ALTRUISM= Conducting an unselfish act for the welfare of others.

Please read the above definition. It would be exponentially more productive for your personal understanding if you can reconcile the finality of the SEQUENCE OF SELF-INTEREST(primary event) and your idealistic endeavor of solely describing the secondary event (what ever that is) as some kind of magically transcending act of human selflessness.

You said " the mechanism of the action originates in self-interest, but that doesn't speak to the purpose of the act at all."

Your enlightenment is embedded within your quote.

The purpose of the act (secondary event) is the indulgence (mechanism) of self-interest( primary event).

P.S. The reconciliation process needs to be finalized, so that the discussion can move towards understanding the vitally important SEQUENCE OF SELF-INTEREST, and the subsequent actions of human endeavors.

It absolutely negates the secondary act under the constraint of the definition of altruism (ALTRUISM= Conducting an unselfish act for the welfare of others ). The sequence of self-interest completely destroys the idealistic definition of altruism. The simple self-interest sequence flows from Primary (interference) to secondary (recipient).

If so, I am curious as to how you would differentiate the following actions:

A) Joe is smoking and someone complains that the smoke is bothering them. Joe ignores them and continues to smoke.

B) Joe is smoking and someone complains that the smoke is bothering them. Joe puts out his cigarette so that the other person feels better.

I would consider example B to be altruistic. Speculating on Joe's motives for putting out the cigarette could come up with endless variations, but on the surface at least, the act is altruistic, reguardless of the motives behind it.

That's the essence of my argument. It is the action, not the motivation that defines altruism. I'm interested in hearing your analysis.

To me the discussion about altruism a lot of the time seems like an exploration of consciousness and the link to what is physical. A subject I'm starting to become interested in

the altruistic act, must become before that action takes place the will of the subject

Fine. I will myself to do something that happens to be altruistic.

Fulfillment of the will is only self-interested insofar as you're doing what you intend. But that's so rote, so base, so mechanical, so functional, that it's utterly absurd to call it selfish or self-interested in a moral or social sense, which is exactly what altruism describes. The successful execution of something willed doesn't negate the distinction between stealing an old lady's purse versus helping the old lady cross the street.

the action fulfills his will

Of course the successful execution of something willed does not negate the distinction of the above statement about the old women, no one is claiming it does. It simply makes it less than pure ultruism, pure ultruism states that the action is 100% selfless, where logically it is not.

Now there is a metaphysical understanding of how this comes about

Perfect example! The primary(you) being subjected to the constraints (sequence of self-interest) of our natural world must satisfy YOUR own self-interest BEFORE ANY interference can occur that could possibly be view as providing benefit to another individual(secondary recipient), and this evidential process is completely and empirically provable by simply viewing or measuring your residual actions.

Your are simply a self-indulging, narcissistic, hedonistic, materialistic, greedy self-centered creature. JUST KIDDING, I could not resist indicating what you fear most.

Aedes,

Ultimately who is responsible for the altruistic act?

You've written this 100 times in this thread. And STILL it is utterly beyond you to understand that altruism as a concept is NOT something that can be viewed at a level of subconscious self-interest, which is where you continue to dwell. Altruism is an ETHICAL and a SOCIAL concept. Why can't you see that you are arguing psychology, not ethics?



How can empirically viewing the physical actions(interference) of an individual(primary)be considered on some kind of subconscious level, does not the residual physical actions(interference) speak for themselves? Your a certified whack-job if you think you can indulge in providing some kind of interjection or explanations for the "true" intent of an individual, when the ACTUAL RESIDUAL EVIDENCE of the actions are staring you in the face, and any SANE PERSON would submit to this empirical evidence as the TRUTH.


P.S. One of the main tenets of the liberal philosophy is the pathetic and idealistic attempts to remove all personal accountability from individuals, which is simply dysfunctional from any social standpoint, and I am afraid that your continued dismissals about the truth of self-interest simply reflects this careless ideology.

How can empirically viewing the physical actions(interference) of an individual(primary)be considered on some kind of subconscious level, does not the residual physical actions(interference) speak for themselves? Your a certified whack-job if you think you can indulge in providing some kind of interjection or explanations for the "true" intent of an individual, when the ACTUAL RESIDUAL EVIDENCE of the actions are staring you in the face, and any SANE PERSON would submit to this empirical evidence as the TRUTH.