I'm sorry to backtrack, but returning to tit-for-tat and altruism:

I agree this is seen in nature, and can arise naturally, but my question is where can examples be seen in nature of concepts like sacrifice, mercy, and self denial for future goals.

The only two I can think of are protection of young for sacrifice, and I study I heard done on birds where they had to help each other get food, but it was set up so that only one bird could eat and they started taking turns for self denial.

I would like to hear of more or other views.

This is all from memory, so please call me if I've said anything inaccurate/false.

In terms of sacrifice, it is common among bees (workers dying for the queen/hive). If you find this stuff interesting, check out "The Selfish Gene". There might be a better book on the subject, (chime in if anyone knows) but I felt it covered it quite nicely.

Sacrifice in terms of safety can be tit-for-tat, and is seen among birds who alarm each other of predators with calls. This sacrifices the safety of the individual bird, but ensures the safety of others.

Vampire bats are famously altruistic, and will feed others who were less successful on their hunts. This is also tit-for-tat since if this act is not returned, the surrounding bats will not abide by the same rules with said betrayer.

An interesting question is how aware these animals are of the consequences of their actions. I really don't know enough on the subject to do anything but speculate.

Mercy is seen in lots of ways with numerous pack animals. Wolves will fight to be alpha males, but do not kill each other in the process. There is a way wolves convey defeat (tapping out?) before death. There is also a similar structure with chimps.

Is this mercy, or simply good evolutionary instinct? Having another pack member makes one's pack more powerful, therefore it is to your benefit not to kill the other member. On the other hand you have been challenged for superiority and have expended valuable energy, possibly being wounded in the process, so wouldn't it make sense to just go a tad further and finish the job to prevent it from happening again?

Let's point out again, because it is so often misunderstood or misconstrued: I love The Selfish Gene (it is one of my favourite books); I find a cautious analysis of evolutionary psychology, whether in humans or other species, fascinating. Reciprocal and kin altruism, greenbeard effects, and other bits of genetic and evolutionary history, may very well help shed some light on the origin of altruism in the human species.

But keep in mind that no sane person, however fascinated by these origins, mistakes an 'is' for an 'ought' (as the strawmen of creationists so often do); 'Darwinists' do not tend to be 'social Darwinists'. Richard Dawkins puts it more strongly: What makes us humans so special is precisely that we can rise above our 'selfish genes' (as indeed we very clearly and explicitly do every time we use contraception).

By the way, Gypsy Jazz, while the bit about the bees is really, really interesting, it's not really very applicable to a discussion on the origins of human morality -- hymenopteran insects are haplodiploid (a worker bee or ant is more closely related to her sisters than she would be to her own children if she were fertile!); humans are of course diploid, which changes the maths pretty substantially in relatedness calculations. (Well, you probably know this, having read it; this is more a caveat for passers-by. Who should read The Selfish Gene, anyway...)

This is all from memory, so please call me if I've said anything inaccurate/false.

In terms of sacrifice, it is common among bees (workers dying for the queen/hive). If you find this stuff interesting, check out "The Selfish Gene". There might be a better book on the subject, (chime in if anyone knows) but I felt it covered it quite nicely. But the bee will die if it DOESN'T defend the hive, so I don't see where there's any chance for sacrificing (this is, of course, in all possibility wrongly attributing a choice to the bee - for all I know it's basically an automaton, but I don't think so, as recent studies in National Geographic show how worker bees will argue and campaign where to build a new hive). What I mean by sacrifice is that the "martyr" (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) helps the other willingly with no reason to think they will get anything back from it.


Sacrifice in terms of safety can be tit-for-tat, and is seen among birds who alarm each other of predators with calls. This sacrifices the safety of the individual bird, but ensures the safety of others. My point is that tit-for-tat is NOT sacrificial, it's business. If the warning bird didn't have the expectation that other birds would do the same for him - that I could see. That's why I chose the mother defending her young - there's no reason to think the young would do the same for the mother, but still she would fight and die just to see them live longer than her.


