The only reason why organics function is for selfish benefit

[x2theone2x]

The other dolphins gain something either emotionally or physically from the transactions with "Stumpy". It's quite clear within the PDF you linked me, killer whales have very strict, close-knit family bonds. Therefore one example would be fulfilling the norm within their "society", but it could be for any number of reasons.

Well not really. Stumpy has changed pod at least 5 times with the same behaviour being observed in each. Whilst the original pod contained family members the later ones certainly do not (Orca's dont change group that often - certainly not 5 times as recorded).

The behaviour of other orca's towards stumpy could be for any number of reasons, sure, but one of those, and apparently the most likely, is altruism.

That's completely an illogical standpoint, all decisions factually cause an emotional response and/or a physical response, thus altruism cannot exist. I don't even see how anyone could rationalize such a thing as existing.

---

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.

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.

How does that not disqualify that action as self-sacrifice: "the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause." I'll give an example: John was a father to a child of two, john proclaims to love them very, very much. As they grew older, both had been discovered to have horrible kidneys. At one point in time, both of Johns children needed a kidney drastically, he could choose one, none, or both (death). The choice in reality doesn't matter from my position, none would be heroism or sacrifice. But, lets say John chose to give up both his kidneys so both his children could live. He chooses death to provide life for another(s), from a societal perspective the ultimate sacrifice, an altruistic example. Prior to the operation, John receives emotional comfort knowing his children will be able to continue to live, and the other emotional or physical comfort he could feel is near infinite. John sacrificed his organs, but he never gave up his own interests, because if it went against his interests it wouldn't have been done. The act of providing both his kidneys may have been adopted after the news of his children, and if it was, that is now the interest or wish.