means the motivation to selflessly help someone. 
 
\subsubsection{Philosophical perspectives of altruism} 
There are generally two major philosophical approaches to altruism. These are the hedonic approach and the eudaemonic approach. 
 
Hedonism represents the belief that pleasure is the only naturally good for humans, and the only intrinsic motivation. 
Hedonistic motivation would be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. It is a very ancient philosophy, debated already in Ancient Greece.\cite{sep-hedonism} An egoistic theory of altruism is from the hedonic perspective, which sees altruism as an actually selfish motivation to reduce negative feelings, or to generate positive feelings for doing good. 
 
Eudaemonic is the school of thought, which has been used to representing happiness and welfare. It has a slightly abstract meaning, which is both a goal and a process. It was in the Aristotelan school of thought, the aim of ethical and political reasoning, to reach and experience the highest human good. This was called 'eudamonia'. \cite{Dictionary.com2014} 
%\todo{Can read and possibly cite from here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/} 
Another view on altruism is the reciprocal altruism theory, which has its roots in the belief that we are by nature altruistic animals because of evolutionary reasons. The benefit of altruistic actions for group animals makes altruistic groups more likely to survive.  
 
 
\subsubsection{Maslow and altruism} 
There are no parts in Maslow's hierarchy of needs which adequately accounts for altruism. Possibly, with the newer version of the hierarchy which also includes self-transcendence, but this category is neither well defined, nor equally well-established as the other categories, and it is uncertain what relation it would have to altruism. 
 
The ability to explain altruistic motivation with Maslow's hierarchy of needs also corresponds to the perspective taken on altruism. If we follow the egoistical perspective of altruism, then it would be possible to account for certain altruistic behavior, from an egoistic point of view, in an attempt to fulfill different selfish needs from the hierarchy of needs, such as having good esteem, or becoming a good citizen, etc.. 
 
However, the old hierarchy of needs will not be enough if we adopt an genuinely altruistic perspective. We would instead be forced to add altruism of some kind to the pyramid to include also genuinely altruistic motivation.
 
Self-transcendence could correspond to a shift of identity. This is another pathway to potential altruistic behavior, which would be independent of the theories of egoistic, vs altruistic empathy. Monroe looked on shifts of identities and suggested this as good indicators for certain types of altruistic behavior. \cite{monroe1996heart} 
 
In this review, we will look at the hedonic vs the eudaemonic perspectives, and compare results from egoistic vs the non-selfish altruism, and their ability to predict empathic behavior. 
 
\emph{Psychological motivational model for altruism -- } 
The selfish theory of altruism and the unselfish theory of altruism can be expanded into psychological motivational models. These models can then make predictions, which can later be tested. 
 
Cialdini et. al proposed the 'negative-state relief model'. It has a hedonistic perspective on helpful behavior and proposes that altruistic behavior is motivated by an innate drive to reduce negative moods.\cite{cialdini1981insights} This drive can induce helpful behavior based upon the premise, that helping someone else will make oneself feel better by positive gratitude, or other mood enhancing rewards. 
 
Batsson makes an emotional model with two mechanisms that triggers empathic behavior. These are also quite close to the selfish and altruistic theories, and are therefor appropriate to use:\cite{batson1987distress}   
 

\begin{enumerate}
 \item{Feeling emotional distress (alarmed, upset)}
 \item{Feeling empathy (eg compassion, sympathy)}
\end{enumerate}
These two feelings resulted in two different types of goals and motivations:\cite{batson1987distress}

\begin{enumerate}
\item Emotional distress seems to result in egoistic motivation to reduce one's personal feelings of distress. 
\item The goal of the empathic motivation seems to be to reduce the other person's distress, and not merely to make oneself feel better.
\end{enumerate}

The first mechanism is close to the theory of egoistic source of altruism. This egoistically motivated altruism, is often described as the 'negative state relief'. The second mechanism is close to the theory of genuine altruistic motivation. This is paralleled by the 'empathy-altruism hypothesis' which in our case will replace the 'unselfish altruism hypothesis. 

Fultz et al. suggests a further split to the motivational model for altruism, and subsequently differs sadness, as arose from seeing someone's unfortunate state, from empathy for someone's state. He suggests a model with three distinct factors; empathy, sadness and distress.\cite{fultz1988empathy} 
But for the sake of testing egoistically motivated empathetic behavior versus altruistically motivated empathic behavior, the two-factor Batson's model is enough. 
 
\subsubsection{Testing the theories: egoistic vs altruistic motivation to help} 
An article from 1990 compared the 'empathy-altruism hypothesis' vs. the more egoistic, 'negative state relief' interpretation and found that the empathy-altruistic hypothesis gave a more accurate result than the more egoistic negative state relief interpretation.\cite{dovidio1990specificity} The negative state relief interpretation assumes that the effect of empathic concern is mediated by sadness and that this sadness creates a helping action in order to make one feel better. The altruist model, which gave more accurate predictions, says that the empathic concern is an altruistic motivation to help another person in distress. 
%It shall be noted that both models was relating to helping others, 
The effect of empathic concern was shown to be completely altruistic. 
 
Another research tested the reaction of 44 female students when they witnessed another student receiving electric shocks. They looked at how people reacted in different situations and compared that to what the theories of empathy-egoism and empathy-altruism suggested. The result followed the prediction that empathy leads to altruism, suggesting that the will to help is not based on selfishness.\cite{batson1981empathic} 
%The egoistic theory proposed that the female students would be more eager to help when escape was easy then when it was hard. The altruistic motivation theory suggested that they would in both cases be equally ready to help. The result followed the pattern of the. 
 
In yet another experiment, they looked at 84 female graduate instructed them to either witness a person in distress or imagine the victims feelings. This in order to illustrate low and high empathy and then ask the participants to do a self-assessment of their emotional response. The result was that feelings of empathy were more highly correlated with altruistic motivation compared with the relation between feeling distress and its relationship to altruistic motivation. This result also supports the hypothesis that altruism, at least in some cases, has its source in empathy, rather than in distress, also supporting the unselfish model of altruism. 
 
