NationStates Jolt Archive

Altruism is a basic belief concerning human morality that states that we, as humans, act unselfishly in at least some (if not all) of our matters.

at the other end of the spectrum, lies Egoism. This moral belief explains that human beings act selfishly in every action we take.

Now, i am an Altruist, but i have found it impossible to explain a situation in wich someone acts unselfishly. it may seem obvious to some, but the Egoist would argue that although the act may seem selfless, we still subliminally do that action to better ourselves.
Example: Giving to charity.
even though it IS a nice thing to do, it still makes the giver happier. the giver may be trying to feel power over others, or gain praise in the community.

I am doing a report on Moral Philosophy, and i am nearing my conclusion. as an Altruist, i don't want to explain my opinion without evidence. Any imput from either Altruists or Egoists, or anyone else will be immensely helpfull.

So far I have yet to meet a person who has done something for no other reason than it was right. And I know that I too have never done anything of the sort. Put me down as an egoist.

Everything we do is selfish to a degree.
Which isn't necessarily bad.

Guess I am an Egoist then.

I am a very selfish girl, it's something I am working on. I don't think it would be beneficial for me to be unselfish in everything.....although being unselfish probably isn't about what's beneficial for me right?:p

I am a very selfish girl, it's something I am working on. I don't think it would be beneficial for me to be unselfish in everything.....although being unselfish probably isn't about what's beneficial for me right?:p

Exactly.

Everything we do is selfish to a degree.
Which isn't necessarily bad.

Guess I am an Egoist then.

Selfish, or at least, self-centered ... as in, what one thinks is right is still based upon the center of the self's values.

Even to do contradictory, consciously, would be keeping that in regard ... i think the only way around it is sub- or un-consciously.

Well my first question for you would be why are you an Altruist if you can't explain a situation in which people act unselfishly? That seems to be a contradiction.

Now, I wouldn't call myself an Egoist, but I would say that I'm slightly jaded and believe that most people in most cases act to help themselves, or at least only those that they like. There are exceptions to this, people who make great sacrifices to help people that they will never know, but these are far outnumbered by those looking our for themselves as number one. (Isn't that the basis of capitalism?)

However, that's not to say that man is inherently evil. On the contary, I think that man is born looking out for himself, but only because of instinct. If a person is provided with the basics of life (food, shelter, etc.) then they have no reason to look out for themselves first and others second and should become an Altruist.

Should being the key word in all of this, of course. This also ties in the nature vs. nurture debate, in which I take the idea that man is nurtured to who he is. Society is what makes men Egoists. It's a sad concept to think that something so pure as life can be dirtied by the concept that the I is more important the the You or even the We.

Those are my views on it. Born Altruist and should become so in later life but society gets in the way to make men 'evil'. I believe that sacrifice exists in some individuals, but at the same time find Altruism difficult to accept because I do not see it in nearly the majority of people. Altruism is much like Idealism, which is inherently flawed because the world is not perfect. I doubt anyone will argue that the world is perfect.

Hope this helps you / your paper / anyone...?

sadly, or possibly not so sadly,
im becoming an egoist as well

i started off as an altruist before my research, and although i am very stubborn, i will always accept the side with more evidence........

although egoism is a cynical view on humanity, it seems to be true.

Selfish, or at least, self-centered ... as in, what one thinks is right is still based upon the center of the self's values.

Even to do contradictory, consciously, would be keeping that in regard ... i think the only way around it is sub- or un-consciously.

In which case we would not know we were doing it even if we could somehow control our subunconcious.

I'm an altruistic egoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine.



Seems pretty straightforward.

Well, in debates of morality (I am an atheist, and I enjoy debating with willing christians), some people asked me to explain how evolution could explain charity.

After pointing out that it isn't necessarily an evolutionary trait, it can still be explained with evolution.

You see, if someone gives to charity, it may seem like an unselfish act, but what it does is continue to set a moral precedent of charity giving. If Community A gives to charity, then people in Community A can receive charity. This creates a safety net, so that if a member of Community A fails to provide his/her family with food and shelter, their genes aren't erased from the pool, and they can procreate

Whereas, in Community B, where no one gives to charity, the members who fail do not have the same safety net, and fail to pass on their none altruistic genes.

So in this way, people are egoist, in that they are doing it for the survival of their community, and maybe themselves or family one day, and altruists in that they are doing it to help the community.

This is another example of how the world is almost never black and white.

Well my first question for you would be why are you an Altruist if you can't explain a situation in which people act unselfishly? That seems to be a contradiction.

first, thank you for your imput

and yes, there is a contradiction there.
i guess that i have a false hope for humanity. i like to think that there has to be some cases where we act unselfishly. but this may not be true.

you said that there are perhaps some who act unselfishly, although they are a small minority. please elaborate.

Perhaps you're thinking too black and white.
Maybe you need to think of altruistic acts as not being completely (emotionally) unrelated to the person performing them, because as people we emotionally react to everything... but rather in that the pay-off (or major pay-off) for the act is to the benefit of someone else before ourselves.
Example: I recently decided to offer to take my wheel-chair bound friend up to the park during summer so she can get out of the house. Now this had a pay-off for me: I get some exercise, I get out myself, I get to socialize with my friend, and it made her happy, so I'm happy because she is.
That's not why I did it though... why I did it was: I could and she can't, she can get to see the real summer flowers for the first time in years, she can get out of her house for a change. I did it because I thought she would enjoy it, and I care about her as my friend, I want to see her happy... even before myself.
So it has a hundred times more benefit to her, effort to me, little pay-off to me directly... if any at all.
Did that make sense?

Why is there necessarily a dualism between the two at all? What matters is the outcome of your actions, not their motivations; if a person does good for their own benefit, it is still good, and if a person does evil for a selfless reason, it is still evil. Altruism and egoism are two sides of the same coin, really.

It would seem silly to say everything one does is selfish. What does selfish really mean in one can't do an unselfish act? I 'm selfish if I to this or if I do that. Whether I help my sister when she's having severe money troubles or boot her out on the street


What if I said everything we do is unselfish. Kill a man and you're putting them out of their misery. Stealing millions of dollars and putting them in offshore accounts? You're helping people realize materialism is a silly belief system plus your providing jobs for foreigners.

I'm an altruistic egoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Quite true.

I didn't know there was a middle ground.:eek:
Sign me up.

I'm an altruistic egoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine.



Seems pretty straightforward.

a novel concept, but in the end, are you not helping yourself? if you act to help others in the mindset that they will eventually help you back, is that a form of altruism? or is it just an egoistic distortion of a situation?

It seems odd to hold that no one can do anything just because it was right or it was kind. I mean, an altruist wouldn't argue with the statement: "someone who intends on doing the right thing wants to do the right thing".
Is "wants" enough to make it a selfish act, i.e you are merely satisfying your desire to do the right thing? Or that you wanted what was right and not what was convenient enough to make it altruistic?

I think that deciding that every human act is motivated by a selfish desire leads one to find that every human act is motivated by a selfish desire. I.e "he chopped off his own arm to save those children" leads to people saying that he valued something from that more than his ar - maybe didn't want to live with the guilt of letting those children die, maybe he wanted the approval and gratitude of the parents etc etc

So basically a hero is as selfless as a killer.

But maybe this is a shallow argument, and maybe a question that could be pertinent is this: are all desires equal in selfishness? The desire of avoiding the guilt of robbing someone might outweigh the desire to get the money from robbing someone but is this as selfless as vice versa? Maybe the key to our selfishness and selflessness is in our desires - our actions are only symptomatic of what lies beneath.

In which case we would not know we were doing it even if we could somehow control our subunconcious.

True - thus kinda circumventing the understanding of "morality".

Altruism is almost completely crap. I subscribe to Egoism.

I'm only altruistic if people are watching.

I'm only altruistic if people are watching.

Altruism =/= honour
:p

Well, in debates of morality (I am an atheist, and I enjoy debating with willing christians), some people asked me to explain how evolution could explain charity.

After pointing out that it isn't necessarily an evolutionary trait, it can still be explained with evolution.



well, well. i am catholic and enjoy morality arguments with atheists.

i do agree with the evolutionary morality. it is very possible that humans evolved with morals because they had it better off than those who did not use morals.

if it is true that we, as humans, have morals embedded within our DNA, i think that it is called Evolutionary Altruism. meaning, that we look after others unselfishly only because our society is better off that way, and our genes tell us to.

a novel concept, but in the end, are you not helping yourself?


Of course. But only because I'm helping you. ;)


if you act to help others in the mindset that they will eventually help you back, is that a form of altruism?

It's a form of exchange. I get what I want, you get what you want. Who cares what it's called.

Some pretentious "philosopher" hawking books might care, but I see little reason to.

Example: Giving to charity.
even though it IS a nice thing to do, it still makes the giver happier. the giver may be trying to feel power over others, or gain praise in the community.

Maybe. Why necessarily?

Of course. But only because I'm helping you. ;)



It's a form of exchange. I get what I want, you get what you want. Who cares what it's called.

Some pretentious "philosopher" hawking books might care, but I see little reason to.

i am considering making a career in philosophy, so yes. i do care.
its not that any of this stuff matters, because its not like you will change the morality of the world by proving altruism. but by thinking about it, by caring, you are pioneering a field of thought that others cant even.... well... think about.

i do like the "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" theory, it seems like the best of altruism and egoism. although it still seems slightly selfish.

