Settling the debate on Altruism

[bmacwilliam]

I know this hasn't become a 'what if' scenario (yet!), but to supply just one emotional factor/for instance - I think I would find value in rescuing a stranger from a river.

On two counts - human empathy, and not wanting to face myself later for not rising (diving) to the situation.

(Though if it were the Zambezi in torrent, I'd weigh the odds, likely hold back, and just have to live with the decision.)

The reason I raise this is to illustrate that 1. this doesn't necessarily constitute self-sacrifice (unless I die in the attempt), and is actually motivated by self-interest 2. more importantly, I don't think a SINGLE ACTION represents altruism... or egoism, for that matter.

Therefore, one who is a lifelong egoist by conviction can easily, on conditional occasions, make an unselfish act,or an apparently sacrificial act.

Is there a contradiction with Objectivist ideology? To quote the Galt Oath, "I will never live for the sake of another man..." I think that 'LIVE' answers the question.

In my opinion Objectivism's view on Emergency Situations is weak, but judge for yourself.

I feel it'd be good starting place to evaluate whether Rand's view on the "ethics of emergencies" is really consistent with the rest of her views here -- rather than just accepting it as part of Objectivism. (And, in my mind, Objectivism is completely open to revision -- as is any philosophical system. Deciding whether the outcome of any revision is still Objectivism depends on what one means by the term. And all such systems and movements face issues of identity and integrity -- i.e., what alterations are possible that remain inside the pale and which ones push one definitely outside it. I don't have an easy formulaic answer for this... Of course, regardless, I think you'd want to know what the correct position to take on this -- rather than what's the Objectivist one, especially given your comments on this being a "weak" part of the system.)

Wow, there's alot in there. First of all, I think that pretty much always, conscious human action is motivated by self interest and might be altruistic/sacrificial or not. For me, it is not a self interest OR altruism binary situation. Without this, whYNOT and others run the risk of getting muddled in terminology before meaningful discussion happens.

I believe I do know the correct position to take on this. I can arrive at this based largely on Rand's type of logic, but with one small but critical difference, leading to a very different outcome. However, projecting this outcome as objective and universally applicable is a leap I can't take.

Anyway, I believe I can quite justifiably paint a more accurate picture of what 'qua man' is. Without getting into too much detail, evolutionary biology quite clearly tells us that altruism (close enough to Rand's version) is built right into us for the most part. We are hard wired to struggle with often competing forces of selfish and altruistic drives.

In this situation, a "normal" person morally without question should indeed risk their own life to help. How much risk? Well that's an excellent question. Same thing with the starving child, yes we DO have an obligation to help. Altruism is part of what we are, it helped create who we are, it is part of "qua man".

Of course I cannot provide an objective basis of why this should apply to everyone without exception. There are strategies that co-evolve that might be in conflict and their morality is as objective as mine - in other words not objective at all. But I can say at least the vast majority would be described by what I'm saying.

Bob

[tjohnson]

Competition may have gotten our genes this far but I think cooperation is going to be required in the next step of man's evolution. I'm not sure how 'altruism' fits in to this but I get the impression that 'altruism' means a sort of "forced cooperation" - but in this case the force is achieved through invoking feeling of guilt, duty, etc.

[dan2100]

I feel it'd be good starting place to evaluate whether Rand's view on the "ethics of emergencies" is really consistent with the rest of her views here -- rather than just accepting it as part of Objectivism. (And, in my mind, Objectivism is completely open to revision -- as is any philosophical system. Deciding whether the outcome of any revision is still Objectivism depends on what one means by the term. And all such systems and movements face issues of identity and integrity -- i.e., what alterations are possible that remain inside the pale and which ones push one definitely outside it. I don't have an easy formulaic answer for this... Of course, regardless, I think you'd want to know what the correct position to take on this -- rather than what's the Objectivist one, especially given your comments on this being a "weak" part of the system.)

Wow, there's alot in there. First of all, I think that pretty much always, conscious human action is motivated by self interest and might be altruistic/sacrificial or not. For me, it is not a self interest OR altruism binary situation. Without this, whYNOT and others run the risk of getting muddled in terminology before meaningful discussion happens.

I believe I do know the correct position to take on this. I can arrive at this based largely on Rand's type of logic, but with one small but critical difference, leading to a very different outcome. However, projecting this outcome as objective and universally applicable is a leap I can't take.

