Altruism

There’s something unsatisfactory about the puzzle over altruism, as expounded in this New Scientist article, fretting about how come people do kind things like donating to tsunami appeals (via AL Daily….and Butterflies and Wheels).

In evolutionary terms it is a puzzle because any organism that helps others at its own expense stands at an evolutionary disadvantage. So if many people really are true altruists, as it seems, why haven’t greedier, self-seeking competitors wiped them out?

At the end of the article, three possible motives are given for an act of generosity. Firstly, because it makes us feel good (chemicals in the brain); secondly because it makes us look good (increased prestige); and thirdly, because of belief systems like religion which promise rewards and punishments for our actions.

The scientific study of altruism is a fascinating field, and evolutionary biologists like Bill Hamilton have made important contributions to our understanding, but you don’t have to be a Romantic to think that this is all depressingly reductionist when it comes to human morality. If asked why you’d rushed over to help that man who’d just collapsed on the pavement, is “because it was the right thing to do” not a sufficient answer? If pressed – So, come on, what was the real reason you helped him? Was it because you thought people might be watching who you hoped would be impressed? – or because you thought it would increase your chances of going to heaven? – or was it because you thought that helping might provide an example whereby people would help you if you collapsed on the street at some point? – you’d very likely resent the implication that ultimately you were just looking out for number one. And if that’s true for an individual case of morality in action, why is it not true in general? We’re moral animals. Yes, it’s an interesting question as to why that is, but you’re going to need culture and language and all sorts to explain it, not just individual cost-benefit calculations. There doesn’t need to be a deeper reason than the moral reason. In situations like donating to charity appeals, or helping someone in trouble, morality is sufficient as an explanation: “it was the right thing to do“. Nor is it necessarily true that the more reductionist you are, the more scientific you are.