\subsection{Sources of moral development - A new era of altruistic research} 
The view of moral development of babies has long assumed that adults guide the young to objective responsibility, and that children, are by nature, amoral beings.\cite{piaget1932moral}. 
 
Kohlberg's six-stages model for moral reasoning is a good illustration of how moral was regarded as a step-by step cognitive process. Where the earliest stages, or pre-conventional stages, of moral was oriented around 1. Obedience and punishment, and 2. Self-interest. These two are grouped under un-conventional moral, and are the main characteristics of a child's moral. These are later followed by conventional moral; 3. Interpersonal accords and 4. Authority based - Law and order morality, followed by post-conventional moral: 5. Social contracts and 6. Universal ethical principles.\cite{kohlberg1958development},\cite{kohlberg1984essays}\cite{kohlberg1963development} 
Moral was thereby not believed to be innate. 
It is possible that Kohlberg focused on the cognitive aspects of moral reasoning, which then understandably, would limit its premise. 
How does altruism fit in in Kohlberg's hierarchical model? Is it at the top? Well, if you regard altruistic moral as a completely unselfish motif, then it is hard to see how it can be developed from other forces of motivation. What can be developed, is more and more complex egoistical-dependent moral models, were an increased understanding of inter-dependency, motivates a subject to be moral, due to an underlying understanding that it will, in fact, benefit them later, or that this type of system is for them beneficial. 
%If altruistic moral exist as its own basis, not egoistically motivated, then this would be independent of the model above, and maybe even be visible at early stages of childhood. 
\subsubsection{A new view of babies} 
Modern research has started to turn these old beliefs up-side down.  
 
Researchers have shown that babies not only have an intrinsic sense of good and bad, but babies also seem to possess an intrinsic will to help. The will to help is not, as one can assume, based on extrinsic reward, or self-image. Instead, it seems to be based on real altruistic motivation. Not only this, but seeing someone else being helped seems to be enough to make babies happy.
 
Hamlin, J Kiley and Wynn, Karen and Bloom, Paul found in their research something which might put the old view of moral as something which is learnt-only, up for a challenge. They found that  ``infants prefer an individual who helps another, to one who hinders another. Todlers also prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual."\cite[Abstract]{hamlin2007social} This implies that the ability to differ good behavior from bad behavior is, to some extent, given by birth, and not something which is purely handed down in form of teachings of some kind. 
 
%(( Another part of the moral puzzle is the will to actually conduct helpful actions. Bloom tested children to see whether or not they would help a stranger (doll) et. al)) 
Warneken and Tomasello tested 14-month old's behavior when an adult failed at completing a task. The adult did not explicitly ask for help, but received help to finishing their simple task, if the inferred goal was not to complex. The more complex task did not receive the same consistency in helpful actinos.\cite{warneken2007helping} This study shows two interesting things, not only did the children of this young age help without being asked to help, but they also had the ability to understand, to some extent, an inferred goal, and help the grown-up to reach this goal. 
 
If children have this innate ability to help and understand an inferred goal, and help the one who tries to reach it, then what type of environment would endorse this behavior? How do extrinsic rewards affect helpful behavior? 
If the development of helpful behavior can be promoted by extrinsic rewards, then maybe moral can be promoted by rewards. 
 
Warneken, Felix and Tomasello, Michael, tested this hypothesis, and found something quite extraordinary. By giving 20-months old children extrinsic rewards over a period of time, they found that the children who received rewards had a decline in helpful behaviour.\cite{warneken2008extrinsic} This shows, among other things, that children's ability to help is not dependent on extrinsic rewards. It furthermor suggests that "helping behaviors of young children are intrinsically motivated and that socialization practices involving extrinsic rewards can undermine this tendency".\cite{warneken2008extrinsic} 
 
\emph{Babies' will to help is not egoistically motivated} 
But perhaps there is another type of reward for babies who help. Maybe they help in order to be regarded as helpful individuals by their peers, for esteem, which may improve their group inclusion in the future. 
 
Hepach et. al measured sympathetic arousal by measuring pupil dilation. They looked at this factor in order to test whether children got satisfied, or sympathetically excited, when someone was being helped. They compared the results of when the children themselves were the helping agent, to when another person was the one that did the helpful  behavior.
They received similar results of pupil dilation in both cases.\cite{hepach2012young} This showes that young children exhibit satisfaction when they see someone else being helped, no matter who is doing the helpful behavior. This gives yet more matter to the theory that the will to help can be genuinely altruistic, and not motivated by the will to be get fame or a having a good image. Instead, children "seem to have genuine concern for the welfare of others".\cite{hepach2012young} 
 
We are already starting to receive complex information about how moral is developed. There seem to be an natural will to help others, an evolutionary, or biologically developed understanding of right and wrong from birth. It furthermore seems as if external rewards are not the main motivator to help others, it can actually undermine helpful behavior. This suggests that theories of how to develop a good and responsible society might need to reconsider the focus on materialistic rewards, and start to give place to our intrinsic needs. 
To live in a society requires more than helping others, it is also about dealing with competition. Personal gain and personal profit may be a way to motivate employees to improve, even though the research above might be a good reason to reconsider. If receiving rewards undermine altruism, then how can we express our gratitude to people who we consider to be helpful? The answer may seem surprising, but receiving a reward may not be the most important to us. 


Aknin, et. al, tested a hypothesis which can be described as the belief that helping others when there is an inherent cost to the one that helps, ought to induce some emotional benefits for the individual.\cite{aknin2012giving} This in order to further the co-operation of the specie, even when the co-operation has intrinsic costs for the individuals themselves. \cite{aknin2012giving} 
In the main study, the researchers tested 20 toddlers with an average age of approximately 23 months, and measured their happiness level in different situations. They found that children became happier when they gave a treat away, than when they received treats themselves. What is more interesting is that the children became even happier when there was an inherent cost to giving something away. The children became happier when they gave something of their own few things away, as compared to when they gave something away which the researcher had just "accidently" found on the ground.
 