Anyway, I believe I can quite justifiably paint a more accurate picture of what 'qua man' is. Without getting into too much detail, evolutionary biology quite clearly tells us that altruism (close enough to Rand's version) is built right into us for the most part. We are hard wired to struggle with often competing forces of selfish and altruistic drives.

In this situation, a "normal" person morally without question should indeed risk their own life to help. How much risk? Well that's an excellent question. Same thing with the starving child, yes we DO have an obligation to help. Altruism is part of what we are, it helped create who we are, it is part of "qua man".

Of course I cannot provide an objective basis of why this should apply to everyone without exception. There are strategies that co-evolve that might be in conflict and their morality is as objective as mine - in other words not objective at all. But I can say at least the vast majority would be described by what I'm saying.

Bob

No time at the moment to respond to all your points. Just wanted to comment on two. One is the evolutionary biology approach. I think the jury still out and this field changes so much, especially in terms of looking into human behavior, in recent years, that I'd be careful in drawing too many conclusions of what's wired in or where certain behaviors or beliefs come from. Evolutionary psychology, in particular, is, in my opinion, rife with many "just so" explanations that seem more like the researcher rationalizing a case than actually explaining anything. (I want to post something on testing evolutionary hypotheses later, though it won't apply to this particular case.)

Two is that the helping the starving child case I recall Rand making was that of helping a starving child who's a stranger over helping one's own child -- not one of helping a starving child versus doing nothing. (And, in a way, people already do this now without being Objectivists or knowing anything about Rand: think of all those starving children now who go unfed while parents feed their own children. This doesn't mean they're following a conscious moral code here, but if you're going to argue the evolution of your species wired people to help children, then there are an awful lot of cases where they don't. (Of course, to be fair, you make the case that there's a conflict wired in -- and that might fit this case of helping one's children versus helping other children, though this would need to be tested and not merely proclaimed, no?))

[dan2100]

Competition may have gotten our genes this far but I think cooperation is going to be required in the next step of man's evolution. I'm not sure how 'altruism' fits in to this but I get the impression that 'altruism' means a sort of "forced cooperation" - but in this case the force is achieved through invoking feeling of guilt, duty, etc.

Forgive the quick response due to lack of time, but two points. One, this just sounds platitudinous. No offense, but it does.

Two, if you're going to evoke bio-evolution, then the standard view in evolutionary theory is competition is all there is. When you see cooperation, dig deeper and you find it's because of competition. In other words, in evolutionary terms, competition explains or is more fundamental than cooperation.

One more comment: Rand's view is altruism actually got us into this mess -- whatever that mess is -- and more of the same -- including saddling people with feelings of guilt or some sense of duty -- will not result in a step forward but either in a step back or the status quo.

[anthony]

Competition may have gotten our genes this far but I think cooperation is going to be required in the next step of man's evolution. I'm not sure how 'altruism' fits in to this but I get the impression that 'altruism' means a sort of "forced cooperation" - but in this case the force is achieved through invoking feeling of guilt, duty, etc.

GS,

What are you envisaging - Utopia? Anyway, entering evolution and genetics into ethical debates is pointless, since they need huge time-frames to 'take.'

In the meantime, Man is what he is, and can best move forward individually,and by volition.

Co-operation is not the opposite of competition. The trader principle - trade of thoughts and, yes, emotions - is unsurpassed for its benefits to mankind, and the individual.

It's the advocacy of altruism that does all the damage, politically, socially and psychologically. To hell with duty, or the expectation of it.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Competition may have gotten our genes this far but I think cooperation is going to be required in the next step of man's evolution. I'm not sure how 'altruism' fits in to this but I get the impression that 'altruism' means a sort of "forced cooperation" - but in this case the force is achieved through invoking feeling of guilt, duty, etc.

Cooperation was clearly part of our past evolution and I agree will continue as we go forward. Altruism is different, altruism means performing an act that confers a survival advantage to another person or people at the cost of a survival disadvantage to the actor. Taking a risk to help someone falls into this category.

and to respond to Dan...

"I think the jury still out and this field changes so much, especially in terms of looking into human behavior, in recent years, that I'd be careful in drawing too many conclusions of what's wired in or where certain behaviors or beliefs come from."

Sure, things will change, ideas will develop, but evaluating human behaviour against this backdrop has the distinct advantage of being rational, evidence-based, testable and scientific. Evolution itself could easily be thrown into the junk bin if a fossil record contradicts it - hasn't happened yet. Any scientific idea is immediately at risk/toast as soon any verifiable data doesn't fit. Find just one human skeleton inside the belly of a T-Rex of identical age and we're back to the drawing board.

