Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"?
Because depending on which meaning you intend, your final sentence can be read in two very different ways. If it's the first, I'm not completely sure you and fighterpilot are necessarily disagreeing? If it's the second meaning, then it's a somewhat bold claim to say that personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism.
>Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"?
I'm using it to mean "unrelated to" (canonical CS meaning of "orthogonal" as well).
But, here's the catch, note that I used a double negative in my phrasing. so, I'm not saying they are othogonal, I'm saying they're not orthogonal. That is, I don't consider "being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part" (the second part being the "helping" we were discussing).
So, it's not that "personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism", it's that lack of altruism works against effectivly helping people.
That said:
>Who cares if it's more self serving as long as they do get the the second part?
People like me, who don't consider it being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part.