\subsubsection{Conclusion: Do not reward helpful behavior, helping is the reward} 
These findings suggest that children have an inborn will to help, which is motivated by genuine concern for others, contrary to in-learnt behavior. This behavior is furthermore independent from recieving rewards. 
The examples above points to a common denominator. If they have, indeed, found something new, then motivation to do work, and to help others, may not need external rewards. 
 
In fact, helping others resulted in higher well-being for the kid than when they received gifts themselves, suggesting that we are constructed to help even when we do not get anything back (as compared to co-operate through competition). Maybe competing will actually, as one can hint in these studies, result in a lower level of overall happiness. 

Babies clearly have some innate capabilities to differ right from wrong, and even though grown ups might help the children to cultivate these properties, maybe it is better to do so by example, and not by reward. %(One of the most interesting findings in all of these new researches, is that helping others may be a better path to well-being then helping (oneself) previously believed.) 
All of this research is conducted on children and is therefore a perfect base to understand the native qualities of men, co-operation and well-being, and may even serve as a good tool when suggesting ways to motivate grown-ups to work and for themselves, and for others, even when they do not need to. But as we saw, the preliminary findings show that somehow, it ought to be possible. 
%just made this one blue
%\subsection{Triangular Discussion}

\subsubsection{Other models}
\emph{Models which regard a shift of identity --} 
Renwick Monroe intervened 25 people in four different categories of risk, to assess when and why humans are willing to take risks to help others. She found that a common factor in predicting risk-taking in people is a person's perspective involving their self.\cite{monroe1996heart} One example of a shift in perspective was a trench war between French and German soldiers. Soldiers started to miss each other after a period of fighting, this being argued to be due to a change of their view of themselves. Their initial perspective may have been that they were French and German solders, but this perspective shifted overtime. In the end they instead saw themselves as people laying in opposing sides of trenches, trapped in a pointless confrontation. 

I would argue that Monroe's points do not only show the possibility that a person's perspective is an indicator of prosocial behavior, but this also translates into a shift of the person's identity, which is similar to Maslow's self-transcendence. In her example, a shift from being French vs. German soldiers, to a common identity of two soldiers in a trench that just happen to be on opposite sides in a meaningless war. Either way, Monroe does point at the fact that a person's perspectives of others and the environment may be more important motivation for behavior, then any self-interest concept from the social sciences.   



%%%--LINE
\section{Survey - Moral and Responsibility} 
 
\subsection{Questions - responsibility} 
The first three questions parallel the question regarding work. This is to see if they generate a similar type of answers as the answers regarding the motivation to work. If work and responsibility are closely connected, then these questions ought to generate similar thinking patterns. 
 
Nonetheless, it gives an opportunity to see also what people associate uncategorized responsibility with. If the question does not define the type of responsibility, then people have to interpret the word by their own associations. This will hopefully produce opener answers with some more aspects to compare or analyze. 
The following questions are translated from Swedish to English: 
\begin{quote}Q4: Which do you believe the largest motivational force for taking responsibility is? — Q5: Do you believe that money or other types of rewards are necessary to motivate/teach people to take responsibility? — Q6: What motivate you to take responsibility? 
\footnote{Question 4-6, \emph{Survey}, Translated from Swedish to English} 
\end{quote} 
 
\subsection{Questions - moral} 
Second part of this section looked at moral development and moral at early ages. The last two questions regard the source of moral, and what they believe about increasing moral by motivation. 
 
\begin{quote} Q7: Where does human moral come from? For example: society, innate, environment, taught. -- 
Q8: How can you strengthen the moral in humans and in the society? -- 
Q9: Do you believe that moral must be motivated by egocentric advantages or self-centered incentives, like money, reward, reputation, etc.? 
\footnote{Question 7-9,\emph{Survey}, Translated from Swedish to English} 
\end{quote}  
 
\subsection{Analysis - responsibility} 
Factors which are analysed comes mainly from the E.R.G. model and the factors from Maslow's hiererchy of needs. Intrinsic and extrinsic sources are, when appropriate, distinguished. 
 
%------Q4 
%Relatedness+esteem=6 of 10, 3 of 10 mentioned facing the consequences, 1 mentioned altruism. 
Also the answers for \emph{-- Q4: Which do you believe the largest motivational force for taking responsibility is? --} was mainly in terms of relatedness, including extrinsic-esteem needs (6 of 10). 
 
Cause and effect, survival and other forms of motivation from seeing the connection between actions and effect was noted as important. Quite often as selfish consequences, including survival and subjective goals, which can be met by taking responsible actions (4 of 10). 
 
Altruistically motivated responsibility was not very visible (approx. 1 of 10) 
\begin{quote} ``That you care about the world around you."\footnote{ID16, \emph{Survey Answers}}\end{quote} 
 
%Q4 
%-Q5 
 
on the question \emph{Q5: Do you believe that money or other types of rewards are necessary to motivate/teach people to take responsibility?} %(4 said yes/sometimes, 1 said maybe) 
The answers here were quite divergent. Some people thought that rewards were necessary, or at least some times (4 of 10). Some seemed open for the possibility that rewards are not necessary for taking responsibility, whilst others said that they should then "at least" receive recognition/appreciation for their efforts. About half (approx. 5 of 10) were open for the possibility that incentives are not mandatory for the reward mechanism.  
 
%Q5 
%Q6 
 
\emph{Q6: What motivate you to take responsibility? --} Most answers fit in the relatedness-category (5 of 10), such as appreciation, status, and other forms of excentric esteem. As an illustration, the answer: 
\begin{quote} ``That you get appreciation/status for taking responsibility. In other cases rewards."\footnote{ID7, \emph{Survey Answers}}\end{quote} 
characterizes extrinsic esteem. It is extrinsic since it is expectations and rewards that are put there by others, and it is esteem, since the form of reward is in terms of 'status', or 'acknowledgement' or in terms of 'appreciation'. 
 
