The New "Religion Vs Science" Thread

...what people see and what is causal are the ways that these abilities and understandings translate into how we live in the world.

I would argue that we do not need to be selfless to be moral. The Canadian endocrinologist, Hans Selye, MD, who wrote The Stress of Life - a wonderful treatise on the physiology of stress on living organisms - coined the term altruistic egoism for acting for the good of others with the knowledge that it is ultimately good for you to do so.

Of course then there's the problem of how to pass on values to the next generation if we can't or don't make judgements.

I can envision a member of the Islamic State being completely selfless and volunteering to become a suicide bomber and blowing up a hundred innocents. But if you mean selflessness to be a form of altruism I would agree. But it's not, necessarily.

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. The word was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from the Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3]

Altruism in biological organisms can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action. Steinberg suggests a definition for altruism in the clinical setting, that is "intentional and voluntary actions that aim to enhance the welfare of another person in the absence of any quid pro quo external rewards".[4]

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty, in that whilst the latter is predicated upon social relationships, altruism does not consider relationships. Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible in human psychology. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits". The actor also may not be expecting a reward.

The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is usually contrasted with egoism, which is defined as acting to the benefit of one's self.

We just shouldn't be emotional about it.

If I do the right thing only because my logic tells me to do it, am I immoral?