Vampire bats are famously altruistic, and will feed others who were less successful on their hunts. This is also tit-for-tat since if this act is not returned, the surrounding bats will not abide by the same rules with said betrayer. This is more interesting. African wild dogs also feed sicker and weaker pack members, but the safety of the pack is something they all need. To see bats do this I can see no herd mentality other than its safer from predators with more bats around.


An interesting question is how aware these animals are of the consequences of their actions. I really don't know enough on the subject to do anything but speculate.

Mercy is seen in lots of ways with numerous pack animals. Wolves will fight to be alpha males, but do not kill each other in the process. There is a way wolves convey defeat (tapping out?) before death. There is also a similar structure with chimps. It's called rolling over - we even use it as a term for surrender. You show your throat and whine at the person who just whupped yer ass. But is this mercy or demonstrations of superiority that are never meant to be fatal? I would go more towards animals adopting other species to raise, but this might also simply be nurturing instincts. Which, then, could lead to the question of whether things like mercy are simply romanticized versions of a nurturing instinct.


Is this mercy, or simply good evolutionary instinct? Having another pack member makes one's pack more powerful, therefore it is to your benefit not to kill the other member. On the other hand you have been challenged for superiority and have expended valuable energy, possibly being wounded in the process, so wouldn't it make sense to just go a tad further and finish the job to prevent it from happening again? Se, this is what I mean as well. Even though everyone in the pack picks on the lowest of the rung, they still take care of him, becaue he's family. It's the gorilla in the zoo who helped rescue the child who fell into his cage that shows more a pattern of mercy to me. What as the gorilla's reward? What previous instinct tells one to help a different species - especially one that's imprisoned and frightened you? Simply because others were making signs of distress (and likely that gorillas and humans are close enough that a large primate could concieve of some distant relation with the child), this gorilla helped them.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing - wtf hippo? Oh, ok, the no link thing threw me for a bit. That's really cool, though I bet the hippo was bummed and spent the night drowning his sorrows in beer - and it takes a lot of fucking beer for a hippo to drown his sorrows in it.
But yes, I would say that's a pretty compelling piece of evidence for mercy outside of humans, and even primates cooly enough.

My point is that tit-for-tat is NOT sacrificial, it's business. If the warning bird didn't have the expectation that other birds would do the same for him - that I could see. That's why I chose the mother defending her young - there's no reason to think the young would do the same for the mother, but still she would fight and die just to see them live longer than her.
In ethology (and so in evolutionary biology), altruism has a somewhat more specific meaning. Of course it will usually be the case that the good deeds come around and help the 'altruist' after all -- natural selection will tend to penalise genes for behaviour that expend energy on helping others to no personal gain (although by the same token, behaviour that successfully manipulates others into altruism will be 'rewarded'). Kin and reciprocal altruism are two forms of well-understood behaviour in nature that, when you do the maths on relatedness, turn out to favour the genes of the altruist.

What we typically mean by 'altruism' -- that is, behaviour that is truly at the expense of the one who exhibits it, with coercion or manipulation and no returns -- does not, to my knowledge, occur in nature, although the idea of it may be derived by extrapolating principles that do (e.g. reciprocal altruism with diminishing returns; tits with so many tats that they disappear into insignificance...).

On the other hand (although this is definitely a tangent), I would argue that this notion of altruism is really fictional -- even if I do something that's staggeringly nice to someone who will never thank me, and at great cost to myself, it will still be 'selfish' in a sense -- even if only in the sense that I do it for the satisfaction. True altruism by this greater strictness would be uncoerced behaviour with no returns even in terms of satisfaction...such behaviour does not occur (once you account for 'crossed wiring' in terms of mental disorder). We could go on to define a person's 'niceness' in terms of the selfish satisfaction he or she derives from acting 'altruistically'...

natural selection will tend to penalise genes for behaviour that expend energy on helping others to no personal gain
That's kind of what I was wondering about. We won't find such things in nature due to the punishing nature of natural selection on such traits, but didn't Dawkins mention that humans have the ability to rise above the influence of our genes?

In my philosophy, we call this reciprocal altruism the extended self. You help people because you identify in some way with them, but it's still based on the sense of my and mine. MY body, MY family, MY nation, MY species, MY world. The larger the circle, usually the more altruistic one is seen to be.


