Is the Human Race more prone to Altruism or Egoism

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not a thin rationalization. You're just stuck in the mindset that you are ultimately responsible for what you do, rather than a slave to the gene.

Where does altruism most commonly express itself? In the preservation and advancement of close kin. Protecting family is direct service to the gene. Protecting community, nation, and other associations is indirect service by assisting the society and raising the chances for a higher standard of living. Protecting other human beings in general is further indirect service by assisting the species in its chance for survival and success. There are of course exceptions. Parents who sacrifice to protect adopted children don't fit neatly into the model, but it's a very powerful model nonetheless, and the statement that self-sacrifice can serve no egoistic purpose is imo much too strong.

Ajax

I think that it is a very weak model. I don't buy it.

[Ironside]

I think that it is a very weak model. I don't buy it.

So... What's the fundamental difference between risking your life to save your own child compared your adopted child?

Is there any emotional difference?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No

Is there a difference for being protective of your genes?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes

So is one action more altruistic than the other?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... What's the fundamental difference between risking your life to save your own child compared your adopted child?

Is there any emotional difference?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No

Is there a difference for being protective of your genes?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes

So is one action more altruistic than the other?

That is why I think that DNA/Gene protection is irrelevant. I agree with your points - I though that they complimented the point that I was trying to make.

[atheotes]

Human race is prone to egoism but capable of altruism....

[Innocentius]

Altruism is just another form of egoism. Everything, every single act, every single breathing moment, is egoism. Of course, egoism isn't a very appropriate word given the tone it bears; perhaps self-interest would be better.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Altruism is just another form of egoism. Everything, every single act, every single breathing moment, is egoism. Of course, egoism isn't a very appropriate word given the tone it bears; perhaps self-interest would be better.

I don't agree - read what I posted about the differences

[ICantSpellDawg]

Human race is prone to egoism but capable of altruism....

Exactly.

[Kurando]

A direct realization of our true nature will reveal that the "human race" is essentially an illusion and the byproduct of this direct realization will be a natural movement of Altruism. On the other hand, a denial of our true nature will yield a belief in the "human race" and the inevitable result of that belief will be an uncompromising movement of Egoism.

..

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving."

The other said, "The wind is moving."

The Sixth Patriarch of Zen happened to be passing by. He told them, "The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving; mind is moving."

[Innocentius]

I don't agree - read what I posted about the differences

I'm afraid disagreeing sort of goes against what we today know about humanity.

Don't let this reality trick you into believing that altruism doesn't exist. Martyrdom or self-sacrifice to a different level can serve no egoistic purpose beyond some thinly rationalized biological function such as the extention of your progeny and DNA.

What is thinly rationalized in this context? Biological evidence? The selfish gene drives us ever onwards. The survival of our own genes and, secondly, our species is what motivates us all and what keeps us breathing. We are, after all, biological machines like all other animals. Where one draws the line for "martyrdom" is another interesting aspect, but let's say someone sacrifices him/herself to save ten other people. This will indeed be considered a heroic deed, especially by the survivors, and the martyr probably never considered that after all, the only reason why he made this utilitarian sacrifice was because ten members of the own species can do more than one. On a subconscious level (possibly conscious as well of course) he was only acting to favour those who, in a pre-programmed world of instincts, were the ones who would raise his children, care for him as he got older and secure the survival of the species.

You could equally argue by this standard that you simply have children to support you when you are old, rather than to spread your genetic sequence.

Exactly. And the only reason why older members of the now vast human flock is allowed to live on, even when they've become too old to provide themselves with food, is the knowledge they (hypothetically) possess and will/ought to pass on to younger generations. In modern Westworld, this keeping of the "old and helpless" has resulted in a situation were genetical programming conflicts with necessity and utility: We want to keep our grand-grandparents, even when they're 90+, senile and incapable of recognizing even their loved ones, even though through very rational and evolutionary thinking; we should just let them pass on.

That is why I think that DNA/Gene protection is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. It seems fetched out of thin air to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. It seems fetched out of thin air to me.

We'll, I'd give up my life just as quickly for my adopted puerto rican brother as I would for my biological northern European brother. The disbelief in altruism is for young cynics who don't want to believe in it, in spite of evidence right in front of them. Some may rationalize their altruistic feelings as "biological and genetic selfishness", but in the end, you are dead so that another may live - I'd bet that most of the people "died for" were unrelated to the martyr.

[Innocentius]

We'll, I'd give up my life just as quickly for my adopted puerto rican brother as I would for my biological northern European brother.

What does that prove? In your mind they are equal; that one is properly genetically tied to you and that the other is only imaginary so apparently doesn't effect your behaviour, which only serves to prove that we strive to protect our loved ones (ie. our genes, superficial or not).

The disbelief in altruism is for young cynics who don't want to believe in it,

On the contrary, I'd say that the belief in altruism is for naive people who can't accept the fact that they are, after all, only acting in self interest.

in spite of evidence right in front of them.

What evidence?

Some may rationalize their altruistic feelings as "biological and genetic selfishness", but in the end, you are dead so that another may live - I'd bet that most of the people "died for" were unrelated to the martyr.

Yes, that's what I suggested in the hypothetical scenario described above. They're still members of your species, and you can, at least in your mind, benefit from keeping your own species as safe as possible. You and your genes come first; then friends, associates, co-workers etc; then your neighbourhood and/or community; then your culture and your people (however you define that); then your species. If we didn't have these pre-programmed thoughts on survival we wouldn't have gotten very far.