(February 3, 2014 at 11:19 pm)x2theone2x Wrote: I shouldn't have to have any means of measuring intent. because if the action occurred the intent was obviously there. If he did the action it factually cannot be selfish, they either gained emotionally or physically. I may not be able to comphrehend what you're asking or even trying to convey, as it seems what your asking was covered in my original post. If you think I'm incorrect on the interpretation of your post, please, reiterate.
You must have some means of discovering intent; otherwise, you are just supporting your pet theory by decree. Science doesn't work that way, except perhaps in North Korea.
Also, identifying some possible emotional or physical benefit to an organism due to some event doesn't disqualify an action as sacrifice or bolster your position. It's the same as saying going to prison is good for you since you get three meals a day.
There are those out there that take moral psychology seriously. You should at least understand what the science says regarding self-sacrifice prior to expounding in a vain attempt to name a theory.
Quote: We rarely hear stories of people sacrificingothers in footbridge-types of situations, while acts of self-sacrifice, particularly in their extremeforms, are often a central theme in cultural myths, religious texts, historical records and newsreports.
http://www.academia.edu/1236961/The_Role..._Judgments
The authors of the linked paper went out of their way to cite 20 other works. Read through the titles of the references. At a minimum you should probably understand the work that has already been done and prevailing thoughts on the topic from people that actively work in the field.
