Altruism is defined as "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." by 'thefreedictionary.com'.
I don't believe it exists. All supposed selfless acts occur as a result of much deliberation of another's circumstance. There must be hope for some gain however small.
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Again, does that relate to the first or the second option?
to feel god about your actions?
Whoops, little bit of a Freudian slip there. *good
I don't think so. I would say it being an ingrained evolutionary response explains the behavior.
So does that make it 'ure altruism' or an evolutionary response to a certain situation?
So this is from Wiki and it just says they only travel with other dolphins. They also said they can defend from sharks. Your example is like the opposite of altruism, where they actually let some other whale get bit so they could get away. That's not what happens.
Umm.. not exactly correct. While dolphins are quite territorial and defensive, they are not 'white knights' defending everyone around them. And what I was pointing out is that, regardless of behavior, there is an overall benefit to the individual who assisted these whales who were stranded.
And I disagree that the dolphin was in danger. The whales were stuck because, as the article put it, they were confused as to how to return to open water. Dolphins are immensely intelligent, nearly (if not fully) the peers of higher primates such as orangutans and other monkeys, while whales are quite a bit lower on the ladder of intellect, especially in regards to cognitive reasoning and cause-effect rationale.
And yes, dolphins have been known to fight off sharks and defend against other attackers, just as humans have been known to fight off bears and cougars. That doesn't necessarily mean that they can fight them off in all situations, or that in a situation where one is unable to fight off the attacker that it has a better chance of survival if weaker prey is in the vicinity, as was part of my earlier point.
Dolphins have also been known to kill for fun. Particularly Bottlenose Dolphins have been know to do this.
If my memory serves, orcas have also been known to be hostile and violent even in cases where defense or food were not the motivating factors. While this is more common in mammals, especially in the higher primates, there are marine species who also exhibit similar behavior.
So does that make it 'ure altruism' or an evolutionary response to a certain situation?
Honestly I don't think there is 'true' altruism in that there is no overall benefit whatsoever to the animal behaving selflessly or it's family/social group. We have these instincts because they are beneficial to social living.
Again, does that relate to the first or the second option?
In a way both. It could be receiving absolutely no benefit including self gratitude. Or one could do something and have self gratitude so long as they are not doing for self gratitude.
In a way both. It could be receiving absolutely no benefit including self gratitude. Or one could do something and have self gratitude so long as they are not doing for self gratitude.
Really I think the first definition actually plays into the second. We have unselfish desires, but these are a result of evolutionary pressure on our species to perform in a manner that is beneficial to our social structure. While we may not see any immediate reciprocal benefit, the benefits are most certainly there.
Altruism is a "behavior that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own".
It's very possible that society (or a part of it) is a source of altruism. Altruism is an ecumenical phenomenon, yet the cultures (consequently the societies) affect the extent to which humans-members of different societies act.
Ethnocentrism is extremely common, ethnic groups can be easily considered "selfish", [now if they are actually selfish is an other thing]. The fact is that the vast majority of humans is culturally biased.
The individual has the urge to defend/support/help his group. When the person successfully looks after his group the group will have more chances of survival and enlargement. Such neighborly acts are probably going to be "aid back". How? The reward may vary from a simple acknowledgment to a colored ribbon (as Napoleon said).
If the altruistic act will be successful, probably there will be a reward, however (very often) the main motive is helping the group, hence the personal gain is secondary.
In my opinion altruism is contemporaneous both unselfish and selfish, but mostly the latter. One hand washes the other, and both the face.