Why is there necessarily a dualism between the two at all? Altruism and egoism are two sides of the same coin, really.

"The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

"The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
*bows*

if a person does good for their own benefit, it is still good

But it does not make the person a good person.

Their benefit may sometimes lead them to feed starving children... but it can also lead them to brutally murder millions of people. If their concern is for their own benefit, they don't care.

you get what you want.

But only if it's convenient for you. I am graciously granted the status of the lowest of chattel slaves: I have no value except my utility to the master.

Even if in every circumstance, it so happens that helping me helps you, that is still a fundamentally degrading approach to human interaction.

i am considering making a career in philosophy, so yes. i do care.


:D


i do like the "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" theory, it seems like the best of altruism and egoism. although it still seems slightly selfish.

It's not the "best" of altruism and egoism. It is simply the result of not making things more difficult or complicated than they really need to be.

although it still seems slightly selfish.

It is entirely selfish.

It says, in essence, that the only reason we have to help others is because it helps us... and therefore, if it so happens that helping others does not help us, we can let them suffer as we please.

It makes selfishness civil. It does not make selfishness any less selfish, or any more moral.

i started off as an altruist before my research, and although i am very stubborn, i will always accept the side with more evidence........
What evidence?

Just because the egoist can produce a possible egoistic explanation for any behavior does not mean she has provided evidence that, in fact, every seemingly altruistic behavior is necessarily self-interested.

Are we talking about empirical evidence? Shall we discuss the scientific standard? Then we need to talk about falsifiability.

To be falsifiable, a claim must admit of evidence that would prove it wrong. That is, a claimant must be willing to say, "Well, if I saw ______, then I would be convinced that I am wrong."

In this case, in order to make a meaningful, explanatory claim, the egoist must be willing to tell us what behavior would convince her that a person behaves altruistically. The egoist must be willing to say, "Well, if I saw ________, then I would be convinced that not every behavior is self-interested."

But this is precisely what the egoist refuses to do, revealing the belief as a dogma rather than an explanation. Indeed, because it purports to explain everything, it explains nothing. It predicts nothing. It cannot tell us what someone is going to do next... it can only assert, "Well, whatever it is, I can give you a post hoc explanation in egoistic terms."

I am graciously granted the status of the lowest of chattel slaves: I have no value except my utility to the master.


Obviously, slavery is anything but an enlightened institution.

There is the inherent assumption that the people exchanging with each other are free and equal individuals. Of course, such freedom and equality are relatively rare in the present reality, but this isn't so much a problem with "enlightened self-interest" itself.

There is the inherent assumption that the people exchanging with each other are free and equal individuals.

But that changes everything, doesn't it?

If you were really only concerned for your own benefit, it wouldn't matter whether I was free and equal to you or not... the only thing that would matter would be extracting maximum private benefit.

If that meant exploiting me, so be it. If that meant abolishing my freedom and equality, or refusing to permit me freedom and equality, so be it.

Altruism is a basic belief concerning human morality that states that we, as humans, act unselfishly in at least some (if not all) of our matters.

at the other end of the spectrum, lies Egoism. This moral belief explains that human beings act selfishly in every action we take.

Now, i am an Altruist, but i have found it impossible to explain a situation in wich someone acts unselfishly. it may seem obvious to some, but the Egoist would argue that although the act may seem selfless, we still subliminally do that action to better ourselves.
Example: Giving to charity.
even though it IS a nice thing to do, it still makes the giver happier. the giver may be trying to feel power over others, or gain praise in the community.

I am doing a report on Moral Philosophy, and i am nearing my conclusion. as an Altruist, i don't want to explain my opinion without evidence. Any imput from either Altruists or Egoists, or anyone else will be immensely helpfull.

Altruism is wishful thinking. You won't find any concrete evidence to support it.

On the flip side, we have thousands of years of human history to support egoism. Wars, oppression, destruction of the environment, etc...

...and therefore, if it so happens that helping others does not help us, we can let them suffer as we please.


But then, one is assuming (for rhetorical purposes) that those who are not being helped are in a state of "suffering" to begin with. If, however, this state of "suffering" were indeed real, "enlightened self-interest" would probably convince me to render aid exactly because I will then be more likely to make a new friend/ally who will then come to my aid when I need it.

Thus, I see no reason to assume that if we follow "enlightened self-interest" we will be any more likely to "let them suffer as we please."

What evidence?

Just because the egoist can produce a possible egoistic explanation for any behavior does not mean she has provided evidence that, in fact, every seemingly altruistic behavior is necessarily self-interested.

Are we talking about empirical evidence? Shall we discuss the scientific standard? Then we need to talk about falsifiability.

To be falsifiable, a claim must admit of evidence that would prove it wrong. That is, a claimant must be willing to say, "Well, if I saw ______, then I would be convinced that I am wrong."

In this case, in order to make a meaningful, explanatory claim, the egoist must be willing to tell us what behavior would convince her that a person behaves altruistically. The egoist must be willing to say, "Well, if I saw ________, then I would be convinced that not every behavior is self-interested."

But this is precisely what the egoist refuses to do, revealing the belief as a dogma rather than an explanation. Indeed, because it purports to explain everything, it explains nothing. It predicts nothing. It cannot tell us what someone is going to do next... it can only assert, "Well, whatever it is, I can give you a post hoc explanation in egoistic terms."


the problem is that "evidence" on morality is not something seen. by evidence, i mean that the egoist has an explanation for every situation that proves egoism to be correct. meaning, by disproving altruism, egoism is providing evidence for its argument. the actions have all been seen, but the way they are interpereted determines evidence. this is not a matter of having concrete facts, its a simple interperetation of things that have already happened. there can be no true evidence in these matters, at least not in conventional terms.

If, however, this state of "suffering" were indeed real, "enlightened self-interest" would probably convince me to render aid exactly because I will then be more likely to make a new friend/ally who will then come to my aid when I need it.

Maybe. That would depend on the level of aid you're giving them and the level of aid you're likely to get from them. In a highly stratified society, helping the powerless is likely to give you less benefit than helping the powerful.

But even if you are right, generally speaking, it means nothing as far as the rightness of your principle: all I must point out is that it is conceivable (not logically impossible) for your principle to lead to letting others suffer needlessly, and when your principle is "maximize personal benefit" that's very easy.

Thus, I see no reason to assume that if we follow "enlightened self-interest" we will be any more likely to "let them suffer as we please."

But why should you care?

If your only concern is maximizing your self-interest, why does it matter whether in the process you let others suffer or not?

... the only thing that would matter would be extracting maximum private benefit.


Since our exchange is one between free equals (and thus voluntary), I can only maximize my private benefit to the extent that you are willing to allow.

The power over my private benefit belongs to you, just as the power over your private benefit belongs to me. Thus, we each have a powerful interest driving us toward cooperation, not exploitation.


If that meant exploiting me, so be it. If that meant abolishing my freedom and equality, or refusing to permit me freedom and equality, so be it.

And my self-interests would no longer be enlightened.

In fact, a propensity toward exploiting people would probably make me many enemies who are in turn inclined toward extracting just retribution against me. This is probably not a good way for me to pursue my interests, as once outnumbered and overpowered, the revolution is not likely to end in my favor.

Thus, not only is exploitation unenlightened, it is also highly irrational.

Human nature is infinitely malleable, take Sparta for example - they were once a wealthy city but when Lycurgus took away all wealth, trade they became a selfless society and stable government.

Since our exchange is one between free equals (and thus voluntary)

The principle "maximize my self-interest" makes no such assumption.

If you want to make it, you have to modify that principle.

In fact, a propensity toward exploiting people would probably make me many enemies who are in turn inclined toward extracting just retribution against me.

And if they couldn't... if you made them so powerless and deluded that they would never rebel, would that somehow mean that your exploitation was justified?

It's not the "best" of altruism and egoism. It is simply the result of not making things more difficult or complicated than they really need to be.


morality is a complicated subject, and has complicated answers. altruism and egoism are just as complicated as altruistic egoism. they provide answers to something that cannot be fully proven.

altruistic egoism seems like an egoist's justification for doing something selfish. if you did not expect support from those you supported, would you support them? would anyone? or do we all have a little egoist inside us?

the problem is that "evidence" on morality is not something seen. by evidence, i mean that the egoist has an explanation for every situation that proves egoism to be correct. meaning, by disproving altruism, egoism is providing evidence for its argument.What "disproof"?

The altruist says, "He did it because it was the right thing to do."
The egoist says, "He did it because it made him feel good."

If you ask "him," he is likely to say that while it made him feel good, he did it because it was the right thing to do. Indeed, he is likely to say that it only "felt good" because it was the right thing to do--the action's rightness is causal, the good feeling is incidental. Meanwhile, many "right" actions will cause a person plenty of pain to outweigh the psychic benefits of "good feeling." Egoism doesn't explain how or why we should believe "good feeling" tips the scales... egoists just assume that it does--it must, or their dogma fails.

The altruist says we have at least some reason to believe the actor's explanation--indeed, to believe ourselves when we say the same things.

The egoist says we should distrust both other actors and ourselves. If we think we're doing things for the right reasons, we're confused.

It seems to me that egoism strays much further from the subjective evidence of experience.

In a highly stratified society, helping the powerless is likely to give you less benefit than helping the powerful.


