wuliheron wrote:
Possession is nine tenths of the law, while intent is the last tenth and the hardest to prove. You could argue that everything everyone ever does is ego-centric, and evolutionary biology does just that. Even when people die saving the lives of others there is an argument that evolution promotes such behavior because before modern civilization we were very likely to be genetically related to these people we might save.

The same could be said for wiping your butt, we are social animals and even puppy dogs know instinctually to wander outside the nest to deficate. This can therefore be seen as another means of insuring the survival of the species rather than merely the individual. Anyway, my point is that your post requires more illucidation if people are to discuss the topic meaningfully.

~vince~ wrote:

Are you suggesting that motivations regarding group survival are ego-centrically based? Or the reverse?

unenlightened wrote:
I would say that what makes an act egotistical or not is the thinking behind it.

You know the slogan, 'Think global, act local.' If I feed myself etc, with the thought that my hunger is more important than anyone else's then I am egotistical, but if I do it because it is simply practical to keep this body healthy in order to be able to feed others, then it is not.

The self, I would say is a structure and habit of thought, that then is acted upon as selfish behaviour, but the same behaviour can possibly come from another source.

It is surely not the case that a truly selfless person must starve himself to death, that would be foolish, except in very special circumstances.

unenlightened wrote:

I think it happens that people can be unselfish and do for others, but when you make it into an 'ism' then the old ego is playing with the image of being a fine altruistic fellow - which is nonsense.