So really, when comparing these two admittedly simplistic examples, maybe bbk is claiming that altruism is not good, because in his view it is not good compared to what might be achieved when self interest is placed as the priority. Bbk is essentially arguing that the idea of doing a good thing for selfless reasons is not good, because the result is inferior to what can be derived from self interest. At least that is what I think he is suggesting.

That is indeed the argument. I think it is overly simplistic, however, in that sometimes things align so that greater good can be achieved by non-altruistic means, but it's far from proven that this is always the case, and Ebon's example of the environment is a strong case against selfish ends always being better. I think he goes a step further also in saying that altruism is not the best good, so therefore it is bad. He also seems to think that everyone here thinks altruism is the only way to do good deeds and nothing else should be considered good, which no one here has argued. For my part, I think the situation needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis. There are times for altruism and there are times when self-interest can play a part to bring about greater good. It's folly to suggest that altruism is the only good (which no one arguing against bbk suggested) just as it is folly to say that altruism is always less good than more selfish means (which is bbk's argument).

Note: I'm not arguing with you ROS, since I saw your disclaimer.

Could it be agreed that altruism is defined mainly by two key parts? The first part is that an act is done by a person for another, and the act in and of itself is actually good for the other person. The second part is the act was done when there is minimal benefit to the person performing the act. So the person performing the act would be showing altruism.

I think it would not make a lot of sense to quibble with the internal part of the altruism definition which specifies that the act performed is good in and of itself. That is part of the definition. If the act is not good for the person benefiting - then we are not talking altruism. But maybe that is where people are getting hung up? Because it could still be argued that altruism is not good. Meaning that even if a good act is performed with minimal benefit in relation to the person performing the act, a case could still be made that altruism is bad - because the case is being made against acting without self interest AND performing a good act for someone. Maybe that is what bbk is arguing.

So to provide an example for the above, lets say you give McDonalds food certificates to a homeless person. That homeless person is hungry and could really use the food, and actually buys the food and does not trade for booze. Lets say it is a hardship for you to give out these food certificates due to financial circumstances, and you get little acknowledgment or thanks for giving them. So we have here a good act done for minimal gain on the part of the giver. But how could this as a whole be considered bad? Let's say you are instead motivated by self interest of making money. So you devote your energies not to giving what little money you have in food certificates to the homeless, but engaging the homeless in some money making scheme. Selling trinkets or whatever. You are driven by your self interest and work hard at it, in the process the homeless actually end up doing something productive with their time, and you all make more money. So really, when comparing these two admittedly simplistic examples, maybe bbk is claiming that altruism is not good, because in his view it is not good compared to what might be achieved when self interest is placed as the priority. Bbk is essentially arguing that the idea of doing a good thing for selfless reasons is not good, because the result is inferior to what can be derived from self interest. At least that is what I think he is suggesting.

So to summarize, in altruism a person by definition performs a good act, but altruism itself is still bad, because it's a bad way to get things done compared to self interest. So the idea in the public perception that altruism is superior to other ways of acting should be revised. This argument leaves the definition of altruism intact, namely that a good act in and of itself is being performed, but leaves open the possibility that altruism overall should not be considered a good thing of which to aspire. Not saying I agree or disagree with this - just that it seems a valid point of discussion.

Situation: (hypothetical) common usage of a term, 'collateral damage', essentially means murder is good.

What dictionary do you use? Who in the hell thinks that murder is good and that collateral damage is a good thing? This does give me an indication why you can't understand the meaning of the word "altruistic" though.

I do not have to posit an alternative definition of collateral damage. I merely have to say that I disagree with it, and say why murder is NOT good.

Altruism simply means an act that helps others in spite of the fact that it hurts the person doing it. If you say that you disagree with the definition, how is that not saying that you think the definition is somehow in error?

Your argument is that I cannot argue that collateral damage is bad because, by definition, collateral damage is good. This is fallacious.

No, what is fallacious is your horrendous example where you are not using a common definition of either word and where you refuse to see that the defintion of altruism includes doing good acts for others. Altruistic acts are defined as good acts, period. If you can't accept that, more's the pity, but it's not my problem.

I sufficiently explained that using altruism as the basis of ethical systems wrongly equivocates altruism with what is the good.

