True Altruism Does Not Exist

Thanks for the response, ToughEnough. "My opponent seems to be confusing concern for some supernatural thing independent of biology or logic." I have no idea what this means. I don't believe in anything supernatural nor did I ever indicate that I did. In fact, I haven't claimed anything outside of altruism; the entire point of my debate is to reduce "altruism," at least to some degree, to self-interest. It seems con has largely misinterpreted my argument. "He observes that the mother is programmed love the child and gain emotional reward from it but this is irrelevant if the concern she has for the child is selfless in nature." This begs the questions. You can't refute one of my arguments on the ground that it is irrelevant "if the concern she has... is selfless in nature." You're supposed to be showing me WHY it is selfless in nature (or that is, in fact, selfless). The entire point of my argument is that it's not, and I provided reasons for that position. Now, don't get me wrong: I don't think that mothers have their own self-preservation in mind when they decide to have children. But the point I'm making is that while this SEEMS altruistic, it is in fact just a biological imperative (an unconscious one, sure, but that's irrelevant) that ultimate benefits the mother. She gains not only the promise of spreading her genes but also gains emotional satisfaction from loving a child and feeling as though she has contributed to the world beyond herself. Con takes issue with my definition. I'm not sure why, though. The entire purpose of the debate is that the first word of that definition - "selfless" - is misleading or untrue. In order for an action to be selfless, it must be done entirely for the benefit of someone else. I believe I have given reason to at least cast some doubt on that claim. Additionally, I'd like to remind con that we are debating WHY altruism is not truly selfless; the fact that it "originates from from self-defeating foundation" (whatever exactly that means) is another issue. I am attempting only to show that truly "selfless" actions are in fact not entirely selfless. That is all. Con takes the biological imperative out of the father scenario. Interesting point! However, my reasons in this (and all other) scenario was not purely biological. A father could love an adopted son just as much as a biological one. He would still undoubtedly feel regret and guilt for not saving his son, and would also suffer considerable torment if the child died. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that these actions are not partially selfless - they are. But I believe if I can show that they are at least partly motivated by self-interest then I will have made my case. In regards to my point about humans being social animals, con says, "this can only be true if each human in the community has a genuine concern for the well-being of others surpassing that of their own immediate needs." Why? Based on what? This is a baseless claim. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would disagree with you. He posits that humans started acting 'altruistically' because we used to live in close communities, surrounded by people we'd see again and again. In this environment, helping someone else would very probably result in that person later helping you (1). When we evolved into larger communities where this was no longer the case, the "selfish gene" (as he calls it) remained. So communal preservation seems to also be a byproduct of self-interest. Surprisingly, con then asks. "Who care if this altruism is due to the instinctive need for self-preservation or not?" Well, that's what this entire debate has been about, has it not? That is, in fact, the entire basis of my position. "My opponent then converts empathy into self-preservation." No, I stated that empathy is BASED in self-preservation, which it is. Empathy is, by definition, the ability to understand and share someone else's emotions and points of view. This can only be done if one understands one's own emotions. That's why sociopaths can kill people without remorse; they lack the ability to think "What if this happened to me?" Again, I'd direct you to the Dawkins article. "This is essentially pro's argument" Straw man, reductionist. To conclude, I maintain that TRUE altruism does not exist. Many actions appear selfless, and, in many ways, they are. But I believe that behind every 'selfless' action lies some self-interest. I have shown this to be the case in all of con's scenarios and I have provided a scientific basis for my claim. Con has largely misinterpreted or misunderstood my arguments. At any rate, I'd like to thank him/her for accepting and thank anyone who reads/votes. (1) http://www.rawstory.com...