What would an atheist do?

In a way, I was suggesting yet another stimulus or reason for doing what we do (emotions), to go along with those you and others had already suggested (what we believe to be the gods' will, "evolutionary selfishness", etc.), and to which we could add more (peer pressure, the subconscious, etc.). But I would not say that any one of those motivations has precedence.

What I was claiming is that we can arrive at a "reasonable" answer by a rational process, and that this rational process will take into account our emotions, drives, knowledge, beliefs, etc. And I further believe that, if there truly is a "right" answer, then the rational process will lead us to it regardless of our religious beliefs (I did not make this last point in my previous post).

(I'll write a little more later, while I'm drinking my coffee this morning, about why I think there is no single "right" answer.)

As regards the quote. It kind of supports my opinions, but it's real objective was just to motivate further discussion based on a variation of the original situation you proposed. Often , modifying some parameters throws a new light. The logical guy (who traditionally comes off as the geeky wierdo not-quite-human atheist type) is talking to the emotional guy (who traditionally comes off as the generally well intentioned, but also righteous dogmatic duty-bound, all-too-human military-religious type). Parameters that changed : the population facing extinction is not innocent (it is even generally considered to be thoroughly evil), and the decision is being made publicly (given the general feeling about that population, the logical guy would be wise to keep his mouth shut).

(I also wish to point out, on an unrelated note, that evolution can be understood to favor some "altruistic" behavior, given a suitable definition of "altruistic".)

And now for the long answer...

The question is fun to discuss, but it is also misleading (not intentionally, of course). It trades on some traditional problems in defining what counts as “altruism”, “selfishness”, “self-interest”, “self-sacrifice”, etc. These notions are used in a way to suggest that the action really is useless or even detrimental to the person (the argument goes, if it’s there’s anything in it for you at all, then it’s not “completely altruistic”, whatever that may mean). That’s why the situation typically involves giving up one’s life, presupposing the premise that this is actually detrimental (which everyone concedes without really thinking about it).

Trouble is, when you stop and question the very premises that the situation presupposes but doesn’t actually state, the whole question becomes much less clear. There are few (I actually doubt there are any) situations where an action (1) is reasonable and (2) only benefits other people. Also, taking it as a discussion between atheists (or, as was later suggested, “evolutionists”) and Christians, has its pitfalls as well.

About giving up one’s life : for this to be truly altruistic (insofar as altruism is actually intelligent), we need to establish that it outweighs all the good we will do for others if we stay alive. If our dying is of less benefit to others than our staying alive, then how is it more altruistic? Sure, it’s more poetic and dramatic and all, but is that a serious argument? And how will we establish this? We don’t sacrifice our lives “for no reason at all”, because that is detrimental to ourselves and to others.

About the Christian view : doesn’t the fact that God will reward us make it a self-interested gesture? How can the decision be really altruistic then? This isn’t a bad thing, but it does kind of defeat the question. We’re left with trying to come up with a better situation and we hang up on this : are there any actions that are good only if God exists? (I do believe the traditional example is sacrificing your son for no other reason than “god said so”. And to this I could only answer, nothing that qualifies as a god would demand such a thing.)

About the “evolutionist” view : evolved altruistic behavior is not impossible at all. Evolution doesn’t just consider the survival of individuals, it also considers the survival of the species. As long as self-sacrificial tendencies are in some cases advantageous for the species, then it may well be selected for. Obviously, if all individuals sacrifice themselves for no good reason at all, it doesn’t work. But we’re not talking “all individuals” and “for no good reason at all” here, are we? Furthermore, an organism sacrificing itself for another species (say, its own species’ main food source) can be very beneficial as well.

About the future consequences of one’s actions : how can we tell that an action is certainly of absolutely no advantage to us? I certainly wouldn’t sacrifice myself for a population of mosquitoes or amoebas, but hey, you never know. Maybe not saving some bacteria means that we won’t have a cure for the plague that wipes out humanity? So where do we draw the line?

In a very real sense (I mean, not just poetic), morally, what we do is what we vote for. The question boils down to “Would you rather live in a universe where people do X (say, sacrifice themselves under such and such conditions) or not?” And this is something we can discuss practically and meaningfully. And our real answer is not how we rationalize our behavior, but how we decide, what we choose, and how we act (whether we admit to it or not).