No, actually you didn't, but that's beside the point (I hardly consider calling slavery an act of altruism as debunking altruism).

You simply ignored all of these arguments and never addressed any of them, but you seem to love focusing on repeating a lexicographical argument ad infinitum, which makes it no more correct each time it's repeated.

Accusing me of ignoring arguments when all your arguments have been objected to and gone unanswered (not by me specifically, but by others on this board) is the height of arrogance. That I haven't attacked all of your arguments doesn't mean that they have not been addressed, and sorry but I'm not going to repeat everything that everyone else has said here (if I did you'd probably accuse me of piling on).

Okay, realize something. Claiming that I committed a fallacy is not the same as showing that I have committed one.

Hey, that's my line. You talk a lot about fallacy, but you don't demonstrate.

Saying that we are predisposed to care for our young because of our genes is not a fallacy, it is an testable fact.

Yes, it is. Yet, not all humans do so, how curious. Do you see how this undermines your argument yet?

Speaking of false dichotomies, you introduced a brand new one when you claimed that Ebon said that without altruism, we are bound to rape the earth. Says who?

I was speaking quickly. If you want, you can read Ebon's latest reply and get the full gist of what he was saying. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt that if I simply reminded you of the argument that you would be able to catch on.

Is altruism special in a way that no other characteristic is?

Did I say it was?

This after you repeatedly claim that I am unwilling to propose a different definition for altruism, you take it upon yourself to freely modify it it any way you want.

Where have I done that?

So okay, there are only benevolent acts, not benevolent people. There are only good acts, not good people.

Nice straw man. Or, is this another of your arguments to absurdity, which BTW, even though you tout it as a great argument, it is a logical fallacy. D'oh.

Also you have not demonstrated that altruism is not a central tenet of Christianity. You'd have to somehow say that the myth of Jesus dying for the sin of man is not central to Christian doctrine.

How is that an altruistic act? Considering that you think slavery was altruistic, I don't hold high hopes for you to be able to answer that, so let me tell you that it was not altruitic, nor is Xianity. Xians do good deeds not for selfless reasons, but so they can go to heaven, either by works or to prove to god that they really believe. This isn't basing their morality on altruism. Further, Xian morality is really based on "god said, I do." Do you actually debate this?

In fact, Christianity would fall apart completely if not for the concept of altruism.

What planet are you from? Have you ever actually met any Xians or read the Bible? Xianity doesn't depend on altruism. The number one priority for Xians is to believe in god to attain salvation. Murderers can go to heaven so long as they believe in god and repent.

The central argument against altruism is that it is actually egotism applied to selfishness.

It sounds to me like you are a wee bit sensitive about how others might have looked down on you for being a soldier simply because they might have had an overdeveloped sense of morality and wanted others to know about it...or alternatively, it could your own insecurities in thinking that others are looking down on you when they may not have been. Again, that's not my problem and you should see someone if it's due to your own insecurities.

This is what you claimed is the case for Christianity - yet when it comes to you, you claim that you are an exception.

Where did I do that? Have I claimed that I am an altruist in this thread or anywhere else?

This is not because I refuse to accept altruism because I hate Christianity - this is because in this situation you refuse to apply the same lens to yourself as you do to Christians.

I'm sorry, but you have me mistaken with someone else, because I've never said anything of the sort.

This is all evasion on your part though, and instead of answering Ebon's challenge, you've simply decided to attack me. I was willing to oblige, so I guess I bear some blame in allowing this to go off track. I suggest that you focus on Ebon's objections to your arguments and not by simply claiming that he's committing logical fallacies that he's not committing - which is what started my part in this in the first place. May I also suggest that you calm down, stop throwing out coarse language and start acting rationally? It's generally a sign of a weak mind/argument when one has to resort to swearing at one's adversaries as you are doing.

You framed your question in terms of a need for altruism versus being able to get by on self-interest in order to save the environment. This is the frame in which I posited my response. No, we don't need altruism to save the environment.

I didn't pass judgment on whether we should or should not, you are correct about that, which also means this was not a naturalistic fallacy. But his was not your original question, either, so I was not avoiding your question.

