DJ+Altruism

**Are we, as some might say, motivated by a desire to save our off-spring?**

I think that while we may be motivated by a desire to see our own offspring survive, we are more motivated by the need to see 'humanity's offspring' survive. We will no doubt sacrifice ourselves if we feel that our own children are in danger. While this may seem like a personal decision, made out of love, i believe the basis for it to be more biological than emotional. We have an natural instinct to try and prevent harm to children, whether they be our own or someone else's. This can only be explained by the fact that it is a biological impulse, and that the motivation for it comes from our desire to see the human race continue. If the child we are saving is our own (or that of a close relative) we may feel more of an emotional connection and increased motivation because not only will the child we are saving continue the human race, they will also continue our own genetic legacy.


 * Must there always be some sort of intrinsic reward for doing good?**

I think that there is always some kind of reward for being/doing good- whether that reward be intrinsic or extrinsic. Although extrinsic rewards for altruism are much more obvious, we cannot discount the influence that intrinsic rewards have on someone who does good. Whether or not the reward was the motivation for the 'selfless' act, we cannot deny that an intrinsic reward always follows the act of doing good.


 * Mr. Otis once said, "That having integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching." If this is so, and no one knows when we have done good, would you still do good?**

I think i still would because i would feel guilty about not having done good- if i didnt. Although many of the causes of altruism can be external, some are also internal. People can act altruistically to assuage guilt for an unrelated misdeed, raise their self esteem, or relieve physiological distress. Doing good deeds even when someone was not present to witness them would not effect the good deed's effect on those internal factors.


 * "Delayed reciprocal altruism", seems like a gamble - back to game theory, any way. Does this seem to make sense to you? That is that we act out of a desire to have what we have done being done to us?**

I think it makes sense that we would live by the principle of 'delayed reciprocal altruism'. Christianity preaches 'do as you would have done unto yourself' while hinduism/buddhism preach Karma- that each action we commit will be returned to us; there is a social and cultural precedent for acting altruistically in hopes that we will benefit from someone else' altruism in the future. In other cases we commit acts of altruism because it indirectly benefits ourself. In the example given, birds will defend feeding ground together because it benefits both of them (the 'receiver' and the 'giver' of the altruistic act). Similarly, people will act altruistically because it sets a precedent for their interaction, and will most likely lead to someone doing them a favor, in the future.

I dont think that it is possible to ever commit a truly 'selfless' act. There is always some kind of intrinsic or extrinsic reward for doing so. Whether it be the pleasure we get from helping others, the knowledge that we have done a good deed and will be rewarded (judeo-christian culture holds heaven as a reward for a moral and beneficent actions in life, buddhists and hindus in reincarnation to a higher form of life for similar behavior), the label of being a 'good person', or physical/material rewards (ex: tax breaks for donating to a charity) there is always some benefit to be had from committing acts of altruism. It is not that we are committing acts of altruism with sinister ulterior motives. However, because we actually receive benefits from these so called 'selfless' actions, they cannot truly be considered selfless- we are never being 'selfless' when we commit an act of altruism. **
 * Are we ever being truly "selfless" when committing an act of altruism?