Selfish Relations : An Evolutionary Explanation Of Altruistic Behaviors

Why should students help pick up fellow classmate's books that he or she dropped? Why should people give to the homeless? Why should humans become organ donors? Altruism is defined as a person's ability to go out of their way to enhance the welfare of someone else without anything in return. But it's not the "what" of altruism that is intriguing, it's the "why" that is truly fascinating. Scientist and researches may never pinpoint what makes humans exhibit altruistic behavior, but there is one thing that scientist and researches are sure about. Altruism plays an important role in running society, and the world can use more of it.

In a way being selfish is what got humans where they are today.The evolution of humans required competition,and aggressive selfishness. We were forced to be selfish and watch our own back, to always put ourselves first in bad situations. This reaction to put ourselves first is natural, it’s in our blood. However, is the very thing that made us so successful as a species the one thing that so easily tears us apart? As humans we have an incredible capacity to dehumanize others to protect our own self interest.

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.

Philosophers have debated for centuries the question “Are humans are selfish or selfless?” There are two main arguments for debating human nature, ethical egoists and ethical altruists. Ethical egoists believe that “even though we can act in others’ interests because we are concerned for others, we ought always to act in our own interest” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 460). Ethical altruists believe quite the opposite; ethical altruism is the belief that “people ought to act with each other’s interests in mind” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 461). In discussing the four theories, psychological egoism, psychological altruism, ethical egoism, and ethical altruism, with my husband, there was not a clear dividing line for whether humans are selfish or selfless in nature. After much debate, we concluded that humans are born ethical egoists; however, ethical altruists are made through proper training, care, and nurture.

Selfishness is a disease of the soul that every person experiences several times throughout their life. To say that selfishness has never been experienced would be hypocrisy. To say that selfishness is a beneficial trait would be erroneous. Although as humans we lie to ourselves, there is no question that selfishness can make any person a fool. Being selfish consumes us and changes us into someone we are not. Whether it leads to getting people killed, losing love, or abolishing families, selfishness always leads to destruction.

From the reading “From an Ethic of Altruism to Possibilities of Transformation in Teacher Candidates Community Involvement” by Solomon, Manoukian, and Clarke. I thought the narratives were the highlight to the reading. I felt I could connect with previous teacher candidate’s experiences, but also learn from them. In this reading two approaches are discussed about student’s perceptions of servicing learning either a charity orientation or a change orientation. From this reading, I realized that I am taking on a change orientation. Though I am at my community centre once a week I can see the difference the other teacher candidates and I have made. In the reading, it talks about a change orientation which involves developing caring relationships

Bartel (1976) defines prosocial behaviour as ‘behaviour that intentionally helps or benefits another person’. Batson (1987) defines altruism as ‘helping another person for no reward, and even at some cost to oneself.’ This definition of altruism seemingly depicts the behaviour as selfless, however there is a wealth of research which suggests that this is not the case.

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).

Many have defined altruism in a similar context, a special form of helping behaviour that is “an act that is motivated by the desire to benefit another individual rather than oneself” (Hogg &Vaughan, 2008). An altruistic act does not necessarily have a negative or zero value to the actor (Margolis, 1982) but a true altruistic act is detrimental to the actor's fitness and enhances another individual’s fitness, in other words, a selfless act (Batson, 1991). Throughout the evolution of altruism, there have been many controversies about the existence of true altruism. Most theories have argued that it stems from ulterior motives, but does that prove

Selfish is defined as looking after one’s own desires, concerned with your own interests, needs and wishes while ignoring those of others (Encarta Dictionary).

"We are all here on earth to help others. What I can't figure out is what the others are here for." --W. H. Auden (1)

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

Most of us assume that some selfishness is healthy, but "too much" selfishness will lead to loneliness and despair. This idea rests on an incorrect definition of selfishness. Selfishness means acting in one's rational self-interest. By " rational" I mean that one can logically prove that an action is in one's self-interest—in the long run as well as the short run.

Altruistic acts are often seen through the benevolent acts of family members express towards each other on a regular basis. Because of the significant amount of genes we share with our kin, the survival of a family is prioritized equally to the survival of the individual. Each member of the family will therefore behave altruistically towards each other, due to the evolutionary drive for survival. The reason that parents behave this altruistically towards their offspring is because “parents (adults) are in a maximally favorable position to dispense inexpensive aid to offspring (eggs) that maximally resembles the parents genetically” (Alexander, 462). Even through altruism is perhaps highest between family members, people also feel more empathetic towards others who possess similar traits, as a large number of genes are share. As altruism “involves a loss of individual fitness, [it] can evolve only by group selection” (Nunney, 228). Therefore, we can see that nature’s force of the survival of the group is a primary driving factor for the appearance of altruism.