Whether or not we should care about the environment of the future is just as irrelevant as whether or not it comes from biology or from external systems of morality, because either way we'll all be dead. What remains is that we do.

Your original point was to suggest that there are some real life situations like the prisoner's dilemma where there is no hope for reciprocity to guide our actions, thus leaving only altruism as the only option. I have been trying to come up with my own examples, if I can, but I haven't come up with any good ones.

If you still want my personal opinion on whether or not we should care about the future, I'd say yes, but I know that my motivation is driven by the deep sense of love I have people in my life. I will care about them until the moment that I die, at which point I will have stopped caring. But because my caring for my loved ones precludes me from carrying a nuclear suitcase to my death bed, I have to say that I won't have many viable options for effecting the world after I'm dead.

So let me explain then what a Naturalistic Fallacy is: this is when someone implies that something is moral because it exists in nature.

That's correct, and that is precisely what you are doing. When I asked if we should be concerned about the welfare of people who don't yet exist, you tried to sidestep the question by saying that our genes "program" us to care about our children. That's true, but it doesn't answer my point: should we care about people who will live in the future? Observing that this tendency exists in humans is not the same thing as endorsing it - unless, of course, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Now, if you are endorsing it, then by any reasonable definition of the word, you're endorsing altruism. Yes, there are good evolutionary reasons why we care about the well-being of our descendants. In other words, there are good evolutionary reasons why we feel altruistic toward our descendants. It does not negate the altruistic nature of this behavior to identify the reasons why it exists. After all, you will not stand to personally benefit from any action you take on their behalf, even if your genes do stand to benefit.

...Ebon said that without altruism, we are bound to rape the earth. Says who? That's no the only possible choice. It also begs the question, and it also avoids the multiple alternatives that I have suggested.

I don't think your reasons are particularly compelling. The primary alternative you suggested was that we can find self-interest-based reasons for switching to technologies that don't harm the environment. Well, if we can convince people to act on that basis, I'm all for that. But it doesn't address the essential point here, which is this: do we actually care about the welfare of people who live in the future? Or are they just getting a lucky break?

In other words, if switching to clean technology was not environmentally beneficial, would you still advocate it for our descendants' sake? Or should we only act in ways that benefit us directly, regardless of the effects on people who don't yet live?

Comments like "you don't know what a false dichotomy is" don't add anything of substance. It does not help you make your case that I was wrong in accusing Ebonmuse of committing this fallacy. It just props up an otherwise weak argument which is based entirely on avoiding mine. I already sufficiently addressed the accusation of having committed a Naturalistic Fallacy, but you ignored this and continued claiming that I was wrong. So let me explain then what a Naturalistic Fallacy is: this is when someone implies that something is moral because it exists in nature. I.E. if lions eat their young, then it's okay for humans to eat their young. Saying that we are predisposed to care for our young because of our genes is not a fallacy, it is an testable fact. The opposite would be a fallacy: claiming that we need altruism to solve our environment because nothing exists in genetics that could possibly make us care about the future: that is just going against observable facts. Not just a wrong assumption for humans, but wrong for thousands of species who hardly even have a brain yet are capable of symbiotic relationships - all of it demonstrating that selfish genetic behavior can be responsible for exhibiting cooperative behavior. Either way, I did not say that we ought to care about the environment because of our genes, which would then be a fallacy.

Speaking of false dichotomies, you introduced a brand new one when you claimed that Ebon said that without altruism, we are bound to rape the earth. Says who? That's no the only possible choice. It also begs the question, and it also avoids the multiple alternatives that I have suggested.

And, all this is because you can't figure out that "altruism" is just a word for a specific act. Instead, you've spent all this time arguing because you incorrectly think that Xianity is all about altruism, that altruism is some sort of characteristic about a person instead of an act.

This is a bullshit statement. Is altruism special in a way that no other characteristic is? This after you repeatedly claim that I am unwilling to propose a different definition for altruism, you take it upon yourself to freely modify it it any way you want. So okay, there are only benevolent acts, not benevolent people. There are only good acts, not good people. There are only smelly farts, not smelly people. Give me a break. This level of splitting hairs is beneath honest debate. And if my "failure to understand" altruism rests on making such a distinction, then I stand on very good ground.

