Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> So if you will, here is a concession: there is no reason that I can give a
> stone egoist to care about anyone else--no internal reason, that is.
[way behind on mail-SP]
Sure there is but it requires group selection and adaptation at the group level. As you, Justin, have hinted at there is no way out of the impasse of altruism vs. egotism, at least philosophically. The answer
lies in evolutionary biology and was provided by Darwin:
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase." Descent of Man.
That is, groups of altruists or even reciprocal altruists replace(i.e. eliminate through natural selection) groups of egoists provided that group selectionist pressures are stronger than individual selection pressures. *Unto Others* by Sober and Wilson is the locus classicus in the philosophical, psychological and biological refutation of egoism and individualism.
Sam Pawlett