But I think it makes a whole lot of sense to hypothesize that the forces that created our bodies and minds (evolution) would create our behaviour too. Sure this could be wrong, but we can test it.

How does evolution explain altruism? Mathematical/game theory models can explain how it could develop. Also, we have measured physiological responses to altruism behaviour in both humans and animals and neural reward pathways get activated almost universally (not across all species of course, but within).

You (Dan) wrote " though this would need to be tested and not merely proclaimed, no?"

Well yes indeed!! It's the Evolutionary Biologists that are hypothesizing and testing, while Rand did the 'merely' proclaiming.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

It's the advocacy of altruism that does all the damage, politically, socially and psychologically. To hell with duty, or the expectation of it.

Tony

Disagree. Partial altruism is advantagious - mathematically, evolutionarily - and not just kin-based, but generalized. I think there's a false dichotomy between Altruism/Selfishness - the key is partial. The ideal need not be one or the other. Humans are in the middle. We admire both, we want both, we are both. We admire Bill Gates for his amazing business accomplishments and accrual of wealth and we admire the Gates Foundation for giving it away. There's no conflict.

Bob

[tjohnson]

We admire Bill Gates for his amazing business accomplishments and accrual of wealth and we admire the Gates Foundation for giving it away.

Ahem... well maybe some of us do.

[anthony]

It's the advocacy of altruism that does all the damage, politically, socially and psychologically. To hell with duty, or the expectation of it.

Tony

Disagree. Partial altruism is advantagious - mathematically, evolutionarily - and not just kin-based, but generalized. I think there's a false dichotomy between Altruism/Selfishness - the key is partial. The ideal need not be one or the other. Humans are in the middle. We admire both, we want both, we are both. We admire Bill Gates for his amazing business accomplishments and accrual of wealth and we admire the Gates Foundation for giving it away. There's no conflict.

Bob

Yes, well, Bob, you're speaking for yourself as I have no particular admiration for Gates, making it, or giving it away.

The "partial altruism" is a fresh one. Sounds like a real juggling act!

Is there any reason you can't accept the virtue of individualism, together with what I consider sub-virtues of respect, good will, and benevolence for others?

Altruism - or, imposed duty - has done no more than turn people against each other, in hatred, resentment and guilt.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

We admire Bill Gates for his amazing business accomplishments and accrual of wealth and we admire the Gates Foundation for giving it away.

Ahem... well maybe some of us do.

Touche...

But most people admire this behaviour and I'm saying that it's not wrong to admire it.

[bmacwilliam]

It's the advocacy of altruism that does all the damage, politically, socially and psychologically. To hell with duty, or the expectation of it.

Tony

Disagree. Partial altruism is advantagious - mathematically, evolutionarily - and not just kin-based, but generalized. I think there's a false dichotomy between Altruism/Selfishness - the key is partial. The ideal need not be one or the other. Humans are in the middle. We admire both, we want both, we are both. We admire Bill Gates for his amazing business accomplishments and accrual of wealth and we admire the Gates Foundation for giving it away. There's no conflict.

Bob

Yes, well, Bob, you're speaking for yourself as I have no particular admiration for Gates, making it, or giving it away.

The "partial altruism" is a fresh one. Sounds like a real juggling act!

Is there any reason you can't accept the virtue of individualism, together with what I consider sub-virtues of respect, good will, and benevolence for others?

Altruism - or, imposed duty - has done no more than turn people against each other, in hatred, resentment and guilt.

Tony

Well I just assumed most people that favour capitalism would admire the richest man in the world, but you know what happens when one assumes....

It is a juggling act, it's competing forces. There's a sweet spot somewhere and I bet the Game Theorists might be able to quantify it but I can't.

Altruism as in ideal is seriously destructive. Individualism is probably not destructive, certainly not as much. Although I'd say that at it's extreme, it's less than ideal (but that depends on what you measure - prosperity, longevity, happiness). But what I can say, supported by evidence, subject to change, is that what we "are", what human nature is, to the extent we can measure it, is somewhere in the middle and individually variable. We are inherently selfish and inherently altruistic en masse. To be on either extreme is against our nature.

