C
CrazyCatLady
Guest
I know this post will not go down well. Most will debate it, thinking they cannot possibly be one of the humans I’m writing about. How can they be? Humans are GOOD, godamnit! Every day, the (hu)man sacrifices himself for others- even for small furry animals! We would give the shirt off our backs for another in a snow storm; run into a burning building to save the puppy next door- sacrifice our lives for another. All without thinking of the adverse consequences to ourselves.
But really- is true altruism a fact or a wish?
The evolutionary theories of altruism give us:
Kin selection- family and anyone who looks like you or a family member, but screw everyone else.
Ingroup Favouritism- only those non-relations you deem as part of your inner circle and whom you like, but screw everyone else.
Reciprocal altruism- “I do for you, but you owe me one in some form, but I won’t tell you, you owe me one- I’ll just expect it back some day.” The most common type and celebrated in human traditions- for example, Christmas.
Strong reciprocity- only evident in a bunch of lab experiments, so no real evidence it exists beyond what the men in white coats have told us.
Costly signalling/the handicap principle- “I’ve got loads, so I’m going to give you some, because I want you to think I’m worthy of your attention/rich/a good person/a person you want to sleep with and have lots of babies with.” So, effectively showing off.
Group Selection- pretty much the same as ingroup favouritism, but you may not like all members of your group, but you’ll be nice, because if you’re not, no one else will like you and then you’re ostracised from the group and ooh err, you wanna avoid that!
Now, let’s look at the psychological theories:
Exchange theory- “I’ll help you, as long as I don’t have to part with too much and I get back more than what I’ve lost.” Like a bag full of saviour high and the inner validation that you ARE a good person and worthy of love.
Empathy-altruism- “I’ve been there, so I don’t want to see someone else in that position”. But this only depends on if you identify with the person you have empathy with. A psychological ingroup favouritism- by the possibility sharing of similar negative experiences, that person becomes a part of the ingroup (with those haven’t experienced that as the outgroup).
Neurobiological explanations- being nice actually activates happy chemicals and helps us live longer! However, how empathic you are determines the level of happy chemicals released on being nice to others. So, not strictly an innate human mechanism, but one that is activated largely by nurture.
Religion loves to talk about being nice to others and sacrifice. All the major cults endorse it (among the tales of blood, rape, paedophilia, genocides and murders for not believing in same imaginary friend). However, the biggest religion associated with altruism is Buddhism- under its laws of karma. Yet still, it is not an act without reward. The laws of Karma in a nutshell are that what you give is what you receive- maybe not in this life, but in the next. So, any and all acts of selflessness will be repaid.
Conclusion: My position is that Altruism cannot exist while there is the absence of guilt as a reward for the act. Not only are humans rewarded through the addition of a feeling (e.g. validation, acceptance), they can be equally motivated to avoid a feeling or sensation (e.g. pain, guilt, remorse). Furthermore, we are more likely to feel guilt if others are aware of our lack of action and aware of our capabilities to help.
My question to you: All the theories on the trait of altruism, agree that empathy or some form of connection with the subject needs to be present and all give a reward for the sacrifice made, so does altruism in human nature exist?
But really- is true altruism a fact or a wish?
The evolutionary theories of altruism give us:
Kin selection- family and anyone who looks like you or a family member, but screw everyone else.
Ingroup Favouritism- only those non-relations you deem as part of your inner circle and whom you like, but screw everyone else.
Reciprocal altruism- “I do for you, but you owe me one in some form, but I won’t tell you, you owe me one- I’ll just expect it back some day.” The most common type and celebrated in human traditions- for example, Christmas.
Strong reciprocity- only evident in a bunch of lab experiments, so no real evidence it exists beyond what the men in white coats have told us.
Costly signalling/the handicap principle- “I’ve got loads, so I’m going to give you some, because I want you to think I’m worthy of your attention/rich/a good person/a person you want to sleep with and have lots of babies with.” So, effectively showing off.
Group Selection- pretty much the same as ingroup favouritism, but you may not like all members of your group, but you’ll be nice, because if you’re not, no one else will like you and then you’re ostracised from the group and ooh err, you wanna avoid that!
Now, let’s look at the psychological theories:
Exchange theory- “I’ll help you, as long as I don’t have to part with too much and I get back more than what I’ve lost.” Like a bag full of saviour high and the inner validation that you ARE a good person and worthy of love.
Empathy-altruism- “I’ve been there, so I don’t want to see someone else in that position”. But this only depends on if you identify with the person you have empathy with. A psychological ingroup favouritism- by the possibility sharing of similar negative experiences, that person becomes a part of the ingroup (with those haven’t experienced that as the outgroup).
Neurobiological explanations- being nice actually activates happy chemicals and helps us live longer! However, how empathic you are determines the level of happy chemicals released on being nice to others. So, not strictly an innate human mechanism, but one that is activated largely by nurture.
Religion loves to talk about being nice to others and sacrifice. All the major cults endorse it (among the tales of blood, rape, paedophilia, genocides and murders for not believing in same imaginary friend). However, the biggest religion associated with altruism is Buddhism- under its laws of karma. Yet still, it is not an act without reward. The laws of Karma in a nutshell are that what you give is what you receive- maybe not in this life, but in the next. So, any and all acts of selflessness will be repaid.
Conclusion: My position is that Altruism cannot exist while there is the absence of guilt as a reward for the act. Not only are humans rewarded through the addition of a feeling (e.g. validation, acceptance), they can be equally motivated to avoid a feeling or sensation (e.g. pain, guilt, remorse). Furthermore, we are more likely to feel guilt if others are aware of our lack of action and aware of our capabilities to help.
My question to you: All the theories on the trait of altruism, agree that empathy or some form of connection with the subject needs to be present and all give a reward for the sacrifice made, so does altruism in human nature exist?