Altruism is really a form of egoism

I will now offer my counterarguments. "A person cannot be concerned with oneself to the exclusion of other things oneself while simultaneously being unselfishly concerned for others. Therefore, by definition altruism cannot be a form of egoism. " The entire point of my argument is that altruism IS NOT unselfish concern for others. So by my argument it is entirely possible to be preoccupied with altruistic behaviors because I argue that they serve self interest. "Care for infants and children does not rest solely upon a person's self-perceived moral righteousness. We know this is so because infants are cared for universally, independent of varying cultural perceptions of self-righteousness and also by people who have no care for the opinions of others. " "The zoology definition acknowledges the instinct in other species, and the reasons for an altruistic instinct in humans is the same. Infants could not survive if not cared for, and so the instinct is necessary for the survival of the species. " I never argued that altruistic behaviors did not rest solely upon the perception of self righteousness or that altruism was not instinctual or not necessary. What I am arguing is that the current definition for the nature of altruism is false. On the care of infants, I argue that the need to nurture and protect infants is based on the ego driven desire to produce a "carrier" for ones own beliefs, values and to some extent their own likeness so that this may survive the parent's mortality. All parents pass on their values and beliefs to their offspring and many also desire for their children to replicate these value systems. In essence, a child is an extension of the parents own ego and as a result a parent is not so much as caring for another human being, but a living extension of themselves. "Pro claims that people behave altruistically wen they want "to be seen in a good moral light," but people also behave altruistically when there is no group watching. For example, if one person of a pair is injured on a hiking trip, te other person will go to get help. There are many accounts of such events, and people do not say they get help because they are worried about appearances, and no reason to suppose that they are. " The desire to be seen as morally righteous does not always require external validation. In this case, it may be that the self perception of moral righteousness warrants the altruistic behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the rescuer will receive praise upon his "good deed" which would bolter his ego and thus would be highly valued by the individual. In ether case, the desire to help the injured companion is ego based. 3. Separate instincts. Again, I am not arguing that altruism does not exist, only that its current definition is false. This extends to the instinct argument. I argue that altruism is a form of self preservation, expressed as a desire to help others, or conversely, that helping others contributes to self preservation. The logic of this argument is sound. I argue that all human social interactions are mutually beneficial. No human being will help another unless they can get something out of it for themselves. This proposal is supported by the nature of human social groups. Each specialized component of the group serves the others and they intern serve them and together they form a functioning group. For example, in a tribe, warriors serve the people by protecting them from other hostile tribes. In return the warriors are given money, a well fed and stocked with weapons. These services are provide by the tribal government, the farmers and metal workers respectively. This is proof that self interest is at the hard of altruism and indeed that altruism serves self interest/self preservation and is thus egoistic in nature. The resolution stands. Thank You.