This is exactly why social stratification is a serious problem that needs to be fixed.


But even if you are right, generally speaking, it means nothing as far as the rightness of your principle: all I must point out is that it is conceivable (not logically impossible) for your principle to lead to letting others suffer needlessly, and when your principle is "maximize personal benefit" that's very easy.


My principle is not "maximize personal benefit." It is, at the core of it, "maximize each other's personal benefit."


If your only concern is maximizing your self-interest, why does it matter whether in the process you let others suffer or not?


One way I can achieve my self interest more effectively or securely is to cooperate with friends, allies, or others with goals similar to my own.

If I turn a blind eye to suffering, I am far less likely to make friends, allies, or gain the trust of others like-minded. This in turn endangers my ability to secure my self-interest in the most efficient manner. Tolerance of needless suffering is, thus, quite irrational.

This is exactly why social stratification is a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

Because it gives a greater incentive to help the powerful than to help the powerless? But why should the character of the incentive matter to you, if your standard is just "whichever is greatest (in magnitude)"?

My principle is not "maximize personal benefit." It is, at the core of it, "maximize each other's personal benefit."

That sounds like altruism, not egoism.

Not "egoistic altruism" either--not if it is a principle rather than a mere application of the egoistic principle to material reality.

One way I can achieve my self interest more effectively or securely is to cooperate with friends, allies, or others with goals similar to my own.

If I turn a blind eye to suffering, I am far less likely to make friends, allies, or gain the trust of others like-minded. This in turn endangers my ability to secure my self-interest in the most efficient manner. Tolerance of needless suffering is, thus, quite irrational.

Why are you trying to prove that egoism necessitates helping others? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't... but to the true egoist, it doesn't matter. The principle is valid on its own.

The fact that so many people defending egoism seem compelled to point out that "enlightened" egoism leads to seemingly altruistic acts suggests to me that they don't really accept egoism at all.

What "disproof"?

The altruist says, "He did it because it was the right thing to do."
The egoist says, "He did it because it made him feel good."

If you ask "him," he is likely to say that while it made him feel good, he did it because it was the right thing to do. Indeed, he is likely to say that it only "felt good" because it was the right thing to do--the action's rightness is causal, the good feeling is incidental. Meanwhile, many "right" actions will cause a person plenty of pain to outweigh the psychic benefits of "good feeling." Egoism doesn't explain how or why we should believe "good feeling" tips the scales... egoists just assume that it does--it must, or their dogma fails.

The altruist says we have at least some reason to believe the actor's explanation--indeed, to believe ourselves when we say the same things.

The egoist says we should distrust both other actors and ourselves. If we think we're doing things for the right reasons, we're confused.

It seems to me that egoism strays much further from the subjective evidence of experience.

so, if we do things because we feel good about it, and we feel good about it because it is right, and if a=b and b=c, then we do things because they are right. i think that is the first strong atruistic argument so far. thank you, i was beginning to worry.....

but lets consider Random acts of Kindness. if we do something, out of complete randomness, something kind, how would you explain that? neither the egoist nor the altruist have any claims. the person did not do it because it was right, or because it felt good, he just did it. Does such an act exist? or is this more "wishfull thinking?"

The principle "maximize my self-interest" makes no such assumption.

If you want to make it, you have to modify that principle.


I have modified that principle. From the start. Remember, I assert Enlightened Self-Interest, not pure Egoism.


And if they couldn't... if you made them so powerless and deluded that they would never rebel, would that somehow mean that your exploitation was justified?


In such a society, it would obviously be impossible to practice anything resembling enlightened self-interest. There could be no exchange designed to fulfill our mutual interests. There would be no justice, exactly because there would be no enlightenment.

Our genes control our nature so that we may act in a way that the species survives, ergo each organism has selfish stimuli to keep itself alive so the species doesn't die out just. However the priority for the DNA is the survival of the species which is why social organisms and paternal organisms act selflessly, for the survival of the species. This also explains why many organisms are willing to sacrifice themselves for others.

Example:

A man sacrificing himself so the rest of humanity surives, his stimuli compell him to save humanity since the genes in him say "keep the species alive man".

Altruism is a basic belief concerning human morality that states that we, as humans, act unselfishly in at least some (if not all) of our matters.

at the other end of the spectrum, lies Egoism. This moral belief explains that human beings act selfishly in every action we take.
I don't know if I agree this spectrum exists.
That clears things up a lot, actually.

Remember, I assert Enlightened Self-Interest, not pure Egoism.

Right. But "enlightened self-interest" isn't a modification of the principle, it's just an application of the principle based on an "enlightened" understanding of the consequences of our actions.

As you said:

"Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine."

Your standard here is what helps me achieve my interests. Freedom and equality do not necessarily follow from that standard... though they may on occasion do so incidentally.

In such a society, it would obviously be impossible to practice anything resembling enlightened self-interest.

Rather, there would be enlightened self-interest... but our enlightened understanding of what served our interests would not lead us to help others.

There would be no justice, exactly because there would be no enlightenment.

Why is there no enlightenment?

There is perfect understanding on the part of the rulers concerning what brings them maximum benefit... and that is continuing their exploitation.

The only way you can declare that there is no justice is if you introduce a principle other than that of self-interest.

It may be true that egoism and altruism are two extremes that cannot be fully accepted, in their respective pure forms. it is possible that our actions all have a weight from each spectrum.

meaning, everything we do has some elements of selfishness as well as selflessness. if true, the "right" actions are those that have a minimal ammount of selfishness. lets be honest. nobody can be self-centered all the time. we all know that nobody can be kind all the time, but you cant go through life only looking out for #1, either.

there may be a "middle ground," similar to "egoistic altruism" discussed earlier.

so, if we do things because we feel good about it, and we feel good about it because it is right, and if a=b and b=c, then we do things because they are right. i think that is the first strong atruistic argument so far. thank you, i was beginning to worry.....

The reason for our feeling good about things is irrelevant. No matter what the reasons for my feelings, I always act in the ways that make me feel the best. We as human beings are incapable of acting any other way.

If I give 50 cents to a homeless man on the streetcorner, it isn't because giving money to the homeless is the morally right thing to do, it's because giving 50 cents to that man made me feel good. Perhaps I am happy thinking about what he can do with the money, maybe I feel better about myself as a person. The reason for my happiness is not important.

Because it gives a greater incentive to help the powerful than to help the powerless? But why should the character of the incentive matter to you, if your standard is just "whichever is greatest (in magnitude)"?


The character of the incentive matters because I cannot accurately judge what is or is not in my interests where the powerful can coerce me, or make the decision for me. The more powerful can, in fact, coerce me into accepting a situation that is quite contrary to my own self interests. This is a situation which abandons the principles of enlightened self-interest.

Contrary to what those on the other side of the political spectrum might suggest, enlightened self-interest is not the guiding principle for the capitalist world you observe. That world left enlightened self-interest behind a long time ago.


That sounds like altruism, not egoism.


I've understood "altruism" to be the pursuit of others interests without regard to one's own. I reject that "altruism" because I see in it essentially the same potential for slavery and exploitation as I see in pure egoism.


Why are you trying to prove that egoism necessitates helping others?


I'm not. I'm trying to explain why I think the rational will help others.

I consider both pure altruists and pure egoists to be highly irrational. The first because they abandon themselves, and the latter because they subjugate others.


The fact that so many people defending egoism seem compelled to point out that "enlightened" egoism leads to seemingly altruistic acts suggests to me that they don't really accept egoism at all.


Of course I don't accept egoism. I was hoping that was obvious.

Your problem is that you're trying to equate "self-interest" and "egoism." But they are not the same thing.

The reason for our feeling good about things is irrelevant. No matter what the reasons for my feelings, I always act in the ways that make me feel the best. We as human beings are incapable of acting any other way.

If I give 50 cents to a homeless man on the streetcorner, it isn't because giving money to the homeless is the morally right thing to do, it's because giving 50 cents to that man made me feel good. Perhaps I am happy thinking about what he can do with the money, maybe I feel better about myself as a person. The reason for my happiness is not important.


and why do you feel good about giving money to a homeless person? provided that you do not share the event with anyone, are you not getting the good feeling from that satisfaction of doing the right thing? the reason for happiness does matter. in a way, that is what this thread is about.

We as human beings are incapable of acting any other way.

So we never do anything knowing it will make us feel worse, ever? Really?

That's an interesting claim. Perhaps you could justify it?

The character of the incentive matters because I cannot accurately judge what is or is not in my interests where the powerful can coerce me, or make the decision for me. The more powerful can, in fact, coerce me into accepting a situation that is quite contrary to my own self interests. This is a situation which abandons the principles of enlightened self-interest.

Not if you are among the powerful.

enlightened self-interest is not the guiding principle for the capitalist world you observe.

To the contrary, enlightened self-interest is precisely the guiding principle of capitalist behavior: that is why we are not all dead.

Not that it always holds by it, or does not stray quite far from it at times.

I've understood "altruism" to be the pursuit of others interests without regard to one's own.

No, one's own interests count. But they are not specially privileged.


I'm not. I'm trying to explain why I think the rational will help others.

"Rational" does not imply "self-interested", whatever the Randians prefer to think.

Your problem is that you're trying to equate "self-interest" and "egoism." But they are not the same thing.

They are precisely the same thing, at least on the level of principles.

