Are humans naturally altruistic?

[Steven]

This question was raised at the Humanism talk and discussed a bit but I find it to be very interesting and worth exploring further.

There are some who think that humans are born with an innate sense of altruism. Others think that we are selfish by nature. And others still argue that humans learn to be either altruistic or selfish.

I personally am in favour of the idea (popularized by Richard Dawkins) that altruism is the result of a kind of misfiring of our natural desire to propagate our own genes or those of our close kin. For most of the millions of years of human evolution, humans lived together in small bands composed (mostly) of closely-related individuals. By helping one's close relatives, there was a greater chance that your genes (or some of them at least) would get passed on to future generations. Since humans have only been living together in large communities for a few thousand years, this tendency continues even though we are no longer only surrounded by close kin.

This seems the most plausible explanation to me. Obviously, culture also plays a large role in codifying behaviour and norms can be a powerful motivator. But I still think that the foundation is a biological one.

I think we have some biologists and/or zoologists here so maybe they can shed more light on this. Can a behaviour such as altruism be genetically inherited? It seems to me that a particular gene could cause certain chemical changes in the brain which could alter behaviour.

Maybe I'm way off but I want to know what other people think about this question.

[trevor]

I also find this topic quite interesting, and to be honest, if humanists really believe in the altruism of humans, I can't call myself a humanist.  I'm not a biologist or zoologist, but I'll share my thoughts.

On the topic of nature vs. nurture, I am all for nature; I don't think nurture ever makes a real difference.  Being a computer scientist, I make the analogy that your genes (nature) determine your brain's hardware -- your talents, propensities, and limitations.  Nurture gives you the software -- your skills, experience, and knowledge.  No matter what software you try to run, you will be limited by the hardware you start with.  Many people say that experiences you have when you are a child have a big impact on the person you grow up to be, but I would argue that you are predisposed to respond a certain way to an experience because of your brain's hardware -- the only thing nurture has done is expose you to that stimulus.  You are not really the sum of your experiences, you are the sum of your responses to those experiences.

So, given that, I would reject the idea that we learn to be altruistic of selfish as we grow up.  If we could be taught to lean one way, it would only be with some kind of Pavlovian conditioning.  But, to be conditioned in that way, the subject would have to get some kind of personal reward for their actions, which contradicts the definition of altruism.  If people get some kind of benefit from altruism, whether it be a feeling of happiness, a higher social standing, or the admiration of a potential mate, then can it be called altruism?  Cynics would argue that we can exhibit altruistic behaviour, but we cannot have altruistic motivations.

I don't think I'm quite that cynical though.  Another hypothesis I've heard is that altruistic behaviour is motivated by a lack of self-confidence; if you believe that other people are more important than you, then sacrificing your happiness for others is a rational decision.  Religion tends to exploit this at times -- just look at tithing.  Studies have shown at least a partial genetic basis for shyness, which is closely related to confidence. (source)

Talking about Dawkins's view specifically, I think the idea of kinship is fair, but speaking of 'close relatives' is a very relative concept (no pun intended).  Just because communities weren't a large in the past doesn't mean that people didn't have many levels of closeness then as well.  Altruism has been documented in wider social groups in animals.  Usually those acts of altruism seem to be based on reciprocity; "reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" - that is to say, by receiving favours without returning them." (wikipedia)

This post is kind of all over the place, but what it all boils down to, is whether or not humans can truly perform altruistic acts being motivated only by altruism.  I am not ruling out that possibility, but at times it seems like any sacrifice that doesn't have an immediately obvious reason is deemed altruistic.

[Steve]

To begin on my views about this issue we need to first take a look at our closest evolutionary neighbor, Pan troglodytes, better known as the Chimpanzee. 

We share 98% of our genome (the sum total of all of our genes) with the Chimpanzee.  I believe the only difference is that 2 chromosomes are fused together in the Chimpanzee where in humans this set of chromosomes is separate. 

I read a very interesting article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.html about altruism in chimps. 

The article states, that through some experimentation it was determined that chimps apparently can act altruistically to other species.  If this is the case it would present a strong argument for altruism being genetically programmed.  Both humans and chimps are members of the tribe called "Homini", which descended from a common ancestor. 

What my studies of molecular genetics have taught me is how efficient our cells are at keeping useful genes and nixing ones we don't need.  Things like genetic drift allow us to evolve and change to suit a situation.  So if we look at things in a Darwinian light we can as k ourselves, what evolutionary benefits does altruism confer?

We know that both humans and chimps are gregarious animals, that is we thrive in groups.  There is, I believe, rock solid evidence for why this is necessary.  Humans are not relatively strong compared to the mega-strength of other primates (like Gorillas).  Even with our knowledge of tools, one lone hunter with a pointed stick cannot fell a mammoth.  This needed to be done in groups.  The reason for altruism is that it can strengthen the group.  The larger and stronger the group, the more mates, the safer it is for offspring to carry on our genes. 