\emph{Vertical trends --} There some extra focus on 'cause and effect' within the 'Responsibility'-Part of the survey. There seem to be a trend of thinking about responsibility as an intrinsically motivated, yet selfish, understanding of 'cause and effect'. The other general trend is various forms of relatedness, which includes extrinsic and intrinsic esteem. What this means is that the other associated motivational factor for responsibility is to be seen as a responsible person, by both people themselves (in this thesis labeled intrinsic esteem) and by others (in this thesis labeled extrinsic esteem). Relatedness includes intrinsic esteem.  
 
\emph{Conclusion —} Responsibility seems to be associated with two things. One is a somewhat selfish concept of intrinsic and extrinsic esteem. People want to be regarded as good and responsible people. The other general trend is the egocentric perspective of 'cause and effect'. People think that the ability to see a connection with one's action to a specific outcome, may motivate people to take responsibility to be responsible in order to generate good outcomes. The perspective is not inescapably egocentric, since it does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the effect, which one's actions effects, effect someone else, hence potentially motivates a non-egocentric perspective of 'cause and effect'. However, consequences were often mentioned in selfish perspectives, together with goals (ID22), punishments or rewards (ID15).  
 
\subsection{Analysis - moral} 
%Analysis of Moral 
\emph{Where does human moral come from? --} Nine people listed factors they thought moral may come from. One said that moral is too complex and would not provide any further thoughts on this matter. Not many of those who answered (2 of 9), listed innate moral as the human source of moral. One of these two were very uncertain about hem's answer, and listed it as one of the multiple possible factors, but stated hem's inability to provide a holistic theory that hem can believe in. Most people listed 'knowledge and education' (4 of 9) and 'society' (4 of 9) as sources of human moral (8 of 9 combined). 
 
The answers to the question \emph{-- How can you strengthening the human moral? --} 
Ought to be through 'society' and 'education' if it fitted the pattern of what motivates moral. 
3 of 10 did not provide any answer (do not know and no answer at all). 
4 of 10 (4 of 7 of those who responded here) thought that 'education and teaching' could be used to strengthening the moral in humans. One mentioned something close to an identity-shift, or self-transcendence to a philanthropic view of mankind as a way to cultivate a global responsibility. Another one perceived moral as unnecessary and saw it as an obstacle against human development. This person listed the lawful protection of life, liberty and property as adequate to build ``healthy and just societies” \footnote{ID15, \emph{Survey Answers}} 
 
The next question was \emph{-- Do you believe that moral must be motivated by self-centered advantages or selfish incentives, like: money, reward, reputation, etc.? --} 
7 said no, although some of these focused on hedonic altruism, which may be interpenetrated as selfish rewards. Some (3 of 10) did mention altruistic motivation for moral. There was some unconfidence, almost close to hope, when mentioning this. At another time, the belief that altruistic reasons may be behind moral was accompanied by a fundamental belief that real altruism cannot exist, and may in-fact have selfish reasons. This is something which came again and again. 
\begin{quote} 
``[I] think, actually, that it should be enough to make others happy. But this can also be seen as an egoistic advantage to become happy over making others feel good." \footnote{ID7, \emph{Survey Answers}} 
\end{quote} 
%End Analysis of Moral 
 
\subsection{Discussion - moral and responsibility} 
%This was once the start of the independent title: Discussion - Moral 
The fact that most people thought that moral is taught fits well with the old view of moral development. 
%, such as the 6 step model from xxx. 
 
People do not seem to be up to date with current psychological research. This may have implications since peoples' beliefs of how people work, may have an impact on the choices they make, and how they try to help society as a whole. Especially teachers and the type should be up to date with research within the field of moral development, but it is hard to believe that the benefits of understanding mankind would stop there. 
 
It is quite interesting that not so many expressed a belief that moral, by itself, needs to be motivated by selfish incitements (only 1 'maybe'). Especially when you compare this to when people were asked if money is necessary to motivate responsibility. Here the answers were slightly different. %\todo{What? Relatedness, especially extrinsic rewards} 
Maybe an indication that our sense of responsibility is not directly associated to moral. Is moral broader? Are we unaccustomed to work out of the motivation which comes from our sense of moral? I personally find this question to be rather fascinating. 
%%this was the end of the discussion about moral, next is the discussion o both moral and responsibility. 
%%This is where discussion about moral and responsibility started, previously the Master of the Title: \subsection{Discussion - moral and Responsibility} 
%Relatedness, esteem and status were the perceived to be the most important factors for taking responsibility for people in general. 
People thought that the most important factors which may lead people to take responsibility were relatedness of different kinds, specially esteem and status. Altruism was only mentioned once. This trend goes further down, mentioning human moral as something which is ''taught” from society. 
 
There is also no obvious connection between the perceived underlying factors for responsibility and moral. People do not connect the same underlying force which underlays moral (here they listed education and society), as for responsibility (here they instead listed esteem). Maybe people believe that moral is taught in school (education), and that the way to teach it, is through a concept of responsibility, %as opposed to natural, and cultivated through autonomy and individuals free exploration of acting out of it, investigating it, and accepting it as their will and motivation. 
%\todo{(think extrinsically decided responsibility)} 
which is motivated by a collective self-image, or (esteem) as a responsible person. 
The only obvious thing is that altruism is rather distant as a perceived origin for responsibility. Furthermore, the belief that intrinsic altruism is a natural part of moral development, is quite distant as compared to the external actions of expectations and being taught moral by society, school, etc. The only place where altruism is notably visible, is as a motivation for moral by itself. Here, 3 of 10 believes it is, or should be, enough to motivate moral through altruism. However, even this is low numbers.  
 
It symbolizes an aged belief of how to develop moral, and from where moral comes from, and a rather self-centered source for responsibility. Almost as if being seen as responsible is more important than actually doing the right thing. 
 
\emph{Being seen as an accountable and reliable person seems to be believed as being more significant than actually being responsible for the benefit of others.} \emph{The way to focus always on selfish motifs, and believe that humans are naturally selfish, underlies almost all the respondents answers} \emph{The belief that moral need to be taught may have implications in the way responsibility is regarded, as to do with self-esteem and carrier, and not actually about helping others} 
 
Hopefully, new views of man, altruism and the source of moral, will give people the courage to let go of the need to always motivate responsibility and moral from a selfish perspective, which may allow people the guts to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. 
 
