The roots of non religious altruism.

I recently watched a video debate of Dinesh D'souza and Peter Singer. The subject obviously was Atheism and Christianity. A question was asked and never answered. What is the objective basis of morality independent of Christian theology and influence? I feel that atheists often spend a lot of time attacking the beliefs of others(they do so often make themselves tempting targets), and not enough time articulating the basis of their own beliefs. So what follows is my exploration of what the nature, limits, cause, and continuation of natural or biological altruism entails.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is that it is in fact very okay to care about yourself more than others. I think its more important that I eat than someone else. So do you. So would that other person if they had any food. It is entirely natural to care about your own preservation and continued health and prosperity more than another persons. The only time that this is significantly overridden is with spouses, children, and typically family members. The biological reasoning for this should be obvious, all of those people can pass on your DNA in some way shape or form. And speaking reasonably, if you fail to maintain yourself you cannot effectively care for others.

Social altruism occurs in many places in the animal kingdom. Dogs will adopt orphaned dogs and even members of other species cats etc. Many animals in the primate family will share food and assist in defense and warning of their species and even other primate species. Dogs and monkeys are both social animals as are Humans. But really the key thing to notice is that these animals can't be practicing Christians.

So from there we can effectively reason that altruism has a basis in biology and requires no outside lawgiver to illuminate its principles for us. But what about the altruism that humans display that goes beyond the pale?

Firstly I would like to posit that altruism to a certain extent is enabled by abundance. If I have more than what I need, why wouldn't I share it. It violates no immediate need of my own, and in fact to a cognitive, imaginative planner like a human presents future opportunities for reciprocity. Now reciprocity is not guaranteed, but one can reasonably expect a certain degree of gratitude from recipients. Compliance to reciprocity is also guaranteed by the fear of reprisal either in the form of immediate action or the possible withholding of future generosity on the part of the original giver. Ultimately as beings capable of long term planning we are able to weigh short term gain against longer term gain. So sharing now when we have abundance costs us very little actually as we enjoy that abundance, and enables or makes more likely the possibility of others abundance coming our way when we are in a disadvantageous position. This reasoning also follows for the rule of law and why people generally respect it. You can kill, rape, steal all you like if you're strong enough to get away with it. But you have to sleep, and you have to get old. So eventually someone stronger is going to come along and take care of you. By abiding by laws and applying them more or less fairly to everyone in society, people ensure their longer term needs by mutual co operation.

Second I would like to show how extreme altruism the give till it hurts variety is motivated by the immaterial(duh) and is not always a good thing, and can in fact be motivated by secular and selfish concerns. Extreme altruism can be triggered by immaterial rewards, like heaven. It can also be sought for more earthly but still very immaterial things. One can practice extreme altruism to achieve fame, and praise as well as securing the good opinion of others. This has obvious benefits, both for achieving future material success as well as in effect building up credit for future less altruistic acts. I think its interesting that in order to be considered a nice person you have to act like a nice person, raising the question of 'does motive even matter'? Extreme altruism can also be a product of a biologically driven desire to display superiority to potential mates(I'm such good provider/so strong that I can afford to share). But the principles underlying extreme altruism can have a darker side. What is evil if not the conscious exertion of will, of turning away from a palpably and materially better outcome towards a patently worse one. A person(functioning properly) would never do that unless motivated by the immaterial.

I feel the first kind of altruism the material, selfish, and limited kind is more reliable and reasonable and generally more desirable than the second more extreme kind of altruism. It provides more than enough of a basis for a compassionate, lawful, and reasonable society and can be counted on to behave more or less consistently. If one takes a utilitarian view, such as others needs are more important than my superfluous comforts it even allows for impressive acts of charity.

And in any case its a much better reason than a stone tablet offered by a genocidal madman who spoke to burning bushes.