Any egoist will tell you that if it benefits her, she has no problem with helping others... and your only contribution is the observation that, very often, helping others will benefit her.

You do not contest her standard, that she ought to do what maximizes her own benefit--without regard to the interests of others except insofar as they benefit her.

so, if we do things because we feel good about it, and we feel good about it because it is right, and if a=b and b=c, then we do things because they are right. i think that is the first strong atruistic argument so far. thank you, i was beginning to worry.....Well, it's a start. But I also think that what the altruist really wants to argue is that it is possible to do the right thing because it is the right thing and for no other reason.

In empirical fact, it may be that most of the time or even all of the time there are some other motivations--that duty is one reason among many causes. But so long as egoism cannot prove its case (and it cannot, because it rests on no sound epistemic footing), then altruism has not been defeated. And while this leaves a metaphysical indeterminacy, the indeterminacy itself is morally significant (as Kant, for one, rather profoundly demonstrated).

If it is possible that I am free, that I can act because of reasons ("it is right") rather than causes ("it feels good"), then I can claim no excuse when I do wrong: no matter how many causes (instincts, needs, etc.) press upon me, I can never know that I might not have done the right thing simply because it is right. Thus, I always have a moral responsibility to take myself as capable of right despite my desires/interests--I have a moral responsibility to do the next right thing.

but lets consider Random acts of Kindness. if we do something, out of complete randomness, something kind, how would you explain that? neither the egoist nor the altruist have any claims. the person did not do it because it was right, or because it felt good, he just did it. Does such an act exist? or is this more "wishfull thinking?"If it is, I don't know who would wish it. A truly "random" act of kindness might fall upon those who don't need it; it might fall upon those who are doing the most to harm society. Should I wish that people would "randomly" happen to give one candidate political support rather than deciding who deserves it? No... no more than I desire that people should "randomly" happen to hand out money to the rich rather than to distribute it according to a moral principle.

Altruists have plenty of explanations for principled giving, but not for "randomness." But why should we?

and why do you feel good about giving money to a homeless person? provided that you do not share the event with anyone, are you not getting the good feeling from that satisfaction of doing the right thing? the reason for happiness does matter. in a way, that is what this thread is about.

No, the reason doesn't matter. Sometimes doing things that are not altruistic in the least make me feel the best, and so I do those things instead.

Think very hard about the decisions you make each day. Observe your thought processes as you make decisions and you will see that each decision you make is based on either increasing your personal pleasure or decreasing your pain. Sometimes those decisions are long-term and sometimes they are short term. Sometimes our decisions are wrong, because we are imperfect and make mistakes.

Either way, we still make all of our decisions based on what we believe will make us happiest. The study of morality is simply a study of what is really in our own best interest, and what will truly bring us the greatest happiness.

"Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine."

Your standard here is what helps me achieve my interests.


Yes, but my standard is qualified by the additional requirement that I achieve my interests by pursuing the interests of others. Thus I am not proposing a formula of domination, but rather I am proposing one of exchange.

Please stop ignoring half of the formula so you can beat me over the half with the other. :D

And OK, fine, some exploiter might claim to be "enlightened." He's obviously a liar.


Rather, there would be enlightened self-interest... but our enlightened understanding of what served our interests would not lead us to help others.


Again, "by any means necessary, no matter who it hurts" has is not enlightened self interest.


There is perfect understanding on the part of the rulers concerning what brings them maximum benefit... and that is continuing their exploitation.


But the behavior of these rulers indicates that they are pure egoists.


The only way you can declare that there is no justice is if you introduce a principle other than that of self-interest.


On the contrary, there is no justice because the self-interests of some (slaves) are being subjugated to the self-interests of others (rulers) by some means other than voluntary exchange between equals.

But it does not make the person a good person.

Their benefit may sometimes lead them to feed starving children... but it can also lead them to brutally murder millions of people. If their concern is for their own benefit, they don't care.

That's not necessarily the case, not by a long shot. If my idea of benefit are actions that enhance both the well-being of myself and of the community, it's hard to argue I'm not a good person, even if my motivation to do good is driven by self interest.

Self-interest is not good or evil in and of itself. It is the person who uses self-interest and how they use it that determines the good or evil of their actions and their person.

Yes, but my standard is qualified by the additional requirement that I achieve my interests by pursuing the interests of others. Thus I am not proposing a formula of domination, but rather I am proposing one of exchange.

Yes. I merely submit that this is not "self-interest" at all, "enlightened" or otherwise: you are respecting the interests of others independently of their benefit to you.

Otherwise, it would make no difference to you whether they were slaves or free equals, as long as you received the same profit.

Not if you are among the powerful.


Obviously, as the powerful do not believe what I do.


To the contrary, enlightened self-interest is precisely the guiding principle of capitalist behavior: that is why we are not all dead.


Please explain how the pursuit of personal self-interest to the exclusion of that of others constitutes "enlightened self-interest." Yes, those occupying the halls of power like to say they are guided by enlightened self-interest, but they're full of it.


No, one's own interests count. But they are not specially privileged.


They are not "specially privileged" with enlightened self-interest either. If one wants to act purely altruistically, please do. I won't try to stop you.

I'll appreciate some help in fending off the pure egoists, however.


Any egoist will tell you that if it benefits her, she has no problem with helping others... and your only contribution is the observation that, very often, helping others will benefit her.


Yes, but she will also stomp all over my rights and liberties if it will help her. But since enlightened self-interest presumes exchange as the mechanism for achieving one's self-interest (you trade to me what I need, I trade to you what you need), it prohibits her from stomping all over my rights and liberties. We can't exchange anything if she has crushed what I have to offer under her boot.

Thus, I very much do contest her standard. Specifically, right...


You do not contest her standard, that she ought to do what maximizes her own benefit--without regard to the interests of others except insofar as they benefit her.

...there.

If my idea of benefit are actions that enhance both the well-being of myself and of the community, it's hard to argue I'm not a good person, even if my motivation to do good is driven by self interest.

Look, there are two different kinds of motivations here. I'm not sure which one you mean because the ambiguity of your use of "benefit."

1. You enhance the well-being of the community because it benefits you, in which case your motivation to do good is driven by self-interest, and if it benefited you to brutally murder millions of people, you would do so.

2. You enhance the well-being of the community because you respect the worth of others independently of their benefit to you, in which case your motivation to do good is driven by your recognition of what is right and not by self-interest, and if it benefited you to brutally murder millions of people, you would turn away from the possibility in disgust.

I fail to see how it is "hard to argue" that the first person is not a good person... but I would agree that it is hard to argue that in the case of the case.

altruism is a real trait and unique from self interest. There haave been many studies to demonstrate this - but you'll have to go in to the library to reserach it.

Psycologists found that babies would 'help' by handing a person an item when it was perceived to be out of reach to that person but desired. (reached for)

They did the experement with monkeys and had similar success.

Recenntly scientists did MRI scans of the brain and found a specific region was stimulated when a person perceived they were participating in an altruistic endeavor - one not stimulated when they pursued selfish goals.

I beleive that people are hard-wired to act with empathy and altruism. It is necessry for the continuation of the species - without it then infants would die of exposure.

However - people also have been showed not to tolerate 'raw deals' for long. I can recall an experement where every time a person 'earned' one dollar for completing a task another person was given one wihtout doing anything. (the other person was part of the test unbeknownst to the subject) The otherperson would offer to share a portion of their money then renig. The subject would often cease performing - even though it cost them.

Human behavior cannot be so easily described with two motives - and probably not even twenty. you need to explain to your instrucor that his scenario is flawed - or - to put it into his language -
Some A are B. Some A are C. But not all A are B or C. There can be overlap between B abd C. There can be D. Even Z.
For example - will the professor use his ego to fail you for not following his instructions or his altruism to help you expand your theory. Or maybe he will do neither and just quit his job he feels he is getting a raw deal as a teacher...

I fail to see how it is "hard to argue" that the first person is not a good person... but I would agree that it is hard to argue that in the case of the second case.

In the first case, however, if the person derives benefit by helping others and promoting the well-being of the community, it's highly unlikely they would ever find murdering their community to provide any kind of benefit. In fact, it would probably be no more likely than the person in the second example suddenly changing to justify murder, which means the distinction between the two really isn't significant in a practical sense.

I respect the interests of others because I demand that others respect my interests.

That sounds altruistic to me.

If you were truly looking out only for your own self-interest, reciprocity would purely be a material matter: you would not respect the interests of others to avoid hypocrisy, but only to avoid retribution and encourage repayment.

You are right only in that altruism is the natural result of seeking to avoid hypocrisy, of demanding from ourselves the same that we demand from others--regardless of whether or not those others actually possess the material capability to enforce those demands upon us.

I'm also more likely to get people to respect my interests if I am willing to do the same in return.

Yes, but this is an entirely different kind of motive.

In one case: "I respect the interests of others because I am desirous of the benefits that will accrue to me if I do."

In the other: "I respect the interests of others because I recognize that it would be hypocritical and inconsistent to believe that they should respect mine while denying that I should respect theirs."

The first is enlightened self-interest, the second is something very different.

In the first case, however, if the person derives benefit by helping others and promoting the well-being of the community, it's highly unlikely they would ever find murdering their community to provide any kind of benefit.

So? That doesn't excuse them in the slightest. The principle upon which they act is still an immoral one; they are still evil, because their reluctance to harm others stems purely from arbitrary circumstance and not from any recognition of the worth and dignity of others.

