Hmm, I sort of saw it the other way around - that you were the one making a dismissive case. I saw you finding exceptions, and then leveraging that to suggest (essentially) that all cases are exceptions i.e. that there is no such thing as a "true" act of altruism - essentially because no act is "purely" unselfish.
I may have misinterpreted, but I did not mean to make it personal, I was intending to address what I saw as a logical flaw in the argument, not criticize you.
Dont worry - I didn't see it as anything personal, just saw it as a dismissal of an argument without discussion. But I accept that that was not your intention.
By 'extremes', I meant hypothetical cases of acts that are 100% selfish, and cases that are 100% selfless.
By 'middle', I mean hypothetical cases of acts that are not 100% self-serving, and have a component of selflessness to them.
You seemed to be arguing that, ultimately, self-serving interests and altruistic acts are mutually exclusive (since you said any amount of self-serving means it isn't "truly" altruistic.)
I see your argument as saying:
1] If an act has a selfish component, then it cannot be "truly" altruistic.
2] Every act must have some component of selfishness to it (by your reaction to cluelesshusband's ultimate act of sacrifice).
And I cannot help but draw the conclusion from these that "truly" selfish acts cannot exist in your view.
If those are not the logical points of your argument, then I am happy to be corrected.
1. Yes, if I refer to "truly" altruistic then that would be reference to the absolute position, the extreme.
2. Not sure I agree with this. I only picked up on his explicit statement that he was motivated by alleviating his own trouble. Is it possible that someone can do something entirely without expectation of any personal reward at all, psychologically or otherwise. I actually think it's possible (or at least I am not dismissing the idea), but if so then it is not as often as might seem to be the case. if I am motivated by duty, by guilt, by a desire to feel happy, then this I see as negating an act as being "truly" altruistic.
But I accept that from what I have described as a biological viewpoint it would possibly be identified as altruistic.
3. I think you meant to conclude that truly altruistic acts cannot exist in my view? Well, I think they might, given what I have said above.
But it goes to definition/understanding, I think. If you mix what I see as a biological viewpoint (judges altruism or selfishness by outcome) with psychological viewpoint (motivation) then you will get confusing results: an altruistic outcome may be the result of an apparent selfish motivation etc.
Having reflected on the above, I think this boils down to a very simple case of Proof by Contradiction.
Premise:
A given altruistic act does not qualify as a "truly" altruistic act if it has a self-serving component. (argued on post 53)
Counter:
Even a man who acts because he literally has a gun to his head is still acting in his own interests, and it therefore qualifies as self-serving. (This is not an outrageous example: CluelessHusband's example had him sacrificing his soul for his loved one. And that was suggested as having a self-serving component.)
Thus, an act that has no self-serving component is not an act of free-will at all. i.e.: altruism, as an act of free will, cannot exist.
So either altruism does not exist, or the premise is false.
Your conclusion seems to be a non sequitur as I cannot see where the issue of free will comes from, and why you're concluding that an act with no self-serving component is not an act of fre-will? Neither your premise nor your counter states (or implies) that an act of free will must include a self-serving component? Is this what you are suggesting?
Note, at this juncture I'm only disputing the logic of your argument, not the intention or conclusion, which I will reserve until I can see that the argument is logical.