This drive to help is innate, but we force another view of man over us through social beliefs. What happens to the human subjective well-being when we overlook this fundamental part of is, only crediting it with the power of doubt? Undermining it whenever we mention it. Feeling forced to mention that it is actually wishful thinking, an illusion. 
 
Which of the following two do we really learn in society: to be moral, or to suppress our true innate moral? Is this the way to a healthy, sound, developed society? Is this the most logical way to life-quality, responsibility, and subjective well-being? And is this the way for people to find purpose in work, and feel productive, self-actualized and meaningful? Maybe.   

%End - Discussion - Responsibility and Moral Survey

%%END - Survey - Responsibility and Moral
%\section{Discussion}

%There seem to be an almost alarming fear for the leave of money, allthough very few seem to actually choose work after money only. 

%\section{Free knowledge - Making knowledge for free}
%	\subsection{Total freedom, for self actualization}
%-no copyright, no ownership infringement, these ones have been motivated to necessity due to the old structure of fulfilling number one.
%But if these basic survival needs are met anyhow, or at equal proportions to any segments of society, then there is no need for such a sentiments anymore.
%	Be sure that proponents will not like this, and debate for the opposite. Realize however their cause of motivation, it is not actually about
%their motivation is not about getting, food, f we proove this is possible anyway. It is logically derived from their sense of selfactualisation which is dependent on the concept of ownership and control over other people's lives
%In order to reach true equality, such scaoundrelicm and illicit claims must be called and tested.
%	The ods are against them. Positiv psychology shows that happiness comes from another type of self-realization, not that of ownership of others, but that of helping others. I will here proove my statement, but I don't expect those who already thrive in the old system, to be keen to re-examin the cause of human happiness or motivation.






%\section{Exploiting weak states, weak organisations and undereducated population}
%{Investigating if developed states depends on poor states}
%If modern states depend on poor states then the following is true:
%In order to guarantee equal rights for everybody, we need to move to a system where a developed country does not depend on a undeveloped segment of the population with lower saleries to do the cheaper labour which would be to expensive in modern coutnries to do. E.g. if a modern society cannot afford to their own agriculture, production, mining and other "bulk" processes, then it is incapable of guaranteeing equal rights for everyone. It does not mattr if the poorer part of the labor is wiithin our outside the country, the logic is the same.

%(((((%\section{Revisiting the Human Right model, leading us to DIY-Human Rights}
%Quote the one who said that un-implemented human rights are no human rights. from that boring course.

%\subsection{Human Right Dependencies}
%Lit review:
%Quote the 1-3 authors that says that Human Rights depends on Implementation. Also argue, that without life, or without ownership of ones life, one cannot have the other Human Rights fulfilled in the first case, or will not get THEIR Human Rights in the second case as it is not actually THEIR life to some relative extent.

%So one can say that Human Rights depends on implementation.
%\subsection{Revisiting the contemporary Human Rights Implementation Model}
%Litt review:
%-Human Rights are given, protected and implemented by the state
%-logic: it is the states which are signatory, it is therefore a fundamental idea in the contemporary world.
%-Some NGO's hep with certain Human Rights in such as right to food, right to education and the right of the Child. Give examples
%-transnational organisations, such as United Nations also help wth certain rights through organs such as Refugee Reliefe etc etc

%\
%Dependencies
%-NGO needs resources, tools to help. They also in most cases require consent from the state, except in some cases such as the cas when the state is the, or one, Human Right violator.
%--Protection from the state or specialized competences, and resources resources, including human resources.
%-Transnational organisations depends on its resources attributed to them by its membering states, and does thus depend on working states.

%-so all the implementors of Human Rights depends on one or many workin states and resources which are allocated to them mainly from the states.
%(-all of them also require resources, economy, material and knowledge)
%\subsection{Exploring the core-dependencies of a state, considering its role as a Human Right implementor}


%\subsection{Identified modules}
%-A working state, which should include
%-Knowledge of Human Rights
%-Knowledge necessary to administer an implementation of them in law and praxis
%-Economical resources
%-Human workhours
%-Materialistic resources availability

%\subsubsection{Identify problems of Identified core-modules}
%-Knowledge which can help actors to implement health care can be out of reach due to financial disability to pay for licenses and royalties.
%--Problem: protected/hidden knowledge, economy-dependent availability, economic ability
%-Vertical Knowledge of Human Rihts
%--To spread knowledge about Human Rights through state leadership requires both 1. A willing state. 2. A stable state. (any itt review? 3. The human and economic resources required to educate its state's personel.
%--Problems: instable state, unable-state, a rouge state

%\subsection{Core problem, and core dependencies. Taking away as many of the problems and dependencies as possible}

%\subsection{Finding the smallest denominator. Make it as stable and independent as possible, independent from its own and the external world'sproblem. As few ways that can go worng as possble, and as many ways to implement it as possible}
%Måste finnas någon filosofisk låtsas lag som kan dras från murphys lag som säger att desto mer saker man har, desto mer kan gå fel, varför vi letar att ta bort så mycket som möjligt från det som implementerar, och hitta de närmsta anknytningarna så oberoende från externa världen som möjligt.

%It alls comes back to resources, economy, knowledge and humans.
%The only thing we cannot take away is humans. If we take away humans from the equation we will not have any Humans who can percieve Human Rights and it therefore goes to our list of Constituting-Implementors.

%\begin{enumerate}
%\item Humans
%\caption{List of smallest actor in Human Rights Implementation}
%\end{enumerate}

%We are left with these as major players in the contemporary Human Right Implementation model. (Define what I mean with this?)


