Altruism is really a form of egoism

Thanks to Pro for a vigorous debate. The accepted science is that two separate instincts have developed to ensure the survival of the human species. I provided references establishing that fact. Altruism helps the species survive by providing for the care of infants and small children, and for the weaker and most needy individuals in human societies. Egoism helps the species survive by ensuring the individual strives to live and to seek security security in life. Evidence for there being two instincts includes: 1. Examples of completely altruistic behavior in which the individual receives no benefit to himself or herself; 2. Parallels in other species, some of which exhibit altruistic behavior and others of which do not; 3. Introspection of people, which does not reveal that altruism was a cover for egoism. Pro argues that altruism is really a form of egoism. I think that Pro's basic error is claiming that because there is some form of satisfaction in satisfying an instinct, that all instincts amount to egoism. Pro might as well have argued that there is really only altruism, because the individual's survival instinct only exists to perpetuate the species as a whole. Self-preservation only exists, in this way of thinking, to enable group preservation, so egoism is subordinate to altruism. However, the three arguments I presented similarly defeat the argument that there is only altruism. There are separate instincts, altruism and egoism, and they are necessarily distinct. The gratification of satisfying instinct is not egoism, it is more general. Satisfying instinctual needs to preserve and care for oneself is egoism, and satisfying instinctual needs to care others in one's group is altruism. Pro affirms that he "never argued that altruistic behaviors did not rest solely upon the perception of self righteousness or that altruism was not instinctual or not necessary." That doesn't respond to my point that there are two separate instincts, because some species are without altruism. Pro argues that "The desire to be seen as morally righteous does not always require external validation." That means the concept of "morally righteous" does not derive from the group, but rather that individuals have an instinct that works independently. That instinct is called "altruism." Pro says, "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." No, sacrificing oneself to help others does not preserve oneself, it preserves others. Preserving oneself is not preserving the person's family, community, or species. It is done for that goal, but clearly not to preserve oneself. Fire fighters who die attempting to help others are not preserving themselves, because they know they may perish. They put themselves knowingly at risk for the sake of the community. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. He provided no scientific opinion or studies to support his claim that here is really only one instinct, egoism, rather than two instincts, egoism and altruism. He offered no evidence countering my claim that behaviors in other species make it clear that there are two instincts. Recognizing the existence of two human instincts makes no claim as to what social policy ought to be as a consequence. It only acknowledges the undeniable nature of humans. The resolution is negated.