KK> Nothing personal taken.
Most people who risk there lives for
someone else do not do so for selfish reasons. They don't
peek over their shoulders to see whose looking. For
example: suppose it is my daughter drowning.
KK> The example Art gave involved complete strangers. Not
offspring.
Would I risk drowning to save her? Of course. Is the motivation to
save my genes? Of course not, this is absurd. The motivation
is that I love my daughter as much or more as myself. How
could anyone deny this?
KK> No one could. What you and *I* call the love we have for our
children a biologist might call the preservation of genes. One does
not diminish the other.
I think though that you have a mis-characterization of
what the ultra-Darwinist would argue. It doesn't matter
one wit what my motives are, what matters is the outcome.
The outcome is that my descendent survives. This seems
rather obvious to me. The real problem for the sociobiologists
would be that something like altruism is a genetic trait.
Merely arguing that a particular action promotes the survival
of my genes is not enough.
KK> This is where we disagree. I am not a sociobiologist so
perhaps I am getting over my head here. This does seem more like
an argument of which words to use for the same principle. Use
one set, theists argree, use another sociobiologists agree.
Specifically, would you save a stranger. What would motivate you
to do this?
Kevin