%\begin{enumerate}
  %  \item Willing and functioning states
	%\item Economy
    %\item Resources
   % \item Knowledge
   % \item \textit{Non-governmental organizations, to some extent}
    %\item Will
   
%\end{enumerate}

 
 %\subsection{What now?}
 %We now have one main subject that is required for the implementation of Human Rights and that is the Humans themselves. 
 %\subsubsection{Explicit, implicit, intrinsic and external will}
 %It can be debated weither or not more abstract terms such as the motivation, or the will to implement Human Rihts is also a necessary key-aspects in a minimal-Human Rights'-implementation model. The explicit will can however be disregarded after considering the fact that it is possible for a Human to enjoy many of the Human Rights without the knowledge that they are defined as Human Rights. Although an undefined will for the sub-items; such as the will to eat, might be regarded as an implicit will for Human Rights. It is however possible, at least in theory, to imagine a Human who does not wish for Human Rights at all to have them implemented by force, or under the provision of an authority such as parent or law-enforcer. Imaine for example a kid who does not which to go to shool one morning. He is really determined not to go to school, but reluctantly goes there due to submission and acceptance of his guardians' guidance. She/He is, in theory, enjoying the Child's right to education (cite) without wanting it. 	This can however be seen as if the will comes from his parents. He does not have the intrinsic will or motivation, but does it due to the will of his parents.  Lastly it is highly possible, however seemingly nlikely, that someone enjoy's Human Rights by mistake, and by chance, and accept the statu's quo without an explicit, implicit, intrinsic or external will that this is meant to be. An example of this is however quit hard to come up with. Perhaps whe a kid without parents gets lost in the city one day and by mistake finds him or herself in a school-building one day for the first time and decides to sleep there and start attending the classes, and does thus start to enjoy a child's right to elementary education.    None-the less, \emph{will} is a strong, however not immidieate and as obvious candidate to the minimal-implimentation model as the existence of Human's, even though it obviously carries an important role. But due to the fact that Human will is a sub-component of Human existence, and due to its more abstract nature, it is saved until later consideration.

 %\section{Stabilizing the base, making it independent, what tools will it need? How do we reach further?}
 %We now have the smallest constituent of Human Rights, that is, the subjects \emph{humans} themselves. In order to maximize the probability of having Human Rights implemented, we need to make them as independent from external change as possible. Another way of doing this is to allow our subjects (Humans) to, while being independent to as many parties as possible, have the chance to get their Human Rights realized by as many as possible.
 %Our first step is to find a way to make them independent from our list of major players in the contemporary Human Rightss Implementation model as possible while seeing if it is still possible to get them implemented by them as far as possible.
 %In order to do that, we need a player which can fulfill all these human rights while staying independent from the above player's potential pit-falls.
 %Human are the  (smallest constituents of human rights? Both for implementation and for enjoying)
 %\subsubsection{Human-Ecological Approach to Human Rights}
 %Explain Human-Ecology. So that more people can understand this text.
 %Quote this source, just look at wikiedia and folow a source.
 %	We will later see that the environment has a paramount role to play in cultivating socially responsible humans which will be necessary in a free nation. And as a part of this we can intuitively understand that the human connection to nature will be 

 %Taking Modern Psychology as a base and considering modern technology as key components while revisiting the contemporary economy-dependent, resource-dependent state-model as the protector and implementor of Human Rights


 %\section{From resource independent human's to Human Rights}
 %So how do we go from human to human rights as quickly as possible? What motivates free humans, resource independent, to help themselves and others where there are no external force in the form of states, physical strength or the like, that control their actions? Or when there is no democratic feedback-loop in which they regulate themselves? It is not possible to model such a free system from theoretical reasoning or believe that such a model can be trusted enough to be regarde as evidence that such an anarchy-like system is achievable out from the start. It is way to complex. Humans depends on human-to-human interactions and on society, which in turn depends on society-to-environment and society-to-society interactions and a lot more interactions. Without rules, it might be a neverending game of changes. It would benefit to know if different contexts gives different attributes to the overall form of the body of all these interactions. However, chaos is not necesserily the end game, and might actualy be a part of a more complex society, which is not only closer to how humans work, but allows for a much more direct and evolutionarily adoptable feedback system between human needs and its implementation.
 %\begin{figure}
 %\centering
 %\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{New_SNA_segment.png}
 %\caption{\label{fig:SNA}State-independent human-to-human interaction.}
 %\end{figure}
 %	So let us look on the body of a human action system. Some systems might be random.  %That will be hard, almost impossible to work with. We can therefore try to create a context which does not likely lead to this type of system. Human actions in another context might be chaotic, this is easier to work with (see appendice to know the difference between chaos and randomness). 

 %    A democratic state-dependent system is closer to controlled chaos, and it has the benefit of evolution, albeit not very fast.
 %\begin{figure}[h!]
 %	\caption[Democratic State Model, No rights reserved]{Democratic State Model}
 %	\centering
 %	\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
 %		{democracy}
 %\end{figure}

 %    What a state-independent system would want, however, is to identify a chaotic context which increases the likelihood of self-regulating positive interfering trans-human activities (in english: a system where some, or all actions are reinforced and leads to more actions of a similair kind, in a way that adapts to the surrounding). We have even stronger demands, we want to identify an environment which leads to a specific subgroup of human actions: that is the type of human actions which leads to the implementation of human rights for any human within a reasonnable range of the system. Humans in this paragraph does not need to be humans, but can be any working node, but for the cause of simplicity, we define a node as a human.
 %	With less correct phrasing: in what context does humans help eachother under the auspicies of human rights?
 %   If we split that one up we find to constituents: the first one is human rights, which leads to the logical conclusion that a working unit needs to have conscious, or subconscious knowledge of human rights. The secon constituent is the free will t implement these rights. Making the brave assumption that implementing human rights is an act of kindness, we ought to search for a context that upregulates the posibbbility of having humans help one another out of free will.
%	We  thus need to look at two things. 1: Humans: what parts of humans induces prosocial behaviour, and continued motivation? 2. The environment: what context does these human factors require for their emergence and continues develeopment
%\section{DIY Human Rights part 1: Humans, compasion and motivation}
%\subsection{What motivates compassinate behavior?}
%\subsection{Factors and practices that induce Prosocial behavior}
 %compasion meditation etc
%\subsection{Motivation and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, An Open Nation vs. traditional state model}
%\begin{figure}[!h]
%	\caption[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, By User:Factoryjoe, CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]{Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs}
%	\centering
%	\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]
%		{450px-Maslow_27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs_svg}
%\end{figure}
%The type of work for citizens of an Open Nation will be motivated by free will, and their own choices and is thus closer to contemporary activists in NGOs than to employees and clerics in the corporate world.
%An article looking at NGOs in Sri Lanka "aimed to find out how the motivator factors differ among the occupational categories and nongovernmental organization categories. According to the "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" model, employees of United Nations, international organizations and international nongovernmental organizations were at higher motivational levels. Expatriates, national consultants, executives and managerial staff were also highly motivated to work in their respective nongovernmental organizations"\footcite{6638442620100601}.
%\subsubsection{A modern Maslow's needs model}
%The new society is more interconnected, and it feels natural that a revised model is less hierchial and more horizontally projected. I found two papers of criticm and they both represent a modern road away from hiererchial thinking towards a more holistic, ecological approach.
%---------------------------)))))

