Julie writes: > It has always been my contention that there is no such > thing as real altruism because the person acting altruistically finds > pleasure in being altruistic or they wouldn't be .... what am I missing? Nothing, as far as I can see. As I wrote in my first post on this thread: "It seems to me they (sacrifiers or whatever the active participle is) mostly just go ahead and do what they think should be done at the moment ie what makes them feel good, or, failing that, feel better." But perhaps the societal value and definition of altruism (like that of sacrifice, I contend) lies in the beholder's view of it. That is - it doesn't matter why you did what you did, what matters is the fact that you did it. Eric makes a good point about the total absence of a rational process in some "high action" sacrifice processes, saying of his pit bull encounter: "There was no weighing of values. There was just immediate action." Yesterday on the beach a big growling dog with hackles raised and teeth bared came bounding up behind my older son as he was skipping stones on the water. I am normally terrified of strange dogs in the developing world - not least because of the ever-present possibility of rabies - but I just found myself running straight for the dog before it could get to Sebastian, waving my arms and shrieking an English vocative particle at it. The point being, not whether mine was a correct course of action, but the fact that no thought whatsoever preceded it. Of course, absence of rational thought isn't a sine qua non for sacrifice. Consider Captain Oates spending some time writing in his journal before calmly announcing: "I am just going outside and may be some time." All best, Mirembe ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html