And some died trying to hide them. It seems you are trying to raise animals and demean humans with those examples that show only one part of truth.
It’s nice to know that there is someone who really knows his stuff here(at least you appear to), it gives comfort that when I create some scientifically stupid theory it would be quickly disproven.
So, you said that you didn’t observe any truly altruistic behaviours in humans, didn’t you? It’s probably very hard to pinpoint a behaviour that truly doesn’t give any benefit to a person, but if altruistic includes also behaviour that would kill one to save another and that would also count as truly altruistic that makes things simpler.
I assume things like parents sacrificing their lives for their kids doesn’t count as their genes still would be passed if their kids survived.
Let’s return then to Poland during WW2 example, some families or people were hiding Jews and died for this, some woman even saved 2500 children Jews. Action that made her a lot more likely to die. Another guy went into the death camp voluntarily to record atrocities that happened there, it’s not hard to say that something like that is very risky and could’ve easily result in his death if he was chosen for execution or just died from starvation.
How one explains those examples ruling out altruism? Maybe those families were pressured? Maybe they saw chance for cooperation that would pay off if they managed to hold them through? What with that woman? Maybe some maternal instincts told her to protect the children even if they are not hers? What’s with the guy that went to Holocaust? Maybe he was sure that we would survive even when it wasn’t so certain? Maybe he was forced to do it? Maybe war had such effect on all those people that normal survival instincts were not working properly?
It’s very hard to see people choose truly altruistic thing, even if they cooperate they will probably do it with their benefit in mind, at least most of the time, but isn’t it reasonable to think that among 7 billion people some, for whatever reason, do something that decreases their fitness for another human?
I agree that action of animals shouldn’t be considered to be good or bad morally and I was also against seeing animals as empathetic but you shocked me with a fact that animal cannot do something good for the sake of the group if it reduces their fitness, I always thought that it paradoxically increases their fitness because in the future animals with the same behaviour will be more likely to mate as it will be more profitable to have around mates with traits that ensure survival of the group and it will be somehow recognised by evolution, so in nutshell, individual loses but gene survives. But if you say there is no such thing I will take your word for it.
And what with a dogs that after their owner died they starved to death from sorrow, at least if I remember those accounts correctly, does it not count because animal became distraught or at least very confused and lost? If to find one’s actions altruistic scientists would need to get rid of situations that heavily affect human psychology or at least observe than in most cases human did the altruistic thing then it’s unlikely that there is such a thing. As most people will not sacrifice their lives for another and in the less risky situation it’s nearly always beneficial in some way to help another person there can’t be an unambiguos opinion that the action was truly altruistic.
Feel free to correct me if I said something inaccurate
1 Like
I was disappointed to learn that Ukrainian Romas were being discriminated against at a food relief station. Disappointed, not surprised.
A Roma refugee from Ukraine receives a beverage from a volunteer at the humanitarian aid center at Nyugati train station in central Budapest. While the Roma family had to show their passports to police officers, on the right, before being allowed to receive food, other Ukrainians were not required to show any documentation. Each Roma child only received one beverage and one sandwich while the other refugees were offered as much as they want.
NYT photo caption
1 Like
Thanks for your very detailed and insightful comments! Actually, I think you are correct about humans --there probably are cases of true altruism here, although they may be relatively rare and go against what comes naturally for us (against the “self-centered” behaviours inherited by natural selection). Like the examples of people in WWII putting themselves in danger to hide Jews from the Nazis, or risking their own lives to document horrors in detention camps. Jesus modelled true altruism by giving his life for his enemies and encourages his followers to cultivate the same attitude, although it is very difficult! We have evidence that humans, unlike animals, can consciously assess the morality of behavioural options and choose to override what natural selection/evolution would incline them to do (humans can choose to behave altruistically even if it reduces their biological fitness).
The reason that evolution cannot select for a behaviour in which an individual sacrifices ONLY for the group and gets no individual pay-back is that such an altruistic gene would leave fewer offspring than others in the group who lacked the self-sacrifice. In other words, genes for “true altruism” in a group of individuals will always be out-competed by a gene for “take advantage of altruists in the group” genes. So, evolutionarily, groups of pure altruists can’t persist because they are always subject to invasion by genes/individuals with enlightened self-interest. But here it gets tricky and becomes crucial on how one does the accounting for the costs and benefits coming to the group, vs. those coming to the individual. Because an individual CAN make a costly donation that helps the survival of the group, as long as the group’s survival also feeds back and helps the donor’s own individual reproductive success (and thereby allows that gene for generosity to spread and persist in the group). So, as long as there is a NET reproductive advantage coming to an individual by cooperating and being generous to others in the group, one would expect “nice” social behaviours to evolve. The only detail to note is that such pro-group behaviours are accurately called “cooperative” or “reciprocal” interactions because some benefit flows back to the individual-- they are not “truely altruistic” where there is a net sacrificial reproductive cost to the individual.