\section{Discussion} 
\begin{description} 
\item[Motivation to work] What happens to our will to work if our basic rights are always fulfilled? 
\end{description} Already according to Maslow there are many types of motivation. Even if we can survive without work, we can still motivate work through other factors, such as esteem, self-actualization and in the future, altruism. Most people believe that money is necessary for work. But there are at the same time few who mention money as their focus for why they do what they do. It can mean many things. Maybe money is seen as a way to survive and motivate people to work.
%-------------------was part of the last, but don't get it, it just doesn't fit, unless if you know things which will come later on.

%We then know, if this is the case, that it is realistic to provide people's basic needs and still be able to cultivate a motivated workforce.
If, however, money is seen as a way to reach self-esteem, self-actualization, or even relatedness, then money can be a way to channel higher levels of needs as well. But most people did not mention money by itself when they reflected about their choice of work, or study. Even if money would be the channel in which motivation shows itself, in some cases, it does not seem to be the deepest base from which all our motivational forces which drives us to work come from. To motivate people who have their basic rights fulfilled, without money, ought to be possible if people learn to relate their core motivators, such as relatedness and growth, directly to the work, and not necessarily through other mediums. It almost seem as if money mix motivators together, so that it can be hard to distinguish between different levels of needs from one another. I do not believe this is a good thing as it would be nice to know why we are motivated to certain things, as a way of knowing ourselves better, and as a way to better the society.
\begin{description} 
\item[Motivation to grow] What happen to our will to develop ourselves and the society if we are not bound by monetary incentives? 
\end{description} 
Our will to grow does not need motivation. It is motivation. It is one of the three factors in the E.R.G. model \emph{Existence, Relatedness, RGrowth)} It fits well also in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, both under esteem, but also under self-actualization, and perhaps even under self-transcendence - depending on its chosen definition. Furthermore, the literature review supports the theory that students are motivated by other things but money. Their answers are particularly related to growth, such as autonomy, mastery, purpose. The students in the survey reflect these patterns. 
Lastly, Wikipedia and the like is not only a proof, but an illustration of this intrinsic need to self-actualize, help and to grow.
%\item[Motivation to work] What happens to our will to work if our basic rights are allways fulfilled?
%\end{description} Already according to Maslow there are many types of motivation. Even if we can survive without work, we can still motivate work through other factors, such as esteem, self-actualization and in the future; altruism. Most people believe that money is necessary to work. But at the same time not many mentions money as their focus for why they do what they do. It can mean many things. Maybe money is seen as a way to survive and motivate people to work. If this is the case, then we now know it is safe to provide people's basic needs and still have a motivated workforce. If however, money is seen as a way to reach self-esteem, self-actualization, or even reletedness, then money can be a way to channel higher levels of needs as well. But most people did not mention money by itself when they reflected about their choice of work, or study. Even if mone yis the channel in which motivation shows itself, in some cases, it does not seem to be the core. Motivate people with basic rights, and even without money, ought to be possible if people learn to relate their core motivators, such as relatedness and growth, directly to the work, and not necessarily through other mediums. I also have a feeling that money mix motivators together, so that it can be hard to distinguish different level of needs from one another. I do not believe this is a good thing as it would be nice to know why we are motivated to certain things, as a way of knowing ourselves better.
%\begin{description}
%\item[Motivation to grow] What happen to our will to develop ourselves and the society if we are not bound by monetary incentives?
%\end{description}
%Our will to grow does not need motivation. It is motivatiom. It is one of the three factors in the E.G.R. model (which gives better predictions then some of the other big models).)
%Also, the litterature review points to the theory that students are motivated by other things but money. Especially related to growth, such as autonomy, mastery, purpose.
The third point was: 
\begin{description} 
\item[Motivation to help] Where does our will to be responsible and to help come from? How does our intrinsic qualities for moral match up with the contemporary motivational model? Is money the best way to motivate engaging helpful behavior? 
\end{description}
There are quite some things to say about the will to help. First of all, the literature review does show that innate altruistic empathy does exist. This did not correspond to what people believed in the survey. The survey matched the old belief that moral is something that is taught. 
Most, if not everyone, in the survey, were very inclined to either show their unconfidence in referring to altruistic motifs, or they displayed that they are very aware that their focus on altruism is rather naive. Everyone seemed prone to display that they 'knew' that real altruism is actually disguised selfishness.

This fits the old economy theory of humanity, but not newer research. The babies' altruism seemed to be altruistically based; they were actually happy when someone else helped the person in need, even if it was not they themselves who did the helpful behavior. This is slightly humorous, as most people in the survey mentioned esteem as the most important when it came to being responsible. Grown ups associate responsibility with recognition, but the baby showed a will to help which was independent of receiving recognition. It, if nothing else, undermine the belief that today's society is geared towards bringing out the best of us. Unless people think that it is good to get rid of these altruistic properties of course. Perhaps there are ways to actually cultivate these properties instead? But what do we cultivate in today's society? 
 
