Altruism is defined as "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." by 'thefreedictionary.com'.
I don't believe it exists. All supposed selfless acts occur as a result of much deliberation of another's circumstance. There must be hope for some gain however small.
The problem lies in the last part, it's for the sake of the collective; and you have to consider the genetic relations between every ant of a single nest. Female ants or bees are closely related to the queen and to each other, males are less related. I don't remember all details from the top of my head, but I wouldn't qualify it as true altruism. Also ants are under control of chemicals, it's more like a selfregulating superorganism and as such it is not surprising they defend their home.
And humans are no different, under control of chemicals in the brain. And what about the pack mentality of mammals? Monkeys and apes display seemingly altruistic behavior, as do many ungulates when presented with danger. Altruism is actually common among social species, especially the higher mammals.
Not sure if I agree. I would say it was the evolutionary reason why we display altruistic behavior.
What I am getting at is if you are helping a relative to raise children instead of raising own children, you still assure that some of your genes are passed to the next generation since you're related to them in some way. If you help a non-related person however your fitness is nil.
And humans are no different, under control of chemicals in the brain.
There's a small difference, we are victims of our own chemicals, whereas ants are controlled by other individuals like the queen. Now thinking of it, why did I even mention chemical control? It's not like I could make a point with that...
I'm looking at altruism from a rather evolutionary point of view; I'm talking of apparent altruisms like reciprocal altruism (quid pro quo) or kin selection. Like you said it:
Monkeys and apes display seemingly altruistic behavior, as do many ungulates when presented with danger.
It looks like altruism and at some level it maybe is, but ultimately it does not cohere with true altruism.
It looks like altruism and at some level it maybe is, but ultimately it does not cohere with true altruism.
Then what is "true altruism" in your mind? Because this seems to be turning into the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. Every time someone shows an example of altruism in nature it is said to not be 'true altruism'.
Yes. I take Trevor Knox's view (an economist I think). The problem is many people believe the definition of altruism to be overly broad. A more limited explanation of altruism is any act that does not immediately benefit the individual, and perhaps excluding some potential emotions behind it unless it is a result of direct reasoning. In other words, helping someone because you want to brag about it is not altruism, but helping someone and then feeling good about it after the fact does count as altruism.
Otherwise, the only altruists are martyrs.
I think a more interesting question is can altruism exist within a religious context?
As far as my limited knowledge of Christianity is concerned, then no I don't think so. Any good deed you do will be witnessed by God, and you will be rewarded for it. The only way I can conceive a Christian doing something selflessley would be to do something that God would punish you for, but would benefit your fellow man. However that seems contradictory and/or foolish. I suppose you could kill someone to make someone else happy, but I think considering this selfless is a bit of a stretch.
Solid evidence has emerged of the dolphin's altruistic nature. In a act of selflessness which has astounded experts and confirmed the friendly nature of the species, a bottlenose came to the rescue of two whales stranded on a beach in New Zealand.
The dolphin â" nicknamed Moko by local residents, who said it spent much of its time swimming playfully with beachgoers â" helped two pygmy sperm whales, facing imminent death after becoming stranded on a sandbar, swim to safety.
Until Moko's arrival, rescuers feared the mother and calf would have to be put down to prevent them suffering a prolonged death on Mahia beach, about 300 miles north-east of Wellington.
Malcolm Smith and his team from the New Zealand Conservation Department had tried in vain to rescue the animals for an hour-and-a-half. With their effort faltering, it seemed only a matter of time before the operation was called off.
"They kept getting disoriented and stranding again," Mr Smith said yesterday. "They couldn't find their way back past (the sandbar] to the sea."
Just as it seemed all hope was lost, Moko appeared. The dolphin approached the whales, leading them 200m along the beach before navigating them out to the open sea.
Mr Smith believes the dolphin heard the whales' distress calls and came to their aid.
"It was looking like it was going to be a bad outcome for the whales ... then Moko came along and fixed it," he said. "They had arched their backs and were calling to one another, but as soon as the dolphin turned up, they submerged and followed her.
