The Proof of Selflessness

The existence of altruistic or selfless people has been a hotly debated topic throughout human history. From ancient Greek philosophers to modern psychologist, people have asked the so called Altruism Question in which they have wondered if it is even possible for a person to be motivated by anything other than self-interest. Today, altruism is debated in terms of psychology, sociology, biology, and economics, often with much of the evidence pointing to proof of egoism, rather than altruism. Yet, there are often phenomena in which people appear to act against their own benefit in favor of benefitting others, despite all evidence suggesting that they should not. These outliers serve as the basis for proof of altruism.

The argument against altruism is fundamentally based in biology, particularly the Darwinist principle of survival of the fittest. This fitness is, of course, an organism’s reproductive fitness, which leads to an odd biological explanation of altruism. In biology, altruism tends to refer to any helping behavior that makes an organism less reproductively-fit than another organism. This behavior can be something as simple as a chimp or wolf sharing food with the rest of its group. However, this does include actual altruism, as well as sacrifices with ulterior motives.[1] This shows that, biologically speaking, any action that is against an individual's absolute best interest is a phenomenon, regardless of motivation.

In humans, this concept is carried one step further, in the form of parental instinct. Parental instinct undoubtedly exists, particularly in mammals, but humans show a rare flexibility and range in this instinct. Human parents will sacrifice much for their children, even those who would be considered burdens and abandoned by other species. Parental instinct has also been seen as flexible, sometimes being applied to people other than the parent's children.[2] This behavior is inconsistent, not only with ideas of survival of the fittest, but with the evolutionary purpose of parental instinct — for an organism to take care of the offspring that will pass on their genes. Human parents blatantly contradict this purpose. This contradiction is also seen in the colloquialism, “It takes a village to raise a child,” which implies that a community of people provide parent-like care to children, even if that child’s success has little or no effect on extra-familiar members of the community. This biological contradiction serves to show altruism existing even in the most basic parts of life.

Psychologically, altruism is also hotly debated and complicated topic. Psychology is the study of all human behavior, including altruism or egoism. This topic is oddly lacking in a middle ground, possibly due to the hard stance of proponents of psychological egoism. William Clohesy explains, “The psychological egoist, despite our vaunted claims, points to this personal fulfillment as the true motive for aiding another… No matter what our claims about the other’s importance to us are, the psychological egoist insists that we help from self-interest; our claims only underscore the importance to ourselves of that person’s welfare.”[3] The primary opposition to altruism is that people seek to bolster their reputations, consciously or unconsciously.[4] Meanwhile, those who support psychological altruism see the line between altruism and egoism as blurred, rather than absolute. It is obvious that people frequently do things out of self-interest. However, people who are consistently altruistic are not constantly altruistic; they may only act altruistically in situations where they have no predisposition to act selfishly or when they can afford the opportunity costs of altruistic actions.[5] Additionally, the idea of reputational gains only makes sense if people are actually seeking those gains. These gains are often only found after the fact and are almost never a guaranteed result of altruistic behavior; therefore it is unlikely for an altruistic individual to be seeking these reward.[6] This circumstantiality does not disprove altruistic behavior; it simply acknowledges that it has limitations. Similar limitations can be found on many other behaviors, keeping altruism within the realm of psychological possibility.

The source of altruism has been much harder to pinