Altruism

In case anyone was wondering what types of things run through my head when I’m waiting out some process in the lab (or when I’m laid out with a headache that only lets up when I’m laying down, as has recently been the case) here’s a briefing on one of the recent offenders.

Altruism. E. O. Wilson defined it as “self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others.”

The whole notion of altruism is rather contentious in philosophical, religious, biological, and sociabiological circles. First off, there is the question of whether or not it actually exists or if what we think of as altruism is really nothing more than enlightened self interest. This would be one type of reasoning an evolutionary biologist would likely put forth because the existence of altruism would present a challenge. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual genes to perpetuate themselves. The biological processes of evolution are, in fact, opposed to expression of altruism.

A second dilemma of the evolutionary perspective has to do with continuity. There must be, at some level, continuity between the behavior of humans and that of other primates. No domain, not even our “moral code” or the collective value we place on self-sacrifice can be excluded from this restriction. To that end, there must be some evidence of the building blocks of morality, a moral code, and altruistic self-sacrifice in the animal kingdom. There are a few researchers working in this arena. In particular, some researchers are positing that human morality is an extension of general primate patterns of social integration. However, our very own vocabulary makes it difficult for us to stomach the idea of attributing even basic building blocks of morality to other species. As humans, we pride ourselves on being humane. We’ve adopted our own species name to describe charitable tendencies thus establishing morality as the hallmark of human nature. Animals cannot be human, but can they be humane?

Many theists point to seemingly altruistic acts as evidence of a God that has some interest in the lives of human beings. They theorize that if altruism cannot be explained away through physical, biological, or natural processes (ie. evolution) or through cultural artifact, then its presence can only be accounted for by some power outside of the natural world (ie. a God). C.S. Lewis puts it this way: “If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions.”

So those are the basics of what my brain has been trying to wrap itself around lately. Is there really such thing as altruism; self-detrimental acts performed with no conscious or unconscious expectation of future benefit, not matter how slight? If altruism exists, can it be accounted for in some way by purely evolutionary processes? If not, does that mean that the theory of evolution breaks down when it comes to collective styles of moral behavior, or could the theists be onto something? It’ll probably be a long while before I can come even close to drawing any conclusions about altruism, its existence, or what it may or may not point to. But it sure is challenging and interesting to think about.