True Altruism Does Not Exist

Much thanks to my opponent. Also, a quick clarification on the burden of proof... Yes, generally when I claim is a made, the individual who makes the claim has the burden of proof. In this case, I'm making a negative claim - that is, I'm denying something generally accepted to be true. There are obviously cases where positing the existence of something (i.e. God) puts the burden on the individual making the positive claim, whereas the person countering that claim with the negative assertion that, i.e. God does not exist does NOT have the burden. Is this the same thing? No, not exactly. But the way I intended this debate is to see what reasons someone may offer in favor of altruism and explain why I think those reasons are insufficient or misleading. Ultimately, the burden of proof DOES lie on me to prove my position; but initially, I think it is up to con (and he/she has accepted and agreed to this) to make the case for altruism. So, anyway, now that that's been said... True altruism does not exist. Everything we do serves our own interests at least to some degree. Let's look at the cases provided by con: The Mother In the case of a mother having a child, it's pretty straight forward: we, as humans, have a biological imperative to reproduce. When we reproduce we are ensuring our own "survival" after we die - or, to put it more realistically, we are making sure that our genes are perpetuated. This is obviously not a selfless act, and even if the mother suffers some detriments to her physical appearance, that seems outweighed by the benefit of quasi-immortality. The Father A man running into a building to save his child is a brave act, to be sure. It many ways, it IS selfless - and in many ways it's not. Why do parents care so much for their children? Again, biology has the answer. As in the case of the mother, parents protect their children because their children carry their genes, and passing on our genes is one of the strongest drives we have. In addition, what would happen if the father didn't run into the building? He'd likely experience a lifetime of grief and anguish, which would cause him immense suffering. This suffering may be to such an extent that he no longer has a desire to live. But at any rate, it does not seem to be truly, 100% selfless. The Underground Railroad This is a good example. As con mentioned, these slaves have already attained their freedom; why bother going back? There are several reasons one might choose to do this: 1) Humans are social animals. We survive not only by doing what's best for us but what's best for the community (why? because communal survival usually helps self-preservation). And this is especially true for a community like that of slaves. For a group that is being systematically tortured and killed, preserving the community is especially important and helpful. 2) These freed slaves probably felt a sense of doing something greater than themselves, i.e. serving the "greater good." Philosophy, psychology and a number of other fields have theorized (correctly, in my opinion) that self-actualization is generally one of the highest forms of happiness and achievement. If one can do something that will truly "live on," so to speak, then one really feels as though they have triumphed - as though they have done something that will outlast them. 3) Empathy (or the guilt and/or torment of inaction). Empathy may seem like an altruistic virtue, but it's not. In fact, empathy exist precisely BECAUSE we make many moral and ethical decisions by saying "If it were me, I'd like someone to do X," or "I'd hate to have X done to me, so I should intervene." Again, this helps insure communal survival, which, in turn, insures self-preservation. And these reasons can applied to most cases that appear purely altruistic. Virtually everything we do for anyone else results in, at the very least, a feeling of satisfaction or happiness in us. When we spend money on gifts for other people, we feel good about it. It makes us happy. Of course, it makes other people happy, too, and there's nothing wrong with that. But ultimately, it seems, we are somewhere benefitting - directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Thus, I believe altruism does not truly exist. Note: This is why I initially wanted BoP on con. I assumed his argument would go something like this, and it didn't make sense to me to state my argument, then restate it in relation to more specific examples. Anyway, I look forward to seeing what s/he has to say next round. Thank you.