In fact, it would probably be no more likely than the person in the second example suddenly changing to justify murder,

To the contrary, the second person is on firm ground, because the second person's standard is direct: what is right.

A person who adopts another standard, like self-interest, may sometimes have their standard coincide with what is right, but it is incidental: it merely happens to be so. Their standard is still unjustified, and if ever circumstances change, their actions may cease to be (externally, because they are never internally) in accordance with morality.

If you were truly looking out only for your own self-interest, reciprocity would purely be a material matter: you would not respect the interests of others to avoid hypocrisy, but only to avoid retribution and encourage repayment.


If anything, I wish to avoid hypocrisy exactly because I wish to avoid retribution and encourage repayment.


You are right only in that altruism is the natural result of seeking to avoid hypocrisy, of demanding from ourselves the same that we demand from others--regardless of whether or not those others actually possess the material capability to enforce those demands upon us.


I would like to believe in higher ideals as well, buy my skeptical cynic side always wins because I recognize that higher ideals mean nothing if they do not benefit from some kind of enforcement. There will always be those who will not respect those ideals, and I will need help if I am going to defend myself from them. Thus, if you will commit to defending me, I will commit to defending you. That is enlightened self-interest.

It might not be pure or ideal, but neither is this universe I was forced into.


In one case: "I respect the interests of others because I am desirous of the benefits that will accrue to me if I do."

In the other: "I respect the interests of others because I recognize that it would be hypocritical and inconsistent to believe that they should respect mine while denying that I should respect theirs."

The first is enlightened self-interest, the second is something very different.

The two seem to me to be arriving at the same conclusion, even if the second is written in more complicated language. After all, my desire to not be a hypocrite, or to be consistent, is ultimately a selfish desire, is it not?

If anything, I wish to avoid hypocrisy exactly because I wish to avoid retribution and encourage repayment.

That would be different, but you wrote them out as two separate reasons.

I would like to believe in higher ideals as well, buy my skeptical cynic side always wins because I recognize that higher ideals mean nothing if they do not benefit from some kind of enforcement. There will always be those who will not respect those ideals, and I will need help if I am going to defend myself from them.

Yes, obviously not everyone does the right thing: it is helpful to have material enforcement on the side of right, to civilize the selfish.

But that does not mean that right action is somehow based on that material enforcement.

Thus, the two seem to me to be arriving at the same conclusion,

But in very different ways. And because the standard is different, the actions will also be if the circumstances are relevantly different... as they happen to not be. But that is not a necessary truth.

After all, my desire to not be a hypocrite, or to be consistent, is ultimately a selfish desire, is it not?

No, it isn't. Its source is not in desire but in reason. If we "desire" it we only desire it because we recognize it is worthy of our desire... rather than the other way around.

Whatever our desires, as long as we are rational beings we demand consistency from ourselves.

...as long as we are rational beings we demand consistency from ourselves.

This is the core of enlightened self-interest. Self-interest regulated by the demand for consistency which originates in rationality. Egoism is self-interest unregulated.

My principle is not "maximize personal benefit." It is, at the core of it, "maximize each other's personal benefit."Not a bad principle, indeed. Perhaps not the best, but certainly not bad.

Of course, it's clear that applying the term egoism (or any kind of "self-interest") to this principle (whatever the qualifiers) is a rather serious misnomer.

Of course, it's clear that applying the term egoism to this principle (whatever the qualifiers) is a rather serious misnomer.

Perhaps, but it doesn't strike me as being entirely altruistic either. I've always understood altruism to be the pursuit of other's interests without regard to one's own. This seems more descriptive of personal sacrifice, instead of mutual exchange.

Perhaps, but it doesn't strike me as being entirely altruistic either.I didn't say it was. I've always understood altruism to be the pursuit of other's interests without regard to one's own.

While "pure" altruism (or duty) demands a certain renunciation of my own interest, altruism as a whole merely argues for some "other-regarding" interest in addition to self-interest.

In other words, if self-interest describes one set of motivations, altruism describes another set of countervailing, other-regarding reasons that contribute to deciding our actions.

It may be that there is no situation in which other-regarding interests would be controlling. If you think that, you deny pure altruism. But if you put some conditions on the satisfaction of your own self-interest (e.g. you must exchange rather than steal, even if you could get away with "the perfect crime"), those conditions represent countervailing, other-regarding interests.

That means you believe in self-interest AND other-regarding interest.

Now, i am an Altruist, but i have found it impossible to explain a situation in wich someone acts unselfishly. it may seem obvious to some, but the Egoist would argue that although the act may seem selfless, we still subliminally do that action to better ourselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html?hpid=topnews
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

Note that in a sense it contradicts both positions. It isn't true altruism, because one does it because it feels good. But it isn't true egoism, because it isn't necessarily in your best interest either. I suppose it's more like (short-term) hedonism.

Typically, any ethical position assumes people have a reason for what they do, i.e. they thought, reasoned, about it. I disagree. We mostly just do shit because it feels right at the time.

I beleive that people are hard-wired to act with empathy and altruism. It is necessry for the continuation of the species - without it then infants would die of exposure.
This statement caught my eye, because it's so glaringly and obviously false.

Altruism is not remotely required for continuation of our species, nor is altruism remotely necessary when it comes to caring for young. Indeed, evolutionary biology has long since established that selfishness is a fundamental motivator when it comes to parents caring for their young (across countless species).

I'm not saying people can't (or shouldn't) be altruistic. But it is simply false to claim that altruism is necessary for our survival. It's not, it never has been, and I can't see how it ever would be.

Altruism is not remotely required for continuation of our species, nor is altruism remotely necessary when it comes to caring for young. Indeed, evolutionary biology has long since established that selfishness is a fundamental motivator when it comes to parents caring for their young (across countless species).
It has?

From what I’ve seen and read, it appears that neither altruism nor selfishness is a default position for organisms; both of which are quite politicised and anthropocentric views of nature.

Could you show some of this ‘long established’ research?

It has?

From what I’ve seen and read, it appears that neither altruism nor selfishness is a default position for organisms; both of which are quite politicised and anthropocentric views of nature.

Altruism and selfishness aren't necessarily anthropocentric. It's our judgments of them which often are.

Altruism, in the most basic sense, is about taking actions which benefit others but which either do not benefit oneself or which may even directly harm or handicap oneself. It's quite easy for us to examine whether or not various species show altruistic behaviors on a routine basis, and whether or not altruistic actions increase an individual's likelihood to succeed (evolutionarily speaking).

Altruism is not an evolutionarily stable solution, as far as research has seen so far. Instead, what we find is that helping/cooperating with others will often be a stable solution precisely because it is NOT purely altruistic.

The reason that humans are social primates isn't because of some innate altruism wired in our brains because we are genetically nice or something. It's because we tend to thrive far more readily in social groups, and thus it is in the interests of the individual to be cooperative. Individuals who are successful in social situations are more likely to thrive, so sociability and cooperation are helpful traits to have.

When it comes to caring for young this is even more obvious. Because of the high degree of care required by human infants, an individual who does not care for their young is less likely to have healthy, thriving young. Their young are less likely to reach maturity and reproduce. Thus, the genetic traits of individuals who don't care for their young are less likely to be passed on.

No altruistic motive is required here.


Could you show some of this ‘long established’ research?
Any peer-reviewed mainstream evolutionary biology or animal behavior text should include a section on this. Usually they'll talk about ants as a classic example, then jump to birds, and then include a primate species (most often chimps).

Altruism, in the most basic sense, is about taking actions which benefit others but which either do not benefit oneself or which may even directly harm or handicap oneself. It’s quite easy for us to examine whether or not various species show altruistic behaviors on a routine basis, and whether or not altruistic actions increase an individual’s likelihood to succeed (evolutionarily speaking).

Altruism is not an evolutionarily stable solution, as far as research has seen so far. Instead, what we find is that helping/cooperating with others will often be a stable solution precisely because it is NOT purely altruistic.
Ahh, the old Ghiselinian ‘altruism is competition in disguise’.

Something which even Darwin noticed the ridiculousness of. Nature as a whole, and organisms in general, are as altruistic as they are competitive. In The Origin of Species, he pointed out that the ‘struggle for existence’ could be just as accurately described as ‘mutual dependence’. As Mary Midgley states, in response to Tennyson’s mischaracterisation of nature, “nature is green long before she is red, and must be green on a very large scale indeed to provide a context for redness.”

Organisms co-operate, often harmlessly co-existing. Hardly cut-throat competition wrapped up in altruistic behaviour.

The reason that humans are social primates isn’t because of some innate altruism wired in our brains because we are genetically nice or something. It’s because we tend to thrive far more readily in social groups, and thus it is in the interests of the individual to be cooperative. Individuals who are successful in social situations are more likely to thrive, so sociability and cooperation are helpful traits to have.
Indeed, social creatures, such as humans, thrive in company, while social compatibility is the norm. In non-social animals, and plants for that matter, the ability to benefit with each other’s presence, to live among other organisms, is almost always a necessity.

The idea that altruism and co-operation is merely competition in disguise seems to be a strange position to take. It would be as equally sensible, and equally scientifically supported, to say that all organisms exist for the sake of the whole, which is merely deluding said organisms into egoism for its own ends.

