Was about to touch on the Richard Dawkin perspective as an answer to the OP, but was pleased to see you already covered this. As to a parent’s feelings towards an adopted child, I would 100% agree that the same dynamic occurs - if for no other reason than the fact that adoption (on any meaningful scale) is a very recent phenomenon in terms of human evolution. As a result, “parent genes” accept adopted children as being largely similar to (or the same as) biological children.
Your girlfriend doesn’t have a child.
She quite literally does not know what she’s talking about.
'Struth! Depression can bring on self-hatred, in comparison to which any love for anyone is a higher love.
I love my sister much more than I love myself…but, yeah, I’m depressed…
Absolutely. If I had a choice of living and my kid dying vs. dying and my kid living, I wouldn’t hesitate even for a moment.
I don’t have kids and I agree with you (though I’d probably couch it in nicer terms if talking to the girlfriend). I can understand intellectually how a parent can love a child more than him/herself, but I haven’t felt it. So it’s a purely intellectual discussion without having had that same feeling myself.
Okay, how 'bout this:
Is it possible to love someone more than yourself if that person is not your child and you have healthy self-esteem?
I say, sure it is. Happens all the time. It’s called “falling in love”.
I don’t think the argument can easily be proven or disproved. People have sacrificed themselves for loved ones as long as there have been people. That’s an awful lot of history and cultures over the course of human evolution.
But let’s take humans out of the picture for a second. Bees will sacrifice themselves to protect the hive. Other animals will engage in dangerous or self-sacrificing behavior to protect their offspring, or their group.
This seems to indicate that rather than “societal pressure” on an ego, it may be more about protecting the group/offspring. And that the drive may be biological/internal rather than societal/external.
Those that sacrifice themselves for an ideal, however, may be in a different category.
I guess in short, you have to first recognize that there are different drives and reasons for self-sacrificial behavior, and that one size, does not fit all.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I don’t love myself. We just have a mutually beneficial understanding.
Friends with benefits?
Well, if saying you love someone more than yourself, believing you love someone more than yourself, and even acting as if you love that person more - if all that’s not enough, then what proof would she need?
It’s not like love is something that can be observed under a microscope; it’s a subjective feeling that’s demonstrated objectively by the choices we make in the external world. If you believe love exists at all, then feeling it and acting like a loving person is all that someone needs to prove they love someone.
Of course, some people don’t believe that love exists at all, and I think that’s a much more defensible position than saying that love does exist but you’ll always love yourself more.
Personally, I don’t love myself anyway. I don’t hate myself either. The feelings I have about myself have nothing to do with love or hate or anything in between. I certainly don’t get that warm rush of affection when I catch sight of myself in the mirror like I sometimes do when I look at (or even think about) the people I love.
Do you believe it is possible to love another person more than you love yourself?
Isn’t that pretty much the definition of love: where someone else’s happiness and well-being becomes essential to your own?
I’m not sure if I’m convinced that self-sacrifice for ones child qualifies as a metric for love. I can see why it seems that way, but I can just as easily explain it away via evolutionary instinct. That is, parents sacrifice for children because we evolved that way. And we evolved that way because it encourages reproductive success for the heirs and by extension reproductive success for ourselves.
That said, I’m more interested in my husband’s happiness than my own. I’m not sure if it is due to love, but there you go. One could argue that we’re simply co-dependent.
See, I get myself turned in circles with this, though. Because I feel the same way - I’m more interested in my wife’s happiness than my own. But why? Because it makes me happy when she’s happy. If it no longer made me happy to make her happy, would I still care more about making her happy? I don’t know.
So mostly, I just order dessert and worry about other things.
Kinda scary, ain’t it?
It isn’t just that, when someone appeared to threaten my children, I wanted to kill them. I wanted to bite them.
[QUOTE=tdn]
I’d argue that one would sacrifice no less for their adopted child, though.
[/QUOTE]
I, and IIRC RTFirefly, can vouch for that.
Regards,
Shodan
I suspect the answer has more to do with the interaction of social and biologocal evolution - humans have, as a species, a predeliction for organizing themselves into groups, families and gangs that are partly but not entirely based on biological relationships - and then fiercely defending those groups.
This behaviour has the indirect effect of fostering one’s genes, and this indirect effect explains, from an evolutionary perspective, why many activities that on the surface appear to be directly detrimental to genetic survival are really not necessarily - for example, individuals dying to save the group.
Similarly, support and care for adopted children. Those children will grow up to (presumably) support the group. Supporting a kid not related to you may do nothing for your individual genes directly, but if they help out your existing kids, or your sister’s kids, it’s still all good.
Pretty much. Thanks, RickJay - nailed it in one.
This thread is kind of a rehash of the old argument, “Is there any such thing as selflessness?”
If you commit a selfless act, you are doing it because it pleases you, brings you a perceived status you want, etc. Therefore it is selfish.
Similarly, if you loved someone else more than you loved yourself, the only way to prove it would be to do something that would be good for them, but bad for you in every conceivable way. For some, this would mean giving up their own lives to save the life of the other person. But even then you get into the question of, “well maybe they only did it because they wanted to be considered a hero, or because they felt obligated, etc.”
I guess if you sacrificed your life for someone else’s benefit, even though you knew everyone (including that person) was going to hate you throughout all of history, that would be pretty selfless.
There was a thread here a few months back where a hypothetical was posed, “If you could save 1000 cancer patients from dying, but it would mean that the person you love most in your life would hate you and want nothing to do with you for the rest of your life?” I think that if you do choose to save those 1000 cancer patients (and get no recognition for it), that’s pretty selfless, and it would prove that you love those other people more than you love yourself. Or at least, it’d be pretty strong evidence because you’d have no reward, you’d suffer a lot, your name would be mud, etc.
I always thought that the definition of love is caring more about someone else’s happiness than your own.
She is kinda right and kinda wrong.
I do believe that there is no such thing as genuine altrusim, but not because I think that people desire to be perceived as altruistic (although certainly many do) but because it simply feels good to them to do good for others. They are fortunate enough that giving feels good to them, so doing what feels good to them is perceived by others in a very positive light that they get to benefit from, but the fundamental motivation is still their organic, internal desire to do what feels good to them.
I have a few organic responses that the people in my life like to praise highly as being unusually bitchen on some level, but I know the reality of it: it’s just what’s true for me. I’m just marvelously fortunate that some of the things that are really real for me deep in the darkness of my inner self where no one ever gets to go happen to be things which appear to be unusually “good” in the eyes of others. But I can’t take any ownership of it, because I’m not working at it, I’m not overcoming anything to be that way, it’s just how I am. I’m not proud, I’m just grateful, int he same way I would be if I was born incredibly beautiful or freakishly talented - it would be a gift I received, not the result of an effort I made.
On the other hand, I DO feel pride in the things I did have to work for and choose and make happen, I feel pride when I do work to overcome my flaws of character and manage to be better than my nature would have me if left alone. Those things I can get a little strutty about.
As for the core question - I don’t have children, but it has been impressed upon me that a healthy love for one’s child can supersede all other care and concern one has for anyone, including oneself, and the evidence supports it. And that makes sense: once you’ve reproduced and raised your child, evolution doesn’t give a shit about you anymore, you can go. And if it comes down to a choice between you and your offspring, you SHOULD go, so evolution would favor that POV, and it would be “in the genes” at this point.
Whether that degree of selflessness in favor of someone one loves shows up very often outside of parent/child relationships is another question. My feelinig is that it doesn’t much.
Yep. I think not only would I die for her, I’d kill for her. However, having no upper body strength and never having handled a gun, I feel the world is safe from me.