mixed_biscuits, no offense, but your theory on the nature of altruism is just preposterous. It fails to recognise the central idea of morality so entirely that I wonder whether anyone but an autistic person or a total cynic could have come up with a warped concept like that. It's hard to even begin to point out all the implausible aspects and inconsistencies in your proposition but, seeing that people actually agree with you, I can't allow this nonsense to stand uncorrected.
The contentious point in the discussion was whether the apparent pleasure of commiting a morally virtuous act implicates that this very act, because of the joy it brings, is in fact a selfish one. Sick boy rightly pointed out that the capacity for enjoying this kind of ethically desirable action reveals a certain personal disposition towards morally-oriented behaviour and is therefore to be seen as the effect, not the cause of an individual's morality. You seem to agree with his. But at the same time you assume that some people, for whom moral choices are "arduous", in an act of volition, overcome their selfish impulses and do the right thing. According to you, this willful effort to act morally virtuous is, somehow, rewarded with "pleasure". Eventually, over the course of one's life, these feelings of pleasure will become so powerful that they outweigh one's initial tendency towards egoistical behaviour. In the end, you say, one is so habituated to the warm fuzzies of righteousness that, faced with a moral predicament, there is not even a chance of acting like a despicable person because doing the right thing just feels so damn good. You're suggesting that altruism, in effect, is some kind of moral masturbation, a mere result of life-long self-conditioning.
The major misunderstanding of your reasoning is to assume that the pleasurable side-effect of altruistic actions, i.e. a good conscience, is desired by absolutely everybody, even those individuals who are normally inclined to act only to their benefit. According to you, altruistic behaviour is indeed determined by a certain innate disposition, but at the same time you presume that the satisfying feeling of acting morally virtuous can be achieved by all invididuals, as if it were a basic physical gratification much like an orgasm. Hence, you say, this very sensation must be the primary and general motive for altruistic behaviour. The same way one can lead a life in pursuit of other pleasures, e.g. frequent sex or luxury, "one gradually forms one's positions according to the shape of morally virtuous behaviour", as you put it. This idea is completely flawed. Think about it - how important is a good conscience to most people? Do we not live in a world where selflishness, ruthlessness, corruption and mendacity are the order of the day? Our economic system is based upon mutual exploitation, politics is just a more or less disguised struggle for power, and in everday life people will treat each other like shit. This is not a pessimistic, but simply an accurate view of humanity. The reality of human life is not suitable for an, if you will, altruistic lifestyle. No individual develops a sense of integrity in the way you described it; when faced with a moral choice, people will naturally take advantage of the situation, but never will they surrender immediate benefits for the negligible sensation of a good conscience. So, the exact opposite of what you're saying is the case: On top of their natural, almost endless egoism, human beings are conditioned by experience to act even more selfishly. And are you really saying that a person struggling for uprightness will reach a point at which a moral choice ceases to be troublesome altogether? That's ludicrous! In what parallel universe do you live?! The longer one has tried to live as a good person, the more shit one has taken from others, the harder, if not impossible, it becomes for oneself to maintain a moral code, it begins to seem absurd or even self-destructive. You finally realize that in order to survive you may have to become like all the others, the ones you have always despised.
Still selflessness and morality exist. How? What is the basis of these virtues? Well, it is obvious, but still you completely disregard this fundamental aspect of altruism: compassion. The motivation of every morally virtuous act is to prevent the suffering of others, the good conscience that accompanies such deeds is secondary (and very often does not effectively compensate for the disadvantages the compassionate person accepts in order to alleviate the pain of others). Altruistic behaviour is spontaneous. Think for example of someone drowning, screaming for help. Some will immediately feel the urge to help, jump into the floods and risk their own life in order to save the person. Most people, however, will do nothing or merely call for help while watching the person go down. And, admittedly, in no way it is condemnable not to risk one's life for a stranger. But a few, very few individuals will, spontaneously, do everything to save another human being's life. This kind of selflessness is the most beautiful thing in the world. It has nothing to do with the expectancy of a pleasurable feeling in the aftermath, as you describe it, it is diametrically opposed to that - all that counts is the well-being of another, in the most extreme scenario the altruistic person will try to achieve this at the expense of his own life. For Schopenhauer compassion is the "primal phenomenon of ethics", an empirically ascertainable characteristic of human beings that, in effect, permeates every concept of morality that we have. In so far, compassion is the very foundation of morality but what is the cause of being compassionate in the first place? According to Schopenhauer, this is a metaphysical question as it requires to interpret this particular aspect of human existence in regard to what it actually means. Personally, I find Schopenhauer's answer - compassion is an expression of overcoming individuation, of tearing down the wall between "I" and "You" and recognising the oneness and holiness of every being - more convincing than the gene-related evolutionary explanations offered (so far) for the occurrence of altruistic behaviour.