Ahh, the old Ghiselinian ‘altruism is competition in disguise’.

Not necessarily. It's more that there are plenty of pragmatic, personally-beneficial reasons to cooperate with others.


Something which even Darwin noticed the ridiculousness of. Nature as a whole, and organisms in general, are as altruistic as they are competitive.

No, they aren't. This is a common misconception, stemming from the (mistaken) belief that cooperation = altruism.


In The Origin of Species, he pointed out that the ‘struggle for existence’ could be just as accurately described as ‘mutual dependence’. As Mary Midgley states, in response to Tennyson’s mischaracterisation of nature, “nature is green long before she is red, and must be green on a very large scale indeed to provide a context for redness.”

Mutual dependence =/= altruism. Indeed, it directly supports what I'm saying. If you depend on others for your success/survival, then there is a pretty obvious NON-altruistic motive for you to help them succeed and survive.


Organisms co-operate, often harmlessly co-existing. Hardly cut-throat competition wrapped up in altruistic behaviour.

You appear to be arguing against a point I'm not making.


Indeed, social creatures, such as humans, thrive in company, while social compatibility is the norm. In non-social animals, and plants for that matter, the ability to benefit with each other’s presence, to live among other organisms, is almost always a necessity.

If you'll read my previous post, you'll find that I specifically and directly address this. You're agreeing with me, as a matter of fact.


The idea that altruism and co-operation is merely competition in disguise seems to be a strange position to take.

You're the only one presenting that argument at the moment, and I agree that it's quite strange of you to do so.


It would be as equally sensible, and equally scientifically supported, to say that all organisms exist for the sake of the whole,

No, it wouldn't. Indeed, that is directly refuted by a great deal of data.


...which is merely deluding said organisms into egoism for its own ends.
Natural selection works on the individual level, NOT on the group or species level. There is no "whole" in the way you are talking about, at least not when it comes to the species-wide tapestry of life on this planet.

Not necessarily. It’s more that there are plenty of pragmatic, personally-beneficial reasons to cooperate with others.
I see, perhaps I misread your post. You seemed to be arguing for the other end of the spectrum from the ‘natural altruism’ camp; the ‘natural competition’ idea. That’s why I (too hastily) jumped upon the idea of natural competition.

No, it wouldn’t. Indeed, that is directly refuted by a great deal of data.
Indeed. Perhaps I should have written ‘equally scientifically unsupported’. I think the data both refutes both the altruistic and competitive nature proposed by many sociobiologists and the type.

Natural selection works on the individual level, NOT on the group or species level. There is no “whole” in the way you are talking about, at least not when it comes to the species-wide tapestry of life on this planet.
I’m not claiming there is a ‘whole’, though Lovelockian theories of Gaia are interesting, I’m pointing out the unsupported ridiculousness of the opposite position.

Crossed wires all round, I’m afraid.

My bad.

Um, an organism caring for its young at its own expense is altruistic, even if it only does so because its genes determine that it will. This tells us why it behaves altruistically--it provides a mechanism to explain altruism--but what it describes is still altruism.

You might be able to speak sensibly about the "selfish gene," which seeks only its own survival--but that's what makes the selfish gene so interesting: sometimes, it programs the individual for selfless behavior.

Helping others because they share my genes is still helping others. It doesn't benefit "me" in the slightest to pass on my genes: if I die to save my family, that is still self-sacrifice; it is still altruistic. It is just an altruism toward which I may have been driven by an evolutionary imperative.

Ironically, humans may be the only species for which helping our children is NOT always altruistic. When our tendencies to narcissism extend our own identities onto our children in such a way that they represent our own fantasized immortality, then providing for them is not so much providing for them as it is providing for our own images of ourselves.

Think about Rousseau's amour propre... and recall the relation between propre and property.

Fuck, we're a sick animal.

:)

Natural selection works on the individual level, NOT on the group or species level.That's an outdated idea.

If that were true, we really wouldn't see altruistic behavior in the natural world.

Besides which, how can you even talk about natural selection on the individual level among hive species like bees or ants? The survivability of any given functional member depends directly on the survivability of the whole.

Either way, we still make all of our decisions based on what we believe will make us happiest. The study of morality is simply a study of what is really in our own best interest, and what will truly bring us the greatest happiness.
If the "we" you refer to includes me, your statement is untrue; the obvious counterexample being bad habits. Why do I bite my fingernails when I know it's both unhygienic and unsightly to do so? Why do I crack my knuckles when I know for sure that it does me physical harm at the same time as annoying anyone in my immediate surroundings? I don't enjoy doing either of them, yet I am incapable of stopping my biological form from doing them.

Perhaps altruism is a sort of culturally imposed habit as well.

If the "we" you refer to includes me, your statement is untrue; the obvious counterexample being bad habits. Why do I bite my fingernails when I know it's both unhygienic and unsightly to do so? Why do I crack my knuckles when I know for sure that it does me physical harm at the same time as annoying anyone in my immediate surroundings? I don't enjoy doing either of them, yet I am incapable of stopping my biological form from doing them.

Perhaps altruism is a sort of culturally imposed habit as well.

You keep those bad habits because you find enjoyment from them. Deep down, you put a greater importance on having the satisfaction of hearing that crack from your knuckles or biting off that piece of nail than on hygiene, or the opinions or feelings of others on those topics. If you stop those habits, it will be because you have re-evaluated your fundamental attitude toward them.

Everything you do is motivated by what will cause the greatest combined increase in pleasure and decrease in pain.

Altruism is a basic belief concerning human morality that states that we, as humans, act unselfishly in at least some (if not all) of our matters.

at the other end of the spectrum, lies Egoism. This moral belief explains that human beings act selfishly in every action we take.

Now, i am an Altruist, but i have found it impossible to explain a situation in wich someone acts unselfishly. it may seem obvious to some, but the Egoist would argue that although the act may seem selfless, we still subliminally do that action to better ourselves.
Example: Giving to charity.
even though it IS a nice thing to do, it still makes the giver happier. the giver may be trying to feel power over others, or gain praise in the community.

I am doing a report on Moral Philosophy, and i am nearing my conclusion. as an Altruist, i don't want to explain my opinion without evidence. Any imput from either Altruists or Egoists, or anyone else will be immensely helpfull.

From the eogistic standpoint, all actions are egoistic. This is tautological: On the assumption that we have free will, we only act in the way we choose to do. Since by definition we choose to act in a way we want to, all actions are classified as egoistic as they represent an advantage to the actor.

An opposite to a tautology is by definition wrong.

The altruist view, however, is not opposite this tautological interpretation of egoism. It merely represents a small modification within the same rules of free will: Where pure egoism considers only the direct advantage to the self without bothering with others, altruism introduces as an additional factor the advantage to other persons, translating it into an advantage to the self.

Or, more concisely: The egoist and the altruist both do what makes them happy, but what makes the altruist happy is the happiness of other people.

Since by definition we choose to act in a way we want to

Only if we define "want" backwards as "whatever it is we have with respect to what we choose."

If we instead consider "want" to be something along the lines of a natural feeling rather than an abstract preference, this conclusion is hardly a matter of "definition", and is much harder to justify. We can act for reasons as well as feelings--we can do something because we recognize we should do it even if our inclinations oppose it. (Indeed, the fundamental question we ask when making decisions is not "What will make me happiest?" but simply, "What should I do?")

It is the second sense where it matters for egoism... because if we help others because we recognize that we are obligated to help them, and not because it makes us feel good, it can hardly be stated that we are acting egoistically.

Or, more concisely: The egoist and the altruist both do what makes them happy, but what makes the altruist happy is the happiness of other people.

If they both do whatever makes them happy, then they are both egoists. The "altruist" is merely an egoist whose self-interest is best served by helping others.

True altruism requires that we be willing to take into account the interests of others independently of their benefit to us--regardless of whether or not doing so enhances our happiness.

A moral person, of course, will seek to enhance those feelings which cause him or her to find happiness in the happiness of others... but only because doing so makes right action easier.

You keep those bad habits because you find enjoyment from them. Deep down, you put a greater importance on having the satisfaction of hearing that crack from your knuckles or biting off that piece of nail than on hygiene, or the opinions or feelings of others on those topics. If you stop those habits, it will be because you have re-evaluated your fundamental attitude toward them.

Everything you do is motivated by what will cause the greatest combined increase in pleasure and decrease in pain.And you don't see how this attitude is really a dogma?

If you can't find any actual evidence for your belief, you just insist that it must be there... "deep down."

Still don't see where the "pleasure" lies? "Look deeper," right? That's your answer?

At what point would you be convinced that we've looked as "deeply" as possible? Could you ever be convinced?

If not... dogma.

If you can tell us the circumstance (however hypothetical) under which you'd be convinced you are wrong, we can proceed with a discussion of whether you offer a valid criterion for judgment. As it stands, you admit of no such criterion... so you make reasoned discussion impossible.

From the eogistic standpoint, all actions are egoistic. This is tautological: On the assumption that we have free will, we only act in the way we choose to do. Since by definition we choose to act in a way we want to, all actions are classified as egoistic as they represent an advantage to the actor.No, the assumption of free will does exactly the opposite.

If I have free will, I am free to choose other than my own advantage. If I can choose only what is in my own interest, then I am not free.

Egoism precludes free will.

It is possible to explain altruism without free will, but altruism also allows for free will in ways that egoism does not.