Altruism may seem like a sacrifice of some individual benefit for the group, however, the strength of the group is tantamount to protecting our own genetic investment if you will. 

Our common ancestor likely learned this, and thus we thrive. 

I wish I could see what turns human evolution will take in 10,000 years.  There are no more mammoths to hunt, or rival gangs of proto-humans competing for the same resources.  Perhaps as the drive for individuality and difference increase, we will see an end to "genetic" altruism in a few thousand years, granted we don't eradicate each other before that.

This is just my opinion

[Steven]

Yes, I too wonder about how humans will evolve in millennia to come (if we're still around). I would say that we are pretty much done with adapting to our physical environment; we have, in this respect, transcended evolution by natural selection. In this day and age, almost everyone lives long enough to be able to reproduce, so even genes that might not confer any particular advantage will be passed on to future generations.

However, if we are still subject to any kind of evolution, it seems like it would be adaptations that allow us to make our way through our "social environment" more effectively. I don't know what these could be but maybe our ability to "read" other people will become more refined, allowing us to guess what other people are thinking and manipulate them to our own ends (better than we currently do).

[Killbot9]

No, humans, like most animals, are naturally selfish. We only do things for other people because it makes ourselves feel better and we will get treated good in return. If you help someone with their homework, you feel a sense of superiority and importance. If you hold a door for someone you hope people see so that they think you are a great person. I personally think that altruism doesn't exist because everyone wants something in return no matter how subtle and therefore any act is a truly selfish one...

[january]

In response to those who question 'true altruism', I think there are many people in the world who are charitable beyond anything that could be called pure self-interest. Consider the atheist soldier who throws herself on a grenade to save a another soldier's life: these things happen, they are split-decisions, and they are not selfishness. People who get all Ayn Rand on these points have only their unfalsifiable claim that 'everything is self-interested'. Sacrificing your life is not selfishness. I find it pretty hard to imagine a selfish person would do such a thing for the potential post-mortem personal acclaim and attention. What about the hypochondriac who perseveres over his fears to visit an old, senile relative dying in the hospital? It's clearly not in his self-interest, and he could lie about it instead of doing it. But he still goes, and that's not selfishness or pure self-interest.

Sure, it might make an altruistic person 'feel good' by doing things to help other people. But I don't think it's the only thing that makes them happy, and it's almost certainly not the kind of behaviour that they do purely to feel personal happiness. Even if you do it out of some sense of social obligation, you are still making a choice to sacrifice something of yourself (money, personal comfort, your free time) to benefit other people in need.

I believe in the theory of neo-stoicism and contemporary virtue ethics (see Martha Nussbaum). There are people who do things primarily to help others. I don't understand how someone can look at someone like Mother Theresa (a woman who was doubtful of God's existence for more than half her life) or Ghandi and claim these people to be working from a sense of pure self-interest. I think if we are not previously very inclined to do so, we can cultivate in ourselves a sense of duty to behave somewhat altruistically, and in time feel personal benefit and happiness from this behaviour (the way a couch potato feels better after motivating herself to start an excercise regime). To claim that altruism is a delusional perversity of purely self-interested behaviour smacks of social irresponsibilty to me (after all, why feel obliged to help others if it's not 'natural'?).

[cold]

I am convinced my upbringing made me selfish. Wether I had a predisposition to be selfish and my upbringing neatly accelareted this is unbeknownst to me. I thought that altruism was fake too, but the problem with that is people see through it, there is no masking it particularily if that selfishness if manifested on a conscious level. I have struggled at becoming more altruistic, and at times have been awed by some peoples kindness. It must be possible, I think it just requires some twisted fucked up way of looking at the world.

[Katie]

Many Humanists state that humans are born altruistic, then become selfish, but I think it's more likely to be the other way around.
Like I stated in the talk on Thursday, humans are innately selfish, at least at the beginning of life. A newborn only cares for it's own wants and needs.

As the newborn interacts with others, it learns from example. It mimicks the behaviour of those around it in order to fit in better, and survive. That's why my niece started to offer things at the age of 13 months. She observed adults offering things to her, and to others, and because of her environment, she reacted the same way. If she encountered other behaviour, then she would react differently. If she recieved no stimulation or social interaction at all, then she would be an empty shell, as a few children have been observed to be in cases of extreme neglect.

To us, it seems accurate to make generalizations such as 'humans are born altruistic because people tend to be nice', but that's ignoring the fact that socialization plays a huge part in shaping human behaviours. Probably the most accurate judge of true human nature is the way that humans act when they are first born, and have not been socialized.

