PrairieDog

Evolutionary biologists question whether there is any such thing as true altruism. The problem is that most, if not all, natural selection operates on the level of individual fitness. It is therefore difficult to see how genes for genuine self-sacrifice could survive the dispassionate fact that if you give up your resources (or life) for a stranger, you help someone else reproduce at the expense of your own chances to leave offspring. Any gene that promotes truly self-sacrificing behavior will tend to be eliminated due to diminished reproduction, unless it promotes self-sacrifice in the other guy. This seemingly bleak conclusion accounts for some of the uneasiness that the theory of natural selection provokes in religious circles. What happens to moral principles if altruism is an illusion?

Long ago, a girlfriend’s grandmother opened my eyes to a rather cold-hearted view of generosity. A Belgian aristocrat, she had ideas quite foreign to my liberal Californian values. She believed that even when people behave charitably, they primarily do it to make themselves feel better. These do-gooders only look selfless; in reality, they are self-righteous and self-congratulatory. She argued that empathy is merely disguised pity, and that generosity is nothing but a tool for ego-inflation.

Even though the concept of altruism faces these challenges, we cannot deny that it is one of the cornerstones of humane behavior. Must we discard the widespread belief that good people act selflessly, and conclude that in reproductive and/or emotional terms, those who appear to sacrifice themselves actually accrue net benefits?

In nature, one often sees what looks like altruism. The prairie dog that barks when a hawk flies overhead seems to risk its life for the sake of the group. The raptor will swoop down and catch that critter preferentially, will it not? But careful observations have shown that alarm calls improve the survival chances of the caller, not just the group. In those cases where reproductive fitness is genuinely sacrificed for the welfare of another animal, further examination typically reveals that the animals are relatives. A basic principle of natural selection is that individuals can often pass more of their genes on to the next generation by helping kin (who share those genes) than by pursuing personal survival. These behaviors do not count as strict altruism, since the end result is greater transmission of the responsible genes.

In the human world, true altruism is easier to find, although some examples that come first to mind don’t count. A mother running in front of a bus to push her child out of the way does not, in biological terms, perform a net sacrifice (she may very well ensure propagation of her genes by this rescue). A fireman running into a building is ‘only’ doing his job (albeit a dangerous and noble one). One can even discount the commonly reported battlefield heroics, because soldiers are indoctrinated to think of one another as (effectively) brothers. So saving a fellow combatant may represent activation of the genetically acquired tendency to support the survival of kin.

Despite these cold-hearted critiques, it seems safe to conclude that some examples of self-sacrifice are truly altruistic. They are not done to save kin (genetic or cultural), and are not done as part of paid employment. This does not close the door on the cynical attitude that charity is a way of puffing up the self, but I believe that argument is specious anyway. Everything we do, at all times, we do because on balance it seems like the correct response to the circumstance. Of course doing good things makes us feel good about ourselves; but that does not mean we aren’t genuinely concerned about the person we help. Jesus made a point of criticizing those who perform charity loudly, for show, and there are certainly times when people do ‘good works’ in order to garner attention and respect. But there are also many who are motivated by sincere kindness toward strangers.

But that isn’t my point. For the sake of argument, let’s presume that every act that looks altruistic is actually self-serving. Even if charitable acts are performed for selfish reasons, they still help. Better that people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, than never do the right thing at all. And how could it be a bad thing that a generous person benefits from helping someone out?

Regardless of its root cause, the fact that people (and even animals) sometimes put others before themselves is a beautiful feature of life. We should nurture selfless tendencies, even if they initially arose from selfish causes. Every spiritual system I’ve studied values helping others, and for good reason. Like humility, ego abandonment, and mental discipline, altruism promotes emotional wellness in both the giver and the receiver.