Jazzns' History of Belief

At the risk of provoking Straggler to reply with a link to his own posts let me point something out.You have repeatedly rejected reciprocal altruism as being genuine altruism because the benefactor "thinks" he may benefit later or "hopes" for an eventual return.In fact, that is not an evolutionary perspective on reciprocal altruism. The benefactor does not calculate future reciprocity but rather has evolved to act in a manner you would consider genuinely altruistic--spontaneously engaging in actions that entail risk or cost without any thought of future return. We often speak of strategies or pay-offs in an evolutionary context, but by that we don't actually mean the individual is employing a strategy or weighing a pay-off; rather, we use that as shorthand to describe how an inherited trait could succeed at increasing reproductive fitness.The evolutionary perspective on altruism is not one of conscious calculation but rather one that posits that altruistic acts improve the reproductive fitness of the benefactor in one or both of two ways. One is the kin altruism notion, where the genes you share with those in your small hunter-gatherer group benefit from your altruism, albeit in another carrier; the other is reciprocity, where the individual benefactor benefits from the group dynamic of reciprocity. Obviously these are not exclusive, and the plethora of theories is much more complex than I've suggested here.But, in any event, we are discussing a spontaneous behavior, not a reasoned one. I have engaged in and benefited from apparently altruistic actions, and I can assure you there is no calculation involved, especially in the more dramatic examples.The definition you seem to desire is one which requires a conscious decision to benefit another at expense to one's self without any expectation of reciprocity or gain. You are describing a theological or ideological altruism, which I see as a cultural appendage of our evolved altruism.As Straggler suggested, we have an evolved tendency to consume high calorie, high fat meals. This made sense when food was scarce or calorically expensive to obtain. We don't consciously decide to do that--to the contrary, our scientific culture increasingly urges us to act consciously against our instincts for own coronary good. Similarly, I don't slug people who disagree with me--but the fight-or-flight adrenaline makes me type faster. Personally, I find the kin explanation of altruism most persuasive. In our ancestral social/breeding groups, the genes you saved really were your own, and the mirror neuron system we share as social animals reinforces the tendency to act because we really can feel each other's pain. As our numbers swell and the globe shrinks, the ranks of those we recognize as "kin" increases from hunter-gatherer band, to tribe, eventually to nation, and, hopefully, to species.I find my moral order in the good of my kind.BTW, your notion that the absence of a higher or absolute moral order should have led to the evolution of selfishness instead of altruism doesn't hold up, partly because social creatures punish cheaters and partly because it's bad game theory. In any event, my main point is that your focus on a conscious calculation is leading you astray. That may well apply to a Christian determined to live out the maxims or ways of Christ, but that's not why people run into burning buildings to save strangers.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : error, error

Yet you have repeatedly rejected reciprocal altruism as "true" altruism because the benefactor "thinks" or "hopes" for reciprocity. Nope, I don't agree. I think that altruism is essentially hard-wired in our socially evolved nature and that the culturally learned component determines who we consider eligible.Altruistic behavior is displayed by other creatures. Music never becomes instinctive, but is rather a highly complex motor and sensory skill. Our response to music, like language, is probably instinctive, i.e., hard-wired in some way--in that sense I can see a parallel to altruism.Unselfish love may become the norm for a person who practices it, but that is an individual discipline rooted in intellectual or theological choice.And we are definitely not limited to speculation--or at least I'm not. I can apprehend and cite evidence to support my view. You cannot.I'd still pull you out of a burning building, though.