tribalbeeyatch

Of course altruistic actions exist. That's why we have the word 'altruism' in the first place. When it comes down to it, it is a trivial matter to identify some benefit, no matter how small, to an individual or his genes for any action he might care to engage in. It seems a useless act of pedantry to point this out, though, and an even sillier thing to attempt to disqualify an act as altruistic on such a petty basis even though it might have been entirely unmotivated by selfishness and only yield a miniscule hypothetical benefit to the altruist or his offspring and at great cost to himself.

John Page

...but altruistic of you, all the same!

Warwick

The statement that I made was based on reading the following book: The Moral Sense by James Wilson (ISBN: 0684833328)

thefugitivesaint

Tyler Durden
But, one can possess a high value on ones own life and a high value on ones family. When a hypothetical situation arrives that forces one to decide what to do, with one of those actions being the probable death of oneself, the decision reached is as much an emotional one as it is a rational one (and, given specific contexts, the emotional measue far outweighs any calculating cost-beenfit anaylsis of ones protential gain).

It very much is a "sacrifice" if one is simply exchanging ones own life for that of their family. Yes, the similar genes do survive into the future (if the "sacrifice" does, in fact, guarantee this effect) but the individual who is paying the cost of this isn't benefitting. (Who cares if "genes" live on if i am going to die? My life is all i really have.) To discount this action as a purely "selfish" act is to reduce all activity to the narrow confines of self-interest. But, if all motivations were carried out under the programming of pure self-interest than why would anyone over-ride their basic instinct of self-preservation to "protect" their immediate family by risking their own existence? Would it not make more sense to flee, if this option is available, and allow the family to die?

The thing is, we don't act on pure self-interest and this is not discounted by the fact that many altruistic actions do possess a return affect of benefiting us in the long run.

I am all for socio-biology, evolutionary psychology and other sciences applying biology to human behavior and social structures but i am weary of short-sighted reductionism. The behavior of peoples cannot be boiled down to a "gene like essence" but any accounting of that behavior that excludes genes is going to be speculation at best and fiction at worst.
-theSaint

Tyler Durden

If you are going to address me, it would behoove you to try and define sacrifice, as well as its antonym, and present case scenarios.

I agree it is an emotional decision, but that does not mean it is irrational and immune to analysis - hence my usage of the word "value." Our emotions are driven by the value judgments we hold. So from those value judgments i can easily expose the phoniness of altruism.

An analytic reading of the constituents in the statements reveals a massive cognitive dissonance on the part of those so-called altruists.

Does the mother value her life over her child's? If so, then the word sacrifice applies. If not, then so much the worse for christian morality.

John Page

Aren't we making this way more complicated than it needs to be? Altruism is observed if the perpetrator takes an action that appears against their own (individual) self interest and in favor of the (individual) interests of others. The mechanism that brings this observation about is but another thing....

Cheers, John

Warwick

Let's suppose you decide to give up your life to save another's. You get the satisfaction of doing what you perceive to be "the right thing to do." You may consider that it is better to save another's life than to not save them.

If I had the chance to save my family's life by giving up my own, I would do so because I value the thought of them living without me more than the thought of me living without them.

I tried to provide an example that shows that self-interest is not the same as selfishness.

Tyler Durden

Keyword is "appears." Which is something i have no interest in exploring, the surface, the apparent - for that is pulling short and calling it a day when philosophical inquiry is left unsatisfied.

If you break down the superficial intentions to their analytic constituents (in the form of propositions, whether Russellian or Wittgensteinan, i don't care) you will locate the unexamined assumption or the superficial confusion of the terms employed in the ordinary language of in everyday life. Does the perpetrator actually value the object or action more than what he or she is supposedly "sacrificing?"

The action of the perpetrator that "appears" against their own self interest is usually motivated by their self interest. For example those people who attempt at humility are very cognizant of the fact that their humble acts will produce praise and raise their status in the opinions of others.

It is the mother's self-interest to save her child - she gains by losing her life for something she values more than her own - the life of her child.

Godot

I never contended that people are motivated by self-interest. I simply stated that there cannot be any truly altruistic act. I volunteer at my uni with new student orientation, particularly assisting new international students. I do this because I feel it is an invaluable service to new students. If that were it, then it could classify as altruism. I also do it because it looks good on the resume, it helps me meet new and diverse people (kinda like this place), and by doing so I feel good about myself. Since I am enriched by the activity, it cannot be altruistic.
But then, it isn't the first time I've been pedantic about something either.

Godot

This is the gist of what I was getting at. Aptly put TD!