Maybe extrinsic esteem is something which is taught, or at least comes later? Anyhow, not only babies displayed eudaemonic altruism. But so did grown-ups. Studies reveals that adults have behavior which fits better with the unselfish theory of altruism then the old narcissistic view of helpful behavior. There seem to be a lot of resistance against these beliefs, maybe as it is the very foundation of today's motivational theories, and even at the base of the capitalist system which we are all, more or less, a part of. 
 
The analysis of peoples' views of \emph{responsibility, work and moral} shows an interesting divergence in how people relate to the three. Clearly, people do not today automatically associate the motivation to work as a chain which goes from altruism, then moving on towards moral, and then towards responsibility, and lastly towards work. Instead, they separate the three, motivating work with selfishness, responsibility with esteem, and moral as something that is artificial and which needs to be taught. The short comment here is that this does not seem to comply with the human psyche.  
% \subsection{An alternative workforce motivational model} 
 
% \subsection{Pruposed Research} 
 
% \subsection{An alternative workforce motivational model and proposed research and proposed action} 
% Research in how to add altruism to the humanistic models of motivation, such as Maslow's pyramid of needs, or the E.R.G model (could become the E.R.G.A. model) 
 
%The E.R.G model was convenient when describing the participants needs, with the added factorization of esteem needs, both extrinsic and intrinsic needs. However, for the sake of simplicity 
 
 
\section{Suggestions} 
Assuming that we have all the basic rights which are necessary for our own survival. What will we need to do, to motivate people towards responsibility, integrity, autonomy and high well-being? 
My suggestion would be to 1. Educate people about, and allow a visibility of, their native \emph{altruistic will to help}. 2. Motivate people not only towards altruism but also towards \emph{self-realization}. Move from an extrinsic reward system, to an \emph{intrinsic} wish to grow and to help. 3. This would in education also reflect people's intrinsic \emph{will to be challenged, and to overcome} challenging activities. This is what motivate students the best, not grades and punishments by their own virtue. Even though grades and such may be one of the forms that the challenges take. 4. Development would probably blossom even more if we unleash the "geek powers" by taking away their need for profit. Some of the greatest achievement in modern history has been done by volunteers. One of the largest encyclopedias in the world, for example (Wikipedia). Not to mention, one of the most commonly used operative systems (Linux), cloud technologies(Open Stack), and much much much much much more. In addition, taking development towards self-reliance cannot be relied to be done by companies. Technology which makes people independent of money will be quite hard to motivate in a capitalistic business model, but not in a humanistic/altruistic/self-actualizing/do-it-for-fun, model. 
 
If we are going to reach the top of human potential, and do it in a democratic and sustainable manner, we just cannot afford to stay in the contemporary model which does not motivate humans to our fullest. 
 
%\section{Delete Me Chapters} 
 
%\subsection{Pruposed research} 
%\todo{subsection Theoirzed conceptual framweork 
%-- for predicting success in a non-mandatory work, economy-independent, society.} 
 
%\subsubsection{Ad hoc theorized conceptual framework} 
%Pruposed factors to investigate the ability to predict success in a non-mandatory work society model, including a society which is resource and economically independent, or a societ with minimal wage. 
 
%Welbeeing, qualitative identity expansion and qualitative identity expansion 
%as factors to predict sustainable characteristics in a person living in a free world. 
 
%Local resources to provide basic rights, esp. basic knowledge and resources which includes the ability to fulfill the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy. 
%plus inter-connectivity of knowledge, such as education and internet, and humans such as social networks, collaborations etc 
 
%Beeing in nature affect well-being if identifying with it 
%Taking care of nature creates identity? 
%\subsubsection{Things to measure for a successful WAR State} 
%Welbeing, altruistic and responsible state. -sell-regulated needs by weighted distributed information and ability - basically a distributed needs and welfare world. 
 
 
 
%\subsection{Fom old abstract file} 
%Thus a society which DOES realize the basic human rights, and the environment which enables the middle segment, in a consistent and secure way, would more logically enable people to find self-realization pounding from within.   
 
    
 
 

\listoffigures
\bibliographystyle{jox}
\bibliography{bibfile_openaint}
\newcounter{app}
\stepcounter{app}
\appendix
\section[The Survey -The Original Version (in Swedish)]{Appendix - The Survey in Swedish}
\stepcounter{app}
    \begin{quote}
    Q1: Vad tror du den största drivkraften för att folk skall arbeta/studera är?
    Q2: Tror du att pengar behövs för att motivera folk till att arbeta?
    Q3: Vad motiverar dig i ditt arbete/studie?
Q4: Vad tror du den största drivkraften för att folk skall ta ansvar är?
Q5: Tror du att pengar eller andra former av belöning behövs för att motivera/lära folk att ta ansvar?
Q6: Vad motiverar dig till att ta ansvar?
Q7: Var tror du att mänsklig moral kommer ifrån? \emph{exempelvis: samhället, medfött, miljön, inlärt}
Q8: Hur tror du att man kan stärka och utveckla den mänskliga moralen hos människor och i samhället?
Q9: Tror du att moral måste motiveras med egoistiska fördelar eller själviska incitament som pengar, belöning, gott anseende, etc?
\end{quote}
\section[The Survey - The Translated Version (in English)]{Appendix - The Survey in English}
\stepcounter{app}
    \begin{quote}
%Q1: What do you think the biggest driver for people to work/study is? 
Q1:What do you believe the main motivational force to work and study is?

Q2: Do you think that money is needed to motivate people to work? %Ok!
Q3: What motivates you in your work/studies?  %Ok!

Q4: What do you think the biggest driving force for people to take responsibility is? 
Q5: Do you think that money or other forms of incentives are needed to motivate/teach people to take responsibility?
Q6: What motivates you to take responsibility?
Q7: Where do you think human morality comes from? \emph {eg: the community, innately, the environment, learned} 
Q8: How do you believe you can strengthen and develop human morality in humans and in society? 
Q9: Do you believe that morality must be motivated by selfish advantages or selfish incentives like money, reward, reputation, etc?  
\end{quote}
\end{document}