[tjohnson]

Two, if you're going to evoke bio-evolution, then the standard view in evolutionary theory is competition is all there is. When you see cooperation, dig deeper and you find it's because of competition. In other words, in evolutionary terms, competition explains or is more fundamental than cooperation.

There's a difference between "friendly" competition and "life and death" competition - the former keeps us honest, the latter causes bitterness, wars, etc. Are wars evolutionally necessary to weed out unfit humans? Has does culture fit in to this? What happens when man interferes with evolution by his actions? The rules aren't the same for intelligent beings as they are for the rest of lifeforms.

[Dragonfly]

Bob: if Objectivists see that they cannot really condemn some altruistic behavior, they avoid this problem by calling it "benevolence". Another trick is the loophole of "values": if a mother sacrifies her life to save that of her child (a classic example of altruistic behavior), the reason is that to the mother the value of the child is higher than that of her own life. Altruism is something like a true Scotsman in reverse, for an Objectivist it can only be Bad.

[Christopher]

What we really need to clarify is what self-interest is. I don't have my books, but I will reference from Atlas Society:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.

...

To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. (For the Objectivist view of benevolence and its component virtues—civility, sensitivity, and generosity—see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence).

Summary: Self-interest is expressed by pursuing rational values that result from understanding one's needs. As such, we can assert that conscious values without a rational need-oriented basis by definition are not self-interested. Likewise, if we generate values that help others but are in fact antithetical to our organismic needs, the act is sacrificial.

My claim on originating this thread was to observe that self-interest and self-sacrifice cannot be understood purely through what one claims to be experiencing. A self-interested benefactor can honestly claim that experiencing self-sacrifice is virtuous. The phenomenological experience of self-sacrifice as such is not definitive of behavior against self-interest. Rather, the fact that such people can feel better and live longer through taking actions that they experience as sacrificial demonstrates that those actions (and experiences) are fulfilling psychological needs and are therefore self-interested.

Chris

btw, this is the reason I posted this thread under epistemology. We're looking at how ethical behavior is phenomenologically apprehended

[bmacwilliam]

Bob: if Objectivists see that they cannot really condemn some altruistic behavior, they avoid this problem by calling it "benevolence". Another trick is the loophole of "values": if a mother sacrifies her life to save that of her child (a classic example of altruistic behavior), the reason is that to the mother the value of the child is higher than that of her own life. Altruism is something like a true Scotsman in reverse, for an Objectivist it can only be Bad.

The Scotsman in reverse - that's funny. I'm not quite clear on the values idea though. If the mother says the value of her life is less than her child, her actions support this claim and so this would be true I think (but it's still altruistic). But I guess I see the "trick" of values slip in there so the mother doesn't actually trade a lesser value for a greater, so they claim altruism isn't there. I thought that an Objectivist would say that the mother still holds her life more valuable than the child, but that her life would be devalued by the death of her child so much that it wouldn't be worth living anymore and so her own death is justified while still keeping her own life at the top of the hierarchy. Either way it makes no sense to me.

Bob

[anthony]

Bob: if Objectivists see that they cannot really condemn some altruistic behavior, they avoid this problem by calling it "benevolence". Another trick is the loophole of "values": if a mother sacrifies her life to save that of her child (a classic example of altruistic behavior), the reason is that to the mother the value of the child is higher than that of her own life. Altruism is something like a true Scotsman in reverse, for an Objectivist it can only be Bad.

It's simple really. You either embrace altruism and make yourself a sitting duck for anyone in 'need' (whatever that might mean), and to be consistent, 'use' others towards your own ends...

or, you declare yourself a rational individualist whose independence and self-esteem are of the highest importance, and likewise to be consistent, view others as also deserving of this honour.

So what's it to be? Which world do you all prefer?

One based on mutual need and exploitation; or one based on respect for human dignity and considered benevolence.

(This is just my opinion - I don't give much priority for the longevity of the human race, or even the longevity of my own life - it's quality and value that matters, not quantity.)

To get back to Objectivism, identifying the Advocacy of Altruism as evil - and I'm not one of those O'ists who uses the word lightly - is one of Rand's greatest legacies.

It is the 'advocacy' that matters most; if one wants to carry out a charitable or empathic act on the odd occasion, who's going to stop you?

BTW, a mother would very likely RISK her life to save her child's. She could not know for certain that she is going to lose her life. The "risking", even if eventuating in her death, for obvious reasons, is not a sacrifice.