It’s possible that some of the higher animals with a degree of self-consciousness (although not well understood because we can’t get into animal’s minds) feel a type of emotion like rage or sympathy, or despondency/sense-of-lack when a mate dies. Hormones may race in their bodies, their brains and neurons may react to produce such a feeling…and they may react with a behaviour in line with those hormones/feelings. What is in question is whether animals have the cognitive ability to “imagine” alternative behaviours and cognitively assess and judge what their emotions are directing them to do versus what they “ought to do” from a moral standpoint, ie. whether they can override their emotions (which come as a result of natural selection), with free-will to decide between alternate behaviours.
Re: dogs and their dead owners. It wouldn’t surprise me if dogs showed despondent behaviour when their prime pack-member disappeared. However, one would not expect in the wild, that this would cause social animals to starve themselves to death or effectively “commit suicide”. So if domestic dogs regularly do such a thing, it is indeed a bit puzzling.
Hope this long answer helps… thanks for the great comments and if you have any more questions or examples to mention, I’d welcome them. Group social dynamics and evolution is a complicated thing to get one’s head around, for sure.
1 Like
Let me just add that, yes, some people question whether any true altruism exists in humans because, just as you discuss, one can probably always think of some contrived way it could benefit them personally. I personally do think true altruism in humans is rather rare, but is theoretically possible because of our free will and ability for rational, self-conscious decision making that can override our tribalistic and self-centered impulses. In many cases, however, humans will be primed by evolution to favour and cooperate only with those from their own group, not with members of competing groups or “tribal enemies”, so their empathy and cooperative behaviours will extend only to their own relatives or social group members (from which they will gain net benefits).
1 Like
or did Jesus model true…
Have you considered Hebrews 12:2…
But at what a cost. That joy is us, if we belong to him(!).
There are rewards in heaven – I like C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce about Sarah Smith:
Very interesting musings. From purely the evolutionary viewpoint, it is only the physical impacts on biological fitness (survival and reproduction) that count–what natural selection can act on. So whatever emotions go on in one’s head while performing putative altruistic acts (whether we feel stress or joy) are irrelevant-- in an evolutionary sense. However, theologically, what goes on in our hearts as we interact with others is of great importance.
So, taking off my biologist hat for a moment and speculating theologically (wink)… I think that God’s ultimate wish is for relationships of Agape love (between humans and between God and humans), which is not always equivalent to altruism. Altruism seems to me–to be only necessary in an imperfect world where resources are limiting and there is suffering. Here where the world is harsh and enemies threaten, our calling to Agape may require that we self-sacrifice for another. But in the new creation, when there is no longer competition or pain or stress— presumably acts of altruism will no longer exist, and there will be only Agape remaining. And “joy” seems inherent to relationships of love?
1 Like
Yes. Those celebrating Sarah Smith were not jealous, but rejoicing in and with her. 
2 Likes
WELL! Perhaps it is time to get back to the original topic! LOL Or perhaps I should say back to the longest digression (from the 3rd post of @klw ) over the presence of “true altruism” in animals.
I have a thought sparked from my reading of Gerald L. Schroder’s “God according to God.” He proposes that religion (or Bible) is the origin of the distinction between good and evil. I do not object because even though I see morality and even altruism in animals, I do not think they have any concept of good and evil, since these are linguistic constructs. While I have disputed with klw over the distinction of “true altruism” from the socially motivated behavior (which I think is nonsensical), I do think we have a notion of goodness or rightness which transcends even the survival and well being of humanity. Such a transcendent (and thus highly abstract notion) indeed is probably not something which animals have. It is not something which most human beings have, frankly. But it is something which religion often touches upon… or it can be found in the explorations of philosophy and science fiction.
P.S. The latter comment brings up a memory of something Orson Scott Card once said in the introduction to his short story collection “Cruel Miracles.” He said, “science fiction is the last bastion of religious literature in America.” It is a startling and hilarious claim, in which he distinguishes this from self-congratulatory literature which he calls “inspirational literature.”
now this is something one can argue all day long what is love ? is it a word ? is it a feeling/ emotion ? is it physical . sexual , psychological ect social ? what is it and how does one show it Jesus did accoding to the cross and so did this father GOD that sent his son that everyone searches for accross the globe but i wonder how many have taken up that cross for themselves throughout the years the decades the ages and eons i bet there is not that many that sit up and stand up in front of their congregation of members and say hey what is love and ask these very same things or how about standing in a church and asking the ministry the body of the church are you willing to offer ypour child right here right now yes you husband your wife the person sitting next to you are you willing to sacrifice to show this thing you call love and see if that gets a responce because in this day and age 2022 nothing has changed and i bet 10 percent of my governemnt income it wont