Soheran is doing an excellent job of maintaining a useful distinction between what we "want" and what we choose. Collapsing every choice into a want destroys the meaning of "want."

I'm glad someone is keeping up with this side of the debate, since my typing skills are hindered at present by a nasty wound to one of my fingers.

:eek:

Soheran is doing an excellent job of maintaining a useful distinction between what we "want" and what we choose. Collapsing every choice into a want destroys the meaning of "want."

I'm glad someone is keeping up with this side of the debate, since my typing skills are hindered at present by a nasty wound to one of my fingers.

:eek:

Dare I ask which one? (which may lead to insight to the nature of how the injury was inflicted...)

Did you have a lapse in your altruism?

Everything you do is motivated by what will cause the greatest combined increase in pleasure and decrease in pain.

here is a grenade. here is a man intentionally getting painfully blown into little bitty pieces in order to protect his comrades from its blast. therefore, you lose.

Dare I ask which one? (which may lead to insight to the nature of how the injury was inflicted...)Left-hand index finger. I was stupidly trying to pry open a bottle with a knife, slipped and stabbed myself very deeply.

It wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't severed a nerve.

As for a slip in my altruism... rather the reverse. I was at my girlfriend's house, and I knew she would be upset if I used the edge of the blade to saw at the defective plastic, because she'd worry I was damaging the knife. So, in deference to her wishes, I tried to pry rather than cut... applying stronger forces at more precarious angles.

The only good news is that when she realized her own neurotic concerns were partly to blame for my accident, she's treated me REAL nice ever since.

REAL nice. ;)

And you don't see how this attitude is really a dogma?

If you can't find any actual evidence for your belief, you just insist that it must be there... "deep down."

Still don't see where the "pleasure" lies? "Look deeper," right? That's your answer?

At what point would you be convinced that we've looked as "deeply" as possible? Could you ever be convinced?

If not... dogma.

If you can tell us the circumstance (however hypothetical) under which you'd be convinced you are wrong, we can proceed with a discussion of whether you offer a valid criterion for judgment. As it stands, you admit of no such criterion... so you make reasoned discussion impossible.

I could be convinced otherwise if it could be shown that someone acted in such a way that would either decrease pleasure without also decreasing pain, or increase pain without also increasing pleasure.

In response to the startlingly eloquent individual above, a man will throw himself on a grenade to save his comrades because he derives greater pleasure from dying with the knowledge that he has saved his comrades than staying alive with the knowledge that he allowed them all to die.

In response to the startlingly eloquent individual above, a man will throw himself on a grenade to save his comrades because he derives greater pleasure from dying with the knowledge that he has saved his comrades than staying alive with the knowledge that he allowed them all to die.

evidence that being blown to bits and dying is more pleasurable than not? do you know what pleasure even is? 'cause that's fucking stupid.

I could be convinced otherwise if it could be shown that someone acted in such a way that would either decrease pleasure without also decreasing pain, or increase pain without also increasing pleasure.

Why should we have to show you this? It is you who have advanced the claim.

All we need to argue that altruism is obligatory is the mere possibility that it is possible. As long as we cannot say "I can't do it," as long as the possibility exists that it is merely our failure of will and not a necessary truth, we are obligated to attempt to rectify that possibility as much as possible.

Furthermore, this calculation of pleasure and pain is not actually how we make decisions. "This act will maximize my pleasure" doesn't in and of itself lead to "I should do it" at all... and the "I should do it" is what matters insofar as we seek reasons in our decision-making process, instead of just going thoughtlessly with whatever feels best.

It may be, of course, that this is self-deluding: perhaps we really act for pleasure even when we think we are acting for right, and perhaps we can never do what is right except when it actually brings us pleasure. But you cannot prove this. You can explain away altruistic-seeming actions as much as you want, but you cannot prove that your explanation holds... always. And as Free Soviets suggests, sometimes the explanation stretches credulity.

Soheran is doing an excellent job of maintaining a useful distinction between what we "want" and what we choose. Collapsing every choice into a want destroys the meaning of "want."

Since you're the one who got me to see this point in the first place, you surely deserve some credit by extension. ;)

I could be convinced otherwise if it could be shown that someone acted in such a way that would either decrease pleasure without also decreasing pain, or increase pain without also increasing pleasure.Give us a hypothetical. What would that look like?

What, on your view, would altruism look like? How would you know it if you found it?

I'm an altruistic egoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

Helping others achieve their interests tends to make others more willing and able to help me achieve mine.



Seems pretty straightforward.

I find myself agreeing with you in almost every thread.

I find myself agreeing with you in almost every thread.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif

sadly, or possibly not so sadly,
im becoming an egoist as well

i started off as an altruist before my research, and although i am very stubborn, i will always accept the side with more evidence........

although egoism is a cynical view on humanity, it seems to be true.

The problem is that you analyze behavior solely as if we were solely rational beings. Reason is not the driving factor behind our actions, reason provides no motivations. Values are what drives our actions, and values can be selfish or altruistic.

Why is there necessarily a dualism between the two at all? What matters is the outcome of your actions, not their motivations; if a person does good for their own benefit, it is still good, and if a person does evil for a selfless reason, it is still evil. Altruism and egoism are two sides of the same coin, really.

Then we can count anything as moral or immoral.

The earthquake that causes devastation and suffering is now evil?

Not a bad principle, indeed. Perhaps not the best, but certainly not bad.

Of course, it's clear that applying the term egoism (or any kind of "self-interest") to this principle (whatever the qualifiers) is a rather serious misnomer.

Perhaps it can be applied if self interest can give the appearance of altruism, where a society made up of individuals interacting in their self-interest at the same times provides for the needs of others. The society is selfish at the core, but on the surface is peaceful and free.

It can be observed in nature, where species without the capacity for any moral consideration can can create incredibly altruistic societies.

Count me definitely on the egoist side.

There is no such thing as an altruist. Everyone does what they do for a selfish reason, which may or may not have anything at all to do with their personal well-being.

Giving to charity? You're making yourself feel good. Even if you don't tell anyone, you're still getting that smug sense of satisfaction that you've done a good thing.

Guy throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends? He's doing it to protect or instill a sense that he's a "hero". For some, the egoism takes affect only in posterity, and yet it still applies (at least to sentient beings).

Monk living on the top of a mountain spending his days in prayer for the benefit of interceding with God for humanity? Egoist. He has an overbearing sense of self worth, and a righteous certainty in his own piety.

There is no such thing as a selfless act. Whether an act directly affects the individual or only affects him in posterity, every act we do is for our selves.

Egoism does not negate free will, however. A person may choose not to give to charity, which wouldn't give him a sense of self worth, but would increase his monetary worth...another selfish act.

A person might not choose to throw himself on a grenade to save his friends, depriving him of his identity as a hero, but preserving his life. A selfish act.

I would argue, rather, that altruism (if it existed) denies free will. An altruist would be required to act for the good of others, with no benefit to himself. He could not freely choose between a selfish or selfless act, he would be forced into the selfless act. He could not even choose between two selfish acts, as that would negate his identity as an altruist. Thus, upon the first selfish act, an altruist becomes an egoist.

Egoism is the ultimate expression of free will. Every action is interpreted according to a person's self-worth, but that self-worth is not necessarily defined as monetary, physical, moral, spiritual, or by any one strict definition. Thus an egoist can choose any path, re-defining his sense of self-worth as needed.

Everyone does what they do for a selfish reason, which may or may not have anything at all to do with their personal well-being.

If it has nothing to do with "personal well-being", how is it "selfish"?

There is no such thing as a selfless act. Whether an act directly affects the individual or only affects him in posterity, every act we do is for our selves.

You have explained away a series of altruistic-seeming actions.

You have failed to explain, however, why your explanation must necessarily hold. Certainly it is possible that the charity-giver is motivated by wanting to feel good, that the person who throws himself on a grenade is motivated by wanting to be seen as a hero (though that one is a stretch), and the ascetic monk is motivated by vanity. But it is also possible that they are instead driven to action by recognition of obligation.

Nothing you have said has shown otherwise.

Egoism does not negate free will, however. A person may choose not to give to charity, which wouldn't give him a sense of self worth, but would increase his monetary worth...another selfish act.

A person might not choose to throw himself on a grenade to save his friends, depriving him of his identity as a hero, but preserving his life. A selfish act.

Yes, but all these choices are matters of maximizing pleasure, at least as you have explained them.

If we are simply compelled to do whatever increases our pleasure most, we are not free, because the heart of freedom is being able to ask "What should I do?" (not "What will bring me the most pleasure?") and have the answer matter.

Otherwise we are nothing more than automatons programmed to seek pleasure. Even if we recognize a reason that countervails our pleasure-seeking--say, if we recognize that we ought to help a person in need, even if all our desires direct us elsewhere--we cannot act on this reason. We are bound to impulse.

I would argue, rather, that altruism (if it existed) denies free will. An altruist would be required to act for the good of others, with no benefit to himself. He could not freely choose between a selfish or selfless act, he would be forced into the selfless act. He could not even choose between two selfish acts, as that would negate his identity as an altruist. Thus, upon the first selfish act, an altruist becomes an egoist.

Even ignoring your misunderstanding of free will, there is a clear double standard here. The egoist, who is obligated to do what is in his or her interest (and thus obligated to not be altruistic), is free... but the altruist, who is obligated to take into account the interests of others (and thus obligated to not be egoistic), is not.