Tony

[Dragonfly]

It's simple really. You either embrace altruism and make yourself a sitting duck for anyone in 'need' (whatever that might mean), and to be consistent, 'use' others towards your own ends...

or, you declare yourself a rational individualist whose independence and self-esteem are of the highest importance, and likewise to be consistent, view others as also deserving of this honour.

False dichotomy. Man is not either altruistic or egoistic, both traits are part of our human nature.

[dan2100]

Two, if you're going to evoke bio-evolution, then the standard view in evolutionary theory is competition is all there is. When you see cooperation, dig deeper and you find it's because of competition. In other words, in evolutionary terms, competition explains or is more fundamental than cooperation.

There's a difference between "friendly" competition and "life and death" competition - the former keeps us honest, the latter causes bitterness, wars, etc. Are wars evolutionally necessary to weed out unfit humans? Has does culture fit in to this? What happens when man interferes with evolution by his actions? The rules aren't the same for intelligent beings as they are for the rest of lifeforms.

In my view, this misunderstands the point. Let me state the point again: in mainstream evolutionary theory, competition is more fundamental than cooperation. If you're looking at the world through Darwinian or even neo-Darwinian lenses, then when you see any piece of cooperation, the immediate question is what competitive advantage does this yield. Using the same lenses to see a competitive situation, you don't need to appeal to a cooperative advantage to explain competition. (This is a "just so" story: something I saw recently on a National Geographic documentary set in Denali National Park. In it, a pack of wolves -- obviously, cooperating -- took food from a bear. I don't know the relative intelligences of the bear and of the wolves, but it looked to me like, working together, the wolves were able to outwit the bear in a way that probably a lone wolf would never have done. In this particular case, it appears that if we ask, "Why did the wolves cooperate?" the answer is, in neo-Darwinian terms, going to be along the lines because this gave them a competitive advantage. (I'm not saying I completely agree with this logic. Also, one must be careful with such "just so" stories in evolutionary biology. I hope to post something later today on testing evolutionary hypotheses in the Epistemology section of this site.))

How would this apply to intelligent beings? Well, putting on the neo-Darwinian lenses, one might explain that intelligence gives one a competitive advantage and that cooperative between intelligent beings does this more so. We can, of course, gush on and on about differences between levels of competition and how humans might above this, but this is all beside the point.

Also, even in neo-Darwinian terms, what you call friendly competition might still lead to survival and reproductive advantage. For instance, a person who plays the friendly social games better might, in the end, leave more descendants. She or he need not brutally beat the competition to death in a bloody death-match. It can merely be that cooperating with others under competitive conditions might lead to survival and reproductive advantages.

Now, this type of explanation, whether true or valid in any sense, is beside whether one is offended by it. Let's say it's both valid and true. This doesn't mean one has to embrace it or one has to love the fact. But one would have to acknowledge it, correct? It seems to me that you're drawing more from this than you should.

[tjohnson]

It's simple really. You either embrace altruism and make yourself a sitting duck for anyone in 'need' (whatever that might mean), and to be consistent, 'use' others towards your own ends...

or, you declare yourself a rational individualist whose independence and self-esteem are of the highest importance, and likewise to be consistent, view others as also deserving of this honour.

So what's it to be? Which world do you all prefer?

One based on mutual need and exploitation; or one based on respect for human dignity and considered benevolence.

(This is just my opinion - I don't give much priority for the longevity of the human race, or even the longevity of my own life - it's quality and value that matters, not quantity.)

To get back to Objectivism, identifying the Advocacy of Altruism as evil - and I'm not one of those O'ists who uses the word lightly - is one of Rand's greatest legacies.

It is the 'advocacy' that matters most; if one wants to carry out a charitable or empathic act on the odd occasion, who's going to stop you?

BTW, a mother would very likely RISK her life to save her child's. She could not know for certain that she is going to lose her life. The "risking", even if eventuating in her death, for obvious reasons, is not a sacrifice.

Tony

I think I understand what you are saying. I think by 'altruism', or as you put it, 'advocacy of altruism', means something like institutionalized altruism. For example, when my tax dollars are given away to welfare cases in futile attempts to "solve" social problems. I feel really bad for disenfranchised people, like homeless people on the street, and I am not against paying to help them, but what happens is ignorant bureaucrats and politicians and lawyers help themselves to all the money and have no interest in solving the social problems because the "problems" are their livelihood. This "help" is done in the name of altruism but it isn't really help at all. At least if an individual helps another individual you can see the results of your efforts and there isn't some retard taking his cut.

