Biological Altruism Is A Phenomenon Defined By French Philosopher And Philosophers

Acting with an unselfish and benevolent regard towards others isn’t always the easiest thing for one to do and most people have to put in a conscious effort to do it but some people believe that human beings are hard wired to behave altruistically as a primal method of survival. Humans could never

With his provoking work entitled The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins attempts to answer such questions as he proposes a shift in the evolutionary paradigm. Working through the metaphor of a "selfish gene", Dawkins constructs an evolutionary model using a gene as the fundamental unit of selection, opposed to the more commonly accepted belief of the species as the unit of selection.

Further evidence against selfless altruism comes from the evidence that individual attributes appear to effect prosocial and altruistic behaviour being displayed. Ruggiero et al (1981) found that taller, heavier and physically stronger people are more likely to put themselves in harm’s way to help others in an emergency. This would suggest that an individual has first considered the cost to themselves of helping,

Stephen Kendrick once said, “Almost every sinful action ever committed can be traced back to a selfish motive. It is the trait we hate in other people but justify in ourselves.” The nature of human selfishness comes in various forms, distinctly different in the eyes of an individual but with similar mindsets. To put differently, there are many definitions defining selfishness, but under the surface, everyone has similar, selfless intentions.

A key factor in human nature is for people to be selfish and it is

The book of Genesis states that God created life in an array of fixed species and it was not until the 19th Century, that paleontological discoveries started to cast doubt on creationism and Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in On the Origin of the Species (Clegg, 2007, p.120). The two processes that are involved in evolution and the fundamental connections between the evolutionary process and behaviour, in particular that of altruism and whether it can be seen as an adaptive behaviour are considered here.

Donors of campaign money are one of the largest aspects of an election. In almost all elections the candidates relied on the money that comes in from donors to fund their campaign. In 2012, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney raised about a billion dollars each during the presidential campaign. Obama raised more money from donors giving $200 or less whereas Romney raised more money from donors giving $2000 or more. The individuals who contributed to this were allowed to give up to $2500. Although Obama had more donations coming in from donors giving $200 or less, he still had many large contributions help fund his campaign. Out of Obama’s top five contributors in 2012, three of them were still his top givers in his 2012 election. The top contributors are not the organizations themselves, but a combination of the organizations political action committee, individual members, owners, and

Altruism is defined as the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others. Why would someone think that certain actions are moral? There are two answers. First, altruism is naturally positive but on the contrary there are situations that decisions are made with morally bad tendencies and motivations, in circumstantial selfishness. Secondly, altruism is good because of its affirmative effects. The outcome of altruism does not only effect the person to whom the altruism is intended for, but it has its indirect ramification on society. There is truth to both of these answers. We all have experiences of acting out of an impartial concern for the health of a friend or loved one. These experiences that we have had seem to be an unambiguous instance of moral virtue. It seems likely that if our society had more acts of altruism, our world would be a better place to live than if there were no altruism at all.

However, if morality is so important, are the motives behind acting morally really all that significant? According to psychological egoism “every human action is motivated by self interest” (Rachels 64). As humans we are incapable of acting unselfishly. So what makes anyone think we could behave morally for altruistic reasons?

An oxymoron appeared to exist between Darwin’s theory of natural selection (1859) and the definition of altruism (West et al., 2006). Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness (1964) appeared to mediate this problem. However, the theory does not explain altruistic acts towards non-kin in line with natural selection. Reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971), indirect altruism (Alexander, 1987) and strong reciprocity (Gintis, 2000) have been proposed to resolve this conflict. It is of note that behaviour in all theories has been noted in animals, but will not be discussed further. Instead, the essay will focus on which theories are most relevant when understanding human sociality, with the author explaining why no sole theory is seen to describe the phenomenon. All theories will be discussed in relation to evolutionary stable strategies (ESS), which refers to plans that when adopted by a majority of members in a population that restrict any other action existing, which could yield higher reproductive success (Smith & Price, 1973).

Human beings place great value on the interests of both themselves and others. There is a certain innate desire to

People are selfish. This is a phrase that is heard over and over. The selfish nature in humans can be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve. The book of Genesis shows that selfishness pushed Adam and Eve to disobey God and do evil. As it is mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve, God let Adam and Eve to have the authority over the plants and animals; however, they were forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Kin selection relates to evolutionary advantage according to Hamilton's rule, C/B < b. The ratio of the cost, C (which is the expected loss in reproductive success for the doer) to the benefit for the recipient, B (the gain in reproductive success for the must be less than the probability that the recipient has the same allele, for the altruist gene to survive (5).

Nevertheless, one recent study suggests that genetic differences between our ancestors could have resulted in lethal intergroup competition which disfavoured non-altruists [6]. I will attempt to link this theory to what is known as kin selection. Kin selection explains altruism as an act increasing the probability of an individual’s genes being transmitted to the next generation. [3] We share half of our genes our siblings and parents, and a quarter with cousins, nephews and nieces. [1, 2] Therefore, altruistic behaviour towards these individuals would result in our genes passing on due to their higher probability of survival. This is known as increasing one’s inclusive fitness. [7] Since early human societies included members genetically related to one another, [6] kin selection between these individuals resulted in the societies growing in size. Thus, societies genetically predisposed in displaying co-operative, altruistic behaviour towards each other (through acts such as group hunting, mutually defending each other, and sharing food) are more capable of surviving, resulting in the altruistic gene surviving.[1] This, I believe, is the predominant explanation for altruism in humans today. The act of altruism is a genetic inheritance evolving through the basic instinct of survival and continuity of species.

Selfishness surrounds us in everything we do because it is human nature to be selfish. Without selfishness we would not be able to take care of ourselves and ensure that we are fed and all our needs are fulfilled. Many people and the surrounding environment suffer because of selfishness but without it the reality