Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories blog

I will proceed with some very succinct comments about one article for this week.
In the article Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories, I though it was interesting how Brandt makes use of a disease know to have antagonistic or contradictory/incompatible elements as a metaphor. That is, indeed, how society works: a stunted moral life or disharmony. Biology has often asked the question: Is there such a thing as ‘true’ altruism? It depends on how one defines ‘true’ and ‘benevolent person.’ There might be cases in which a rarity happens in nature, and one encounters an individual who is morally good by nature and does not have to strive to be in control and do great efforts to be good. Because generally, an individual will do a good (a ‘blessing’) if the results of such action exceed or are equal (in the future) to the benefits received by its ‘blessed’ counterpart. But when it comes to kinship, would it be fair to say that it is easier to reciprocate because one is doing a favor to one’s own lineage or genes?
Every society has something called the Favor Bank. If one deposits favors in another person’s account, in the short/long run, that is an investment. So, concerning the ‘benevolence’ topic which Brandt talks about, I think that people do favors and are nice, in most cases, due to reciprocity. So, can there be a world full of harmony when the rule is ‘quid pro quo?’ I’m not trying to be cynical….this personal conclusion is empirical ……but it is opened to any critic from anybody in class. You are welcomed to refute this point if you wish…but please provide solid proof.