Guy throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends? He's doing it to protect or instill a sense that he's a "hero". For some, the egoism takes affect only in posterity, and yet it still applies (at least to sentient beings).

two things.

1) evidence that this is necessarily the case?
2) how is that actually compatible with egoism in any meaningful sense?

It can be observed in nature, where species without the capacity for any moral consideration can can create incredibly altruistic societies.That just means that nature programs them to be other than self-interested.

It does not change the definition of "self" or "interest."

There is no such thing as an altruist.How do you know? What would altruistic behavior look like, if it existed?
Everyone does what they do for a selfish reason, which may or may not have anything at all to do with their personal well-being.Then it is, by definition, not selfish.
Giving to charity? You're making yourself feel good.How do you know? How do you know I am not responding to an argument concluding that people who do well in a given society have some responsibility to provide for the worst-off, and that while it does not make me feel particularly "good" to give up my hard-earned money I do so because I believe the argument is valid--that, in fact, I have a duty to contribute whether I want to or not?

Even if you don't tell anyone, you're still getting that smug sense of satisfaction that you've done a good thing.No, I'm not. Do you have any actual evidence to make your case, or are you content merely to insist dogmatically that I am a liar?

Guy throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends? He's doing it to protect or instill a sense that he's a "hero."How do you know?

There is no such thing as a selfless act. Whether an act directly affects the individual or only affects him in posterity, every act we do is for our selves.Speak for yourself.

Egoism does not negate free will, however. A person may choose not to give to charity, which wouldn't give him a sense of self worth, but would increase his monetary worth...another selfish act.True, he may make that "choice." But according to you he cannot do anything other than the result of summing his utilities: whichever action serves him best, he will do. He's like a robot following a program or an animal led from stimulus to stimulus. In no meaningful sense is he free to will for himself.

I would argue, rather, that altruism (if it existed) denies free will. An altruist would be required to act for the good of others, with no benefit to himself. He could not freely choose between a selfish or selfless act, he would be forced into the selfless act.It's already been pointed out that you have a double-standard: according to you I'm free if I can only be selfish, but not if I can only be selfless. More fundamentally, why do you assume that a person cannot choose between selfish and selfless behavior?

Thus, upon the first selfish act, an altruist becomes an egoist.I don't think anyone here is suggesting that people are always altruistic; that would be absurd. Rather, the argument from altruism suggests that it is possible for people to behave altruistically; in fact, that most of what we intuitively perceive to be altruistic (body-->grenade) actually is.

And as Free Soviets suggests, sometimes the explanation stretches credulity.

just a little

That just means that nature programs them to be other than self-interested.

It does not change the definition of "self" or "interest."

But the "altruism" has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to step outside of causality or moral reason. When you look past pointless "metaphysical indeterminacies" and concentrate on the material, you find genuine concern for others that arises from entities that may have no recognition of anything external to themselves.

It may not be altruism according to your metaphysics, but at least it is meaningful.

But the "altruism" has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to step outside of causality or moral reason. When you look past pointless "metaphysical indeterminacies" and concentrate on the material, you find genuine concern for others that arises from entities that may have no recognition of anything external to themselves.

It may not be altruism according to your metaphysics, but at least it is meaningful.I said, very explicitly, that it is altruism, by definition, according to any metaphysics.

I said, very explicitly, that it is altruism, by definition, according to any metaphysics.

So the selfish gene is also altruistic?

So the selfish gene is also altruistic?No, but individuals possessing selfish genes coding for altruistic behavior are.

Um, an organism caring for its young at its own expense is altruistic, even if it only does so because its genes determine that it will. This tells us why it behaves altruistically--it provides a mechanism to explain altruism--but what it describes is still altruism.

You might be able to speak sensibly about the "selfish gene," which seeks only its own survival--but that's what makes the selfish gene so interesting: sometimes, it programs the individual for selfless behavior.

Helping others because they share my genes is still helping others. It doesn't benefit "me" in the slightest to pass on my genes: if I die to save my family, that is still self-sacrifice; it is still altruistic. It is just an altruism toward which I may have been driven by an evolutionary imperative.

bringing this back up for bottle

No, but individuals possessing selfish genes coding for altruistic behavior are.

So selfish components can make an altruistic whole?

So selfish components can make an altruistic whole?I don't see why not.

Nobody does something unless there is a payback. The payback could be the good (dare I say self-righteous) feeling that comes from doing something altruistic. The human race is essentially selfish, everything that is done is done for a reason - survival, feeling good, obtaining resources, building goodwill. So-called altruistic acts are part of this. I'm not saying to stop helping others, just be aware, you're doing it as much for yourself as for the other.

Nobody does something unless there is a payback.

here is a grenade...

So selfish components can make an altruistic whole?

sure. after all, the components are selfish for themselves. but we are not our individual components, we are our wholes.

Nobody does something unless there is a payback. The payback could be the good (dare I say self-righteous) feeling that comes from doing something altruistic. The human race is essentially selfish, everything that is done is done for a reason - survival, feeling good, obtaining resources, building goodwill. So-called altruistic acts are part of this. I'm not saying to stop helping others, just be aware, you're doing it as much for yourself as for the other.A nice unfalsifiable position, for sure..
But why would we even feel bad about being egoistic if, at the core, we're just that? We do altruistic things, because we'd feel bad if we didn't; we'd feel bad if we didn't, because up to a point, we're not selfish but altruistic.

meh

You can try to put everything in an egoistic light, or in an altruistic light. In either case you can stretch your position half a lightyear and wrap it around the truth. Objectively there is little to see for either; they say equivalently little.

A nice unfalsifiable position, for sure...

the position may be ultimately unfalsifiable, but we seem to have undermined it badly enough that it should really go home until it comes up with an actual argument in its favor.

the position may be ultimately unfalsifiable, but we seem to have undermined it badly enough that it should really go home until it comes up with an actual argument in its favor.

Would you perform an altruistic act if it didn't make you feel good?

Would you perform an altruistic act if it didn't make you feel good?

once again, "here is a grenade..." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13174820&postcount=91)

i'm afraid you are going to need an argument which conclusively shows that getting blown to bits by a grenade necessarily feels good, and that this is necessarily why people occasionally intentionally throw themselves on them. i wish you good luck and godspeed.

Altruism is a basic belief concerning human morality that states that we, as humans, act unselfishly in at least some (if not all) of our matters.
(Snip)
I am doing a report on Moral Philosophy, and i am nearing my conclusion. as an Altruist, i don't want to explain my opinion without evidence. Any imput from either Altruists or Egoists, or anyone else will be immensely helpfull.

Let me sum up. You are doing a report. You asked for help from others. You offered no reward. Others helped.

You have proved the existence of Altruism, QED.

Would you perform an altruistic act if it didn't make you feel good?

I can't be sure. It is always possible that the good feelings are the real cause of my action--that free will is an illusion, that in reality I simply take whatever course of action brings me the most pleasure.

But do I have compelling reasons to do so? Yes. Do those compelling reasons actually play a role in what I take to be my decision-making? Yes.

Let me sum up. You are doing a report. You asked for help from others. You offered no reward. Others helped.

You have proved the existence of Altruism, QED.

LOL!

I think you are mixing Kantian ethics (duty for duties sake) with altruism, there isn't so much emphasis on the motive behind actions in altruism.

I think you are mixing Kantian ethics (duty for duties sake) with altruism, there isn't so much emphasis on the motive behind actions in altruism.Perhaps, but as soon as you contrast "altruism" with "egoism" you're talking about motives. The egoist does not deny that people do things that benefit others; he only denies that people do such things from "altruistic" motives--i.e. motives that do not ultimately break down into self-interest.

Left-hand index finger. I was stupidly trying to pry open a bottle with a knife, slipped and stabbed myself very deeply.

It wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't severed a nerve.

As for a slip in my altruism... rather the reverse. I was at my girlfriend's house, and I knew she would be upset if I used the edge of the blade to saw at the defective plastic, because she'd worry I was damaging the knife. So, in deference to her wishes, I tried to pry rather than cut... applying stronger forces at more precarious angles.

The only good news is that when she realized her own neurotic concerns were partly to blame for my accident, she's treated me REAL nice ever since.

REAL nice. ;)


I'm not sure my question was leading enough. It was a snarky reference to your middle finger...

Hope you're doing better now...

This statement caught my eye, because it's so glaringly and obviously false.

Altruism is not remotely required for continuation of our species, nor is altruism remotely necessary when it comes to caring for young. Indeed, evolutionary biology has long since established that selfishness is a fundamental motivator when it comes to parents caring for their young (across countless species).

I'm not saying people can't (or shouldn't) be altruistic. But it is simply false to claim that altruism is necessary for our survival. It's not, it never has been, and I can't see how it ever would be.


I can't believe that you miss such an obvious thing. Altrusim is not a solely human endeavor. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/altruism

There are many cases where the continuation of a species is dependant on altruism. Particularly among primates where a newborn is completely dependant on the parent for survival. There is no selfishness in saddling oneself with the burden and risks of ofspring. The future survival of the species has no value to the individual so there is nothing selfish in personal sacrafice in the pursuit of it.

Sheesh - I can feel the wind from your bat all the way in florida. http://www.flickr.com/photos/anderson/15824551/