[tjohnson]

In my view, this misunderstands the point. Let me state the point again: in mainstream evolutionary theory, competition is more fundamental than cooperation. If you're looking at the world through Darwinian or even neo-Darwinian lenses, then when you see any piece of cooperation, the immediate question is what competitive advantage does this yield. Using the same lenses to see a competitive situation, you don't need to appeal to a cooperative advantage to explain competition. (This is a "just so" story: something I saw recently on a National Geographic documentary set in Denali National Park. In it, a pack of wolves -- obviously, cooperating -- took food from a bear. I don't know the relative intelligences of the bear and of the wolves, but it looked to me like, working together, the wolves were able to outwit the bear in a way that probably a lone wolf would never have done. In this particular case, it appears that if we ask, "Why did the wolves cooperate?" the answer is, in neo-Darwinian terms, going to be along the lines because this gave them a competitive advantage. (I'm not saying I completely agree with this logic. Also, one must be careful with such "just so" stories in evolutionary biology. I hope to post something later today on testing evolutionary hypotheses in the Epistemology section of this site.))

How would this apply to intelligent beings? Well, putting on the neo-Darwinian lenses, one might explain that intelligence gives one a competitive advantage and that cooperative between intelligent beings does this more so. We can, of course, gush on and on about differences between levels of competition and how humans might above this, but this is all beside the point.

Also, even in neo-Darwinian terms, what you call friendly competition might still lead to survival and reproductive advantage. For instance, a person who plays the friendly social games better might, in the end, leave more descendants. She or he need not brutally beat the competition to death in a bloody death-match. It can merely be that cooperating with others under competitive conditions might lead to survival and reproductive advantages.

Now, this type of explanation, whether true or valid in any sense, is beside whether one is offended by it. Let's say it's both valid and true. This doesn't mean one has to embrace it or one has to love the fact. But one would have to acknowledge it, correct? It seems to me that you're drawing more from this than you should.

I'm not quite sure how to respond but I will make a few remarks. Humans have science and animals don't. The theory of evolution does not take into account a being who can alter his environment. The environment plays a crucial role in natural selection and if you can alter your living conditions you are interfering with natural selection. Call it 'unnatural selection', if you wish, but it is natural for mankind. This means that man can take an active role in his own evolution which is quite remarkable when you think about it.

[anthony]

It's simple really. You either embrace altruism and make yourself a sitting duck for anyone in 'need' (whatever that might mean), and to be consistent, 'use' others towards your own ends...

or, you declare yourself a rational individualist whose independence and self-esteem are of the highest importance, and likewise to be consistent, view others as also deserving of this honour.

False dichotomy. Man is not either altruistic or egoistic, both traits are part of our human nature.

Ok, Dragonfly, that seems true, as far as it goes.

I've just come from posting a similar query in the Metaphysics forum:

on the basis of "Nature to be commanded, must first be obeyed", isn't it time, and isn't it possible, that we rose above our primeval Nature? Without ever denying it, naturally.

To stop obeying, and start commanding?

With enough volition and rationality it's individually very feasible, I believe.

Tony

[Selene]

Gs:

I am assuming you are eliminating certain animals like beavers who "change" their environment?

Adam

[tjohnson]

Gs:

I am assuming you are eliminating certain animals like beavers who "change" their environment?

Adam

Yes, I am eliminating all animals that do not have science.

[dan2100]

Gs:

I am assuming you are eliminating certain animals like beavers who "change" their environment?

Adam

Yes, I am eliminating all animals that do not have science.

I think it's a matter of degree with regard to changing environments. All organisms alter their environments in the trivial fashion of acting in them, taking and pushing out energy and mass, and so forth.

But this isn't really relevant to the discussion of evolutionary explanations. These would apply to all organisms provided they can die and can reproduce -- and that they have differential survival and reproductive success. It doesn't matter whether they have technology, science, and the like. The explanations would still apply.

I'll try to address your earlier post later today.

[tjohnson]

But this isn't really relevant to the discussion of evolutionary explanations. These would apply to all organisms provided they can die and can reproduce -- and that they have differential survival and reproductive success. It doesn't matter whether they have technology, science, and the like. The explanations would still apply.

But that's just it, our science has a tremendous effect on our reproductive success, in particular, our survival no longer depends primarily on "physical" prowess, etc. but is increasingly dependent on "mental" ability.