"I don't speak whale and I don't speak dolphin, but there was obviously something that went on, because the two whales changed from being quite distressed to following the dolphin willingly and directly along the beach and straight out to sea."
Another rescuer, Juanita Symes, added: "Moko came flying through the water and pushed in between us and the whales. She got them to head toward the hill, where the channel is. It was an amazing experience. The best day of my life."
Anton van Helden, a marine mammals expert at New Zealand's national museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, said the reports of Moko's rescue, while "fantastic", were believable because the dolphins have "a great capacity for altruistic activities".
He cited evidence of dolphins protecting people lost at sea, and their playfulness with other animals.
"We've seen bottlenose dolphins getting lifted up on the noses of humpback whales and flicked out of the water just for fun," he said.
Then what is "true altruism" in your mind? Because this seems to be turning into the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. Every time someone shows an example of altruism in nature it is said to not be 'true altruism'.
You may be right about the fallacy thing, but I'll try a last time to make my point.. True altruism, well, a behavior that gives an advantage to unrelated individuals while giving you a disadvantage (I insist on the disadvantage because the pack mentality you mentioned is a clear advantage for the pack and insofar it also helps yourself). The only way I can think of how this could be hereditary established is if linked with another behavior, or indirect consequence of behavior, that compensates for the loss. I remember something about bat mothers who help other, unrelated mothers with the youngs, as long as they're of the same swarm; I don't remember why that was so, maybe you know of this?
I admit that with the theory of minds comes the possibility to decide to do an altruistic act while in knowledge of its disadvantages; which would mean that for example some apes could show true altruistic behavior, especially humans. Though I think it is by far less frequent than apparent altruism.
Of course it is far less frequent because altruistic behavior as we know it has evolved in social animals to be of a net benefit to the group. While there are instances in which a true self-sacrifice is being made, it is nearly always for the benefit of another, either in your family or close social group.
Selfless sacrifice has no place in the animal kingdom unless there is some overall net gain. By searching for something that gives an advantage to an unrelated group while at a loss to yourself you are searching for something that would, for all intents and purposes, disprove the evolution of morality and altruism in the animal kingdom.
We see altruism in monkeys, but not monkeys expressing this altruism toward lions because there is no net gain for the individual or the group performing the act. This simply wouldn't evolve in animals, and if for some reason some genome expressed this trait then that individual wouldn't last long. Such behavior would not only be detrimental to the individual, but also to the group to which the individual belonged, because the selfless act has no benefit to the group yet has the potential to deprive the group of some portion of it's security.
In summary, what you are describing as altruism, while it may occur in a phenomenally small percentage of instances, is actually counter to what we know to be true about evolution in social animals.
a behavior that gives an advantage to unrelated individuals while giving you a disadvantage
Can you back up this definition of altruism? Because I'm not seeing anything saying it excludes related individuals or it has to give a disadvantage to the individual preforming the act.
What about fish? They can change their sex to adapt to the current(no pun intended, =P), conditions of the body of water they live in. The only gain is procreation and wouldn't natural instinct negate personal gain?
What about fish? They can change their sex to adapt to the current(no pun intended, =P), conditions of the body of water they live in. The only gain is procreation and wouldn't natural instinct negate personal gain?
Firstly, this is only in select species. Also, evolution by means of natural selection would actually promote this ability. By being able to alter their sex to fit their environment they are ensuring a stable breeding population while not being forced to expand their territory and numbers massively and regardless of external forces on the species.
It seems today that people view Altruism, light and heavy, as being "holier-than-thou" and a "do-gooder", whilst expecting something in return.
What I want to stress to people is that Altruism is a core spectrum of good--detrimenting yourself for the gain of others. While a man did go out of his way to help another man, he expected some sort of reward, like payment. He did not perform "good" to the fullest extent. You see this in a lot of video games with alignment features. To perform Altruism fully, you must go out of your way to help someone while not expecting anything in return. You may even go a little further and refuse the reward, unless the other party insists you take it.
On the issue of "reputation", that is just the system of events that was the result of the help from the Altruistic example. He could not forsee that he would be recognized for his actions, small or large. The reputation that precedes the good deed is something people cannot control.