Also you have not demonstrated that altruism is not a central tenet of Christianity. You'd have to somehow say that the myth of Jesus dying for the sin of man is not central to Christian doctrine. In fact, Christianity would fall apart completely if not for the concept of altruism. Apologists are some of the strongest advocates of the need for altruism to exist.

Yet, Christianity is not in any way central to my opinion against altruism. You are mis-representing my position. I pointed out that altruism is just as untenable for Humanism as it is for Christianity - for the same reasons. The central argument against altruism is that it is actually egotism applied to selfishness. This is what you claimed is the case for Christianity - yet when it comes to you, you claim that you are an exception. This is not because I refuse to accept altruism because I hate Christianity - this is because in this situation you refuse to apply the same lens to yourself as you do to Christians.

Okay, I'm not going to engage in "I know you are but what am I?" discussions with you. OMFG, until you actually read my posts, you should just STFU. The substance of your entire post is nothing more than basic insults trying to pass off for refutations. I can't ask you to care about what my opinions are, but if you don't, then please don't waste my time.

Nice projection. The fact is that I have read all your posts and I find the wanting. Not only have you not defined your terms - as several people including myslef have asked you to - but you've repeatedly ignored arguments against your position and gone so far as to accuse others of logical fallacy and been dead wrong about it. Nowhere have I resorted to "I know you are but what am I" argumentation. That is either a figment of your imagination or a case of projection. Nowhere am I really insulting you, unless spelling out the situation and noting the problems in your arguments count as insults. Also, you can't accuse me of not caring when I've asked you what your position is and you are the one who has failed to respond.

Now, this might sound insulting: You are ignorant of what you are speaking of. You have failed to form a coherent argument, you have failed to define your terms (even when asked, repeatedly), and you have failed to answer the objections to your "position" whatever that position may be. You've repeatedly misapplied the definition of the term under consideration (altruism) and shown that you really don't understand what you or others are talking about. You're repeatedly accused others of all kinds of things that were either completely untrue or a bad case of projection. And, all this is because you can't figure out that "altruism" is just a word for a specific act. Instead, you've spent all this time arguing because you incorrectly think that Xianity is all about altruism, that altruism is some sort of characteristic about a person instead of an act, and that those who do altruistic things are automatically sneering down at you from their ivory towers that they built on morality. It's infantile and not even wrong. I suggest you cut your losses at the very least. Of course, if you have any notion of honesty, you'll look hard at your own posts and realize where you went wrong (where pretty much all of us have pointed out the flaws in your arguments) and either admit as much or rethink your philosophy and your argument/approach.

"It's not that I think altruism means something different, it's just that I actually have a problem with that definition." This is the same as saying that you don't actually accept the definition, but you are unwilling or unable to supply one that you would accept.

Situation: (hypothetical) common usage of a term, 'collateral damage', essentially means murder is good.

Your argument:

"It's not that I think collateral damage means something different, it's just that I actually have a problem with that definition." This is the same as saying that you don't actually accept the definition, but you are unwilling or unable to supply one that you would accept.

I do not have to posit an alternative definition of collateral damage. I merely have to say that I disagree with it, and say why murder is NOT good. Saying that murder is not good does not change the definition of collateral damage. I don't have to say "collateral damage means: murder is bad." You're coming at me with nothing more than word games here. Continually asking me to posit a different definition for altruism is nothing more than trying to set up a trap where you can then refute me on a lexicographical grounds. Why should I not see through this? It's essentially sophistry. You're also reducing your own position to a truism: Your argument is that I cannot argue that collateral damage is bad because, by definition, collateral damage is good. This is fallacious. I don't have to change the definition to say that I don't accept it.

I sufficiently explained that using altruism as the basis of ethical systems wrongly equivocates altruism with what is the good. I explained how altruism leads to ambiguous situations where it's hard to tell what is acceptable and what is the greatest good. I explained how selflessness and outward actions in and of themselves have no moral value, since they can be used for both good and bad acts. I explained how altruism, although it is a subset of the good, does not actually add anything substantive to what the good is. I explained that it falls victim to Occam's Razor.

You simply ignored all of these arguments and never addressed any of them, but you seem to love focusing on repeating a lexicographical argument ad infinitum, which makes it no more correct each time it's repeated.