[cold]

so could genetics just be the seed? a small speck in the larger scheme of things?
I don't think there can be any debate as to the importance of a healthy upbringing. It's hard to find a serial killer in history that wasn't molested in one way or another. It seems the nurture aspect of this conversation is being diminished in favour of genetics which to me, is like using quantum physics to solve a problem in newtonian mechanics - ie the precision of the solution is useless.

[Steven]

It seems to me that humans are no longer as bound by biological evolution as we once were. Biological evolution gave us the large brains to develop culture, which has usurped natural selection as the dominant force for change. While I still think that kin selection is a good explanation for early altruism among humans, one cannot ignore the importance of socialization.

[trevor]

Actually, I would debate the importance of a healthy upbringing, and recent books like Freakonomics would back me up.  cold's serial killer example is also an example of a logical fallacy: correlation does not imply causation.  There may be a correlation between serial killers and molestation, but there could be a similar correlation between people that give a lot to charities and molestation.  In my view, traumatic experiences can have numerous effects; on the extremes, you have the incredibly negative ones (a lust to kill) and incredibly positives ones (giving up your life to help those in your situation).  How do we determine which way we go?  I would argue that that's where nature comes into play.

On the topic of how we are as children, it's an interesting example, but I think we also have to take into account that an adult brain differs from a child's brain in non-trivial ways.  While it's convenient to say that a child represents how we are 'naturally,' I tend to believe that we only really develop our personality once we become adults, and we have the reasoning skills that come along with growing up.  Many of us grew up in religious households; then why are we not still religious?  Is it our 'true nature' to be easily manipulated and influences?  Perhaps as children, but adults are a whole different subject.

[cold]

My example of serial killers was not to say that if you get molested you will be a serial killer, clearly correlation does not imply causation. The point here is, look what happened. People can be manipulated so horrendously when they are young that they can go and kill. Were these people genetically predetermined to be serial killers?

Trevor I would venture to say [albeit safely too] that the vast majority of people brought up in religious households follow that path. Why does religion continue to propagate so succesfully? I don't think it's midlife conversions. Are you implying that adults arn't a product of their upbringing? I'm 24 Trevor, and every now and again when good luck comes across me, I find myself wanting to thank Jesus for blessing me. Fucked up eh? That has nothing to do with genetics or reasoning skills that has everything to do with how my parents raised me.

My point here is, the nurture aspect far outweighs any predispositions we may have as a child.

We are the sheep that strove for greener pastures.

[brian]

Without going into too much detail (because it is late as hell and I have a midterm in 5 hours that I need to study like hell for), I think our economic system teaches us to be selfish.  We are constantly being bombarded with messages to buy stuff we don't need, with a lot of it just as a status symbol.  And particularly in recent times, we are being taught to only worry about ourselves, as long as I have mine everything is okay, other people (the real victims of the system) are poor and hungry because they are stupid/lazy/drunk/whatever.  These messages have a huge impact on people, and I think that is what teaches people to become selfish.

It would be difficult to see the natural state though, I would guess it would be somewhere in between.  We would obviously have to be selfish enough to take care of our own needs first, but beyond that I think we are fairly altruistic.

[Steve]

I think the issue here is what is the current 'Natural State' of a human being?  Things like economy and global trends like consumerism and immediate gratification, I believe, are a reflection of what society now believes as a whole.  I would still argue that these concepts are due to evolution.  If we try and think of what the evolutionary advantage of these things are it is simple.

I break this down as follows:

An organism has the following life functions (1) eat (2) sleep (3) deficate (4) procreate

Modern society has made it very easy for us to do 1,2 and 3.  However to pass on our genes we need to be a successful example of an organism in order to pass on our genes to the next generation.  If we were neolithic humans living in a small tribe this would be easy.  However we are not.  We have grown to a group of like 6 billion interconnected organism in a rapidly growing global community.  It is no longer a matter of who is the biggest alpha male, or who can hunt, or find shelter the best.  In order to compete to pass on our genes we need more than our peers and we need it faster.

Where then does altruism come into play?  I agree with Trevor.  I would call altruism a kind of 'meta-evolution'.  It requires higher thought processes, the kind we see in chimps or non-neonate humans.

The reason an infant is so selfish is at that time selfishness is needed to preserve life.  An infant cannot speak, only scream for what it needs.  As the brain develops more and more the infant becomes capable of the meta-cognition necessary for altrusitic actions, hence the offering of things as in Katies example.

[january]

I stumbled on this whilst researching a bioethics paper. I thought you guys might be interested, since it made me think of this little debate.

http://www.altruists.org/static/files/Genuine%20Love%20is%20more%20than%20an%20Altruists%20Daydream.pdf