Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:38:19 -0500
From: Reg Lilly <rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: Arguing for Altruism


Just one small observation:
	Altruism -- behavior in which one animal sacrifices itself without it it being
clear that the sacrificing individual is protecting its young (i.e., genetic
material) -- has been one of the 'tough nuts' for evolution theorists to deal
with.  Sociobilogist have come up with an answer that says, so to speak, that
altruistic acts can be understood according to a calculation in which the
cost-benefit ratio of, say, sacrificing myself for a sibling has a high factor
because of genetic similarity; sacrifying for a cousin one quarter of that, and
so on.  
	In other words, sociobiologist are trying to use, in a charmingly Leibnizian
way, calculation to show that the ontological and moral interpretations of
altruism are reconcilable.

Ciao,
Reg

John McWilliams wrote:
> 
> --On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 10:52 am "Ludvig Hertzberg" <ludvig-AT-mail.film.su.se>
> wrote:
> 
> > I, like many, also used to think along the lines of 'every act is
> > motivated by egoistic concerns', when I first began to think critically
> > and cynically about things. Nowadays, I have a hard time taking that
> > statement seriously. Whenever I meet somebody confessing to that view, I
> > ask them if
> >
> > 1) they can even conceive of an act as altruistic according to their
> > definition. If they maintain that they cannot, that every act by
> > definition, as it were, is egoistic, I ask them what use they think we
> > have for the concept of altruism. I remind them that we do speak of
> > coldness and warmth, even though one could argue that the temperature is
> > always warm by some standards - there's always atomic activity, which by
> > a certain definition is what we understand by warmth (although when it's
> > minus 100 degrees, the warmth there is is rather minor, to put it that
> > way.)
> >
> > And 2), I ask them if they if they do not perceive egoism and altruism
> > in some way value-laden concepts. Surely, it loses its force (its sense
> > even) to accuse somebody of being egoistic if all acts are so by
> > definition. Ask them to think of instances when we in fact describe acts
> > in those terms, and I'm sure they'll see that we don't mean by altruism
> > that we think such an act is totally devoid of self-interest, but rather
> > something quite other - along the lines that there is something
> > admirable about the action, given the conditions under which it was
> > 'acted', the motives being how we perceive them.
> >
> > Hope this can be of some help for your thoughts.
> >
> > Ludvig Hertzberg
> >               - Dept of Cinema Studies, U of Stockholm, Sweden
> 
> This is the sort of wonderfully clear philosophical argument that I love...
> (and it's put me right on this matter) more please Ludvig!
> 
> John
> 
>             John McWilliams
>             Cambridge
> 
>      --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---