Two things that I should have added in my previous response:

First, we also seem to be genetically wired not just to be morally good, but also to be morally bad -- it all depends on what will benefit us most.

Secondly, our environment and our upbringing are important too. It isn't all genetics, not in the least.

As a quick response to what Xanthro wrote as well:

Alleviating the problem of hunger is just an easy example to use of doing something good; that and it doesn't mean simply handing someone who is hungry a piece of bread. This is too detailed to enter into the discussion. If we were to discuss what good behaviors we should engage in and how they're good and why, then we would be getting into social policy issues, which for now I'll happily avoid.

And humans do have altruism, absolutely. My point (and really the point of many researchers in cognitive neuroscience and psychology from whom I took the point) is that altruism is based on the fact that we have a subconscious interest in helping out people with similar genes, though it is much more complicated than that.

With the points in the last few paragraphs of your posting on page 19 I agree very much. If I seemed like I would disagree with them then I didn't write clearly before. Ethical behavior doesn't require seeking out unknown people to help; we do typically help others for selfish reasons, such as the fact that it makes us happy and the fact that it makes us happy is our brain rewarding us for something that our genes want us to do -- I do want to add that point to yours. Reciprocal altruism is not supposed to be a conscious effort at all times. The whole point of it is that it is hardwired into our decision-making faculties, that it is not thought out. Your last paragraph, again, I agree with, but it comes too close to policy issues that I don't want to delve into. And precisely what it isn't is a duty to do good -- that is where ethics gets itself tangled with something like religious belief and loses all ability to free itself.

I would add as well that alleviating hunger in Africa is not a bad goal; but the plan to reach the goal (colonial missionaries) is a highly flawed method. It failed because it was a bad plan, but not because the ideal was a wrong one.

Xanthro: Suffering is a uniquely human feeling. Animals do not worry about whether other animals are suffering.

It's fairly shocking to read these kind of clearly anthropocentric statements from someone who is otherwise a fairly intelligent person. They seem to derive from a person who may never actually have spent any time at all with other animals, or in fact may never have actually seen one, even on TV. Darwin once remarked that the suffering of the lower animals was almost more than he could bear.

How is it that Xantrho knows, and knows rather emphatically, what animals may or may not "worry" about? The arrogrance of human beings seems inexhaustabile.

Xanthro: Suffering is a uniquely human feeling. Animals do not worry about whether other animals are suffering.

Ballsee: It's fairly shocking to read these kind of clearly anthropocentric statements from someone who is otherwise a fairly intelligent person. They seem to derive from a person who may never actually have spent any time at all with other animals, or in fact may never have actually seen one, even on TV. Darwin once remarked that the suffering of the lower animals was almost more than he could bear.

---------------------

Am I anthropocentric? Absolutetly. The problem is too many humans apply human traits and feelings to animals instead of accepting animals for what their own unique traits.

I've spent far more time among animals, domestic and wild than probably 99% of the members on this board.

We cannot prove Animals worry about anything, much less

about other animals. While some primates seem to worry about members of their own group, I'm talking about animals worrying about differnt animals.

Snakes don't worry over the state of their food, that's eaten alive, neither do lions, tigers or any predators.

Think about Darwin's statement, as it proves rather disproves my point. It is Darwin worrying about the suffering of the lower animals, not the other animals inflicting the damage that causes the suffering.

==========================

Ballsee: How is it that Xantrho knows, and knows rather emphatically, what animals may or may not "worry" about? The arrogrance of human beings seems inexhaustabile.

-------------------------------------

Spend time with animals and not just domestic ones and you'll come to the same conclusion. Animals viewed from human standards are often cruel and mean. To say that animals worry about causing suffering in other animals would also require that we accept that animals are evil, as they willing inflict horrible deaths upon each other.

Animals aren't evil, they have no such emotions, and it's wrong and dangerous to apply human standards to animals.

I first became vegetarian about 10 years ago and then became a vegan a year after that, for animal suffering/health reasons. Also, frankly, I've never been a big fan of eggs and I grew up in Iowa with a dairy farmer for a grandpa, so we had to drink milk constantly. I didn't like it so much. I also cry during nature shows when any animals die. This made veganism ultimately seem very appealing to me. I get sick less than I used to and I feel like I eat pretty well. I also know a few people who tried being vegan or vegetarian for awhile and it didn't go so well. They became anemic or thin or sallow or what have you. So I know that it's not a choice that is going to work for everyone. My boyfriend eats meat and so does my family. I don't bug them about what they eat and they don't bug me. It's a personal choice. So I've never understood why some people feel the need the argue with me about it and try to rope me into moronic "but what would you do if you were trapped on a barren island and had to eat meat to survive"-type conversations. I am healthy and maintain a normal weight eating the way I do. If it hasn't killed me after nine years I don't think it will. So anyway, what I actually wanted to say was that he makes some good points about factory farming (which is completely destroying the livelihood of independent family farms like my late grandpa's, by the by) and how terribly the animals are treated. Is it really so trying to buy cage-free eggs or free-range meat? Hunting (if you eat what you kill, anyway) is also infinitely preferable to buying from these places. The situation reminds me a bit of the way people don't really care if the clothes they buy are made in sweat shops as long as they're cheaper. Or don't care if the workers at Wal-Mart are payed terrible wages with next to no benefits if it means they get their shower curtains at reduced prices. I know that a lot of people don't have much choice in the things they buy and have to go for the cheapest option regardless of their own moral qualms. But when you can afford to make a choice in your purchases, why not go with what causes the least suffering? Also, from what I hear anyway, organic and free-range animal products taste better than those that come out of factory farms. I'm sorry that I've rambled so much but I just thought there should be a little vegan representation. We're not all strident and out to convert you. We're just making a personal choice.