Looks familiar? Please, if you're going to disparage anything I wrote, at least put in an honest effort to actually understand it, first.

Thank you for pointing out how bad your argument is by showing us another bad argument. BTW, I and others have repeatedly asked you what definition you have for altruism. The one time you answered, you said that you agreed with the given definition and then promptly contradicted yourself saying, "It's not that I think altruism means something different, it's just that I actually have a problem with that definition." This is the same as saying that you don't actually accept the definition, but you are unwilling or unable to supply one that you would accept. So, therefore, if we can't get your argument, maybe it's because you can't formulate a coherent argument to begin with!

Secondly, the false dichotomy is implicit. Ebon's statement put me in this situation: I must either agree or disagree that we are slaves to our genes.

No, it most certainly is not, and you are wrong about the implications. Ebon's original point was that if we act selfishly with regards to the environment (acting selfishly is YOUR suggestion) then we will rape the environment, and he asked why we shouldn't do that. Your "answer" said that we don't because we are slaves to our genes. Ebon rebutted that your "answer" was simply not true. There is no false dichotomy here. What you are really crying about is the fact that Ebon poked a hole in your argument. I suggest that you either shore up your argument or you admit that your argument was defeated and reformulate.

Ebon is setting up a situation wherein in order to accept ethics, I must denounce that we are a product of genetics. If that's not a false dichotomy, I don't know what is.

Since Ebon did no such thing, I suggest that you don't actually know what a false dichotomy is. Thank you for being open minded about your lack of knowledge on this particular logical fallacy.

Ah, I see the argument now. Altruism is wrong because some people do bad things. Too bad this is fallacious.

Let's see, where have I seen this style of argument before?

Ah, I see the argument now. Christianity is wrong because some people do bad things. Too bad this is fallacious.

Looks familiar? Please, if you're going to disparage anything I wrote, at least put in an honest effort to actually understand it, first.

No, it's not. You tried to dodge Ebon's question by stating that we are genetically predisposed to do certain things. Ebon replied that we can and do overcome our genes. He did not set up an either/or, he simply noted that your assertion does not answer the question and why.

First of all, "overcoming our genes" is magical thinking. As I correctly pointed out, we are programmed by our genes to be what we are, including the ability to cognate the way we do. What's really fascinating is how we can't escape our genes in many instances where it is both rational and beneficial to us to do so. For instance, humans cannot asses risk correctly because of our genetic programming. We know the correct way to do so and we can program computers to do so, but we cannot do it ourselves without great concerted effort to overcome our intuition.

Secondly, the false dichotomy is implicit. Ebon's statement put me in this situation: I must either agree or disagree that we are slaves to our genes. Slavery to genetics is a non-sequitur and therefore it creates a bifurcation. If I say we are not slaves to our genes, does that mean that Ebon is right? No. Ebon is setting up a situation wherein in order to accept ethics, I must denounce that we are a product of genetics. If that's not a false dichotomy, I don't know what is.

In my opinion, selfless volunteers acting in a destructive manner have more than offset the net gains of those seeking good. From the Catholic church causing AIDS epidemics in Africa to suicide bombers terrorizing every continent.

Ah, I see the argument now. Altruism is wrong because some people do bad things. Too bad this is fallacious.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. In a way, it's a false dichotomy.

No, it's not. You tried to dodge Ebon's question by stating that we are genetically predisposed to do certain things. Ebon replied that we can and do overcome our genes. He did not set up an either/or, he simply noted that your assertion does not answer the question and why.

The second part about not beingu slaves to our genes? It's an appeal to emotion, but on its face it makes as much sense as saying a car is not slave to its wheels or my computer being not slave to Microsoft. It's a non-sequitur.

And, here you incorrectly accuse Ebon of two more logical fallacies, but it's pretty apparent that you don't know what you are talking about. Pointing out that we are not slaves to our genes is a fact, not an appeal to emotion. Further it is not a non-sequitor in that he was pointing out why your non-answer was insufficient.

I did, however, give a perfectly direct answer to your question, along with several other valid answers.

Do you really think that was a perfectly direct answer? We don't all choose to have children, nor do we always act in the interest of those children or future generations even. So, Ebon's question still holds.