On the other hand (although this is definitely a tangent), I would argue that this notion of altruism is really fictional -- even if I do something that's staggeringly nice to someone who will never thank me, and at great cost to myself, it will still be 'selfish' in a sense -- even if only in the sense that I do it for the satisfaction. True altruism by this greater strictness would be uncoerced behaviour with no returns even in terms of satisfaction...such behaviour does not occur (once you account for 'crossed wiring' in terms of mental disorder). We could go on to define a person's 'niceness' in terms of the selfish satisfaction he or she derives from acting 'altruistically'...

This is an excellent point. In light of this, you would have to factor in not just the tangible rewards reciprocating with the altruist, but also the amount of satisfaction they feel, and because of what. I would say the goal of life is to be happy - to get satisfaction (except for the Rolling Stones, they can't get no...), but figuring out what the best way to get that satisfaction can be controversial: leading a life that's allegedly going to get you to some ethereal place that's "better," mindful awareness of every action, attempts at nullifying the self, finding tangible rewards and striving for them in excess, leaving a legacy, etc. This is getting away from the point.

The point is, someone who helps others, but then does it to feel good about themselves or to have others notice them because of it I wouldn't consider as altruistic as one who helps others, and while it does make him feel good, it's satisfaction simply from knowing that others have been helped. Mentality is important, which I think is why the question comes up in regards to the hippo - is that just teritorrial threats to the croc and mother instincts on the deer, or did the hippo go "oh ****, lookitthat, I better help. Hey this guy is hurt, you OK, buddy? Damn, he's gone...such is the way of life...for was it not Yeats that wrote nature! red in tooth and claw...or was it Lord Byron? Fucking college english lit courses, I wasted fifteen years of my life going to Rwanda National University and for what? I'm a fucking hippo, for Christ's sake!"



....or you know...something like that anyway...

That's kind of what I was wondering about. We won't find such things in nature due to the punishing nature of natural selection on such traits, but didn't Dawkins mention that humans have the ability to rise above the influence of our genes?
Yep (and so much for accusations of social Darwinism). But it's really a matter of definitions (and how far you follow their influence; our brains after all are also biological machinery.


The point is, someone who helps others, but then does it to feel good about themselves or to have others notice them because of it I wouldn't consider as altruistic as one who helps others, and while it does make him feel good, it's satisfaction simply from knowing that others have been helped.
But what is the difference? Really? I mean, I like to help people, by and large. But what is the essential difference between "helping people because you feel good about it" and "helping people because their feeling better makes you feel good" -- isn't the latter a somewhat more circuitous, but ultimately equivalent version of the former?

I do not mean deeds done for recognition, mind you. There, the difference is obvious. But the person who does anonymous deeds, toils long and hard to donate anonymously to charities, helps people who will never thank him -- does he not get an emotional reward from knowing that he has made a difference? I would argue that he does.

Then of course we could get into a discussion on whether this detracts from the value of his actions. I would say no, not in any sense of 'value' that it makes any sense to talk about; if altruism 'beyond' this is a fiction, then the greatest value we will see in real life is precisely that evinced by someone who simply derives a great deal of emotional satisfaction from other people being happy (perhaps through his actions).

But what is the difference? Really? I mean, I like to help people, by and large. But what is the essential difference between "helping people because you feel good about it" and "helping people because their feeling better makes you feel good" -- isn't the latter a somewhat more circuitous, but ultimately equivalent version of the former?

The only difference I would point out at the moment is the stability and longer life of the second one. Helping someone because it makes you feel good will fade, or will grow tiresome in one way or another, or something else come along and feel better to you, so you stop being altruistic. However, if you feel good solely based on the other person feeling good, then I would find it more likely that the altruistic behavior will go on. For me, the difference is the fleeting aspct of the happiness derived. If you are happy because someone else is happy, and your actions caused that - that's a nice vicious cycle to be in. But if you are happy directly form your actions, then your actions might turn to being harmful to others while still retaining the happiness for you - thus we get into exploitation, but I'm cautious as to the relevance of that line of thought.

I'll drop a quickie here, which should be quite painfully obvious:

No, God almost certainly does not exist, and therefore, almost certainly is not the source of morals.

