On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

On altruism as the highest form of happiness you said, "this seems to be more of a societal impulse than one resulting from nature.... contradicts the evolutionry law of self-preservation.... happiness is derived from the fulfillment of social values rather than human nature itself"Self-preservation on an evolutionary scale is to protect the genetics of the unit involved. I can see exactly why the development of altruism as having the highest form of happiness in the human psyche is an evolutionary response designed to protect the genetics that we all share as a species. IF our means were to purely protect the genetics of the self, we would be no more than asexually dividing organisms. Instead, we are with the genetics of a diverse world of humans, and most of which do not wish death against each other. Merely having a pet is a great counter-example. The genetics are not shared among the human and the animal (save the fact that we are anthropoids), there are no social values set between the human and the animal necessitating human care, yet the human takes it upon itself to feed and protect this animal in the hopes of preserving its life. Surely this is not a selfish notion, for we gain no direct benefit from having to provide for this animal. Yet the altruistic act gives us the internal reward without us even seeking it. You claim that my examples using the animal kingdom are irrelevant, but I find this not to be true. If we are speaking of the "nature" of humanity, and humans are a part of this animal kingdom, then we should speak of the nature of the animal kingdom. Furthermore, I find that my point still stands of the nature of the male role being not only to impregnate a high number of women, but to see his genetic line through, and this entails providing food and safety. Through your mind back a few thousand years to a more primitive time, do you honestly think that the best strategy for a male is to maraud for females in hopes of impregnating and abandoning? The female and the child will not be able to survive in such a harsh world! The male holds the braun of the time and the testosterone to see it all through in hopes of providing an environment where his genetic line may pass on. Merely impregnating is only the start of the male goal, and if it were the only goal, the genetic line would dissolve as the child dies.I would like to make the point that fairness is a form of altruism. In a purely selfish world, using the Donner party example again, the starving folk would erupt in violence, each individual preying on the weakest first; children, elderly, sickly, scrawny, least likely to survive. THIS was not the case. Instead, they devised a system where in some form of randomness as fairness they chose who would be allowed to survive and who would perish for the greater good. Though perhaps volunteers would have shown the scenario of pure altruism, and we don't really know nor will we ever know if there were actually any who volunteered (aside from the party that set out to find help), I still maintain that fairness as randomness is a form of group altruism. Lovely debate. Closing arguments next round (no new points/rebuttals) or are new points/rebuttals allowed?