"Morality" is an evolutionary response that has helped humans (and most likely other mammals) survive. If some kind of moral and ethical thought process is not ingrained in our genes, then clearly humans would not be able to exist.

Simple.

Good, honest answer.

Now given that possibility, the reverse must be possible where a basically moral, ethical person could with the right motivations, propaganda (such as with Nazism) persuade them to become or at least perform unethical, immoral actions.

I liked this book when I read it, I lent it out and as always happens, I didn't get it back. It's at the top of my personal library replacement list. I know the reviews aren't all great on B&N and Amazon, but many ideas that are divergent from the canon get similar responses.

THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE (http://books.google.com/books?id=YctWRSbQessC&dq=the+lucifer+principle&pg=PP1&ots=6m1mrcSgWW&sig=vbQOwxYZv4qxXwpCcBnVkIAlHiY&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26q%3Dthe%2Blu cifer%2Bprinciple%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA455,M1)


If you look it up on Amazon, there's an excerpt or two.

I'll drop a quickie here, which should be quite painfully obvious:

No, God almost certainly does not exist, and therefore, almost certainly is not the source of morals.

"Morality" is an evolutionary response that has helped humans (and most likely other mammals) survive. If some kind of moral and ethical thought process is not ingrained in our genes, then clearly humans would not be able to exist.

Simple.

I really don't think that it's as simple as that. Most if not all of our genes are very selfish, since their survival is paramount to their function. I see the morality that most people adopt as more of an extension of the adaptability that all humans possess at some level or another.
Besides, if morality was hard-wired into our genetic code, I don't think we'd need so many laws or so much law enforcement, and I certainly don't think that our prisons would be so full...



Huh, just considered this. If God brought humanity "morality", I would imagine that it would have been, or should have been, hard-wired into the organisms. Instead, we see holy men teaching that God gave us FREE WILL.

This is really getting painful.

LOL REDUCTIONISM X IS TRUTH LOLZORS

NO STUPIDHEAD REDUCTIONISM Y IS REAL YAY4ME

NO NO, REDUCTIONISM X IS THE ONLY ONE COZ SPECIFIC CASE

NO POOBRAIN REDUCTIONISM Z IS BETTER COZ ANOTHER SPECIFIC CASE

YAY MY UNDERGRAD DISCIPLINE

NO ICK OO MY UNDERGRAD MINOR

**** YOU SHITFORBRAIN EFFICIENT CAUSE EQUALS THIS AND THAT

BUT BUT BUT

YOU SUCK

YES BUT YOUR MUM TEACHED ME

Sorry, you produced seven pages of unread material over the course of the day. I'm out.

This is really getting painful.

LOL REDUCTIONISM X IS TRUTH LOLZORS

NO STUPIDHEAD REDUCTIONISM Y IS REAL YAY4ME

NO NO, REDUCTIONISM X IS THE ONLY ONE COZ SPECIFIC CASE

NO POOBRAIN REDUCTIONISM Z IS BETTER COZ ANOTHER SPECIFIC CASE

YAY MY UNDERGRAD DISCIPLINE

NO ICK OO MY UNDERGRAD MINOR

**** YOU SHITFORBRAIN EFFICIENT CAUSE EQUALS THIS AND THAT

BUT BUT BUT

YOU SUCK

YES BUT YOUR MUM TEACHED ME


First off, if you're going to post drivel like this, you need to remove your signature quote and your Socrates avatar. No one even remotely wise should be associated with such ignorance.

& Second, if it's so painful, you're more than welcome to **** off elsewhere.

First off, if you're going to post drivel like this, you need to remove your signature quote and your Socrates avatar. No one even remotely wise should be associated with such ignorance.

& Second, if it's so painful, you're more than welcome to **** off elsewhere.

OMG U IZ SOOOO RIGHT YOU IZ MAJOR STAKEHOLDER OF OCCIDENTALWISDEM

I STAI BCOZ I LERN FROM U

... or you could contribute something substantial, meaningful, or comprehensible...

... or you could contribute something substantial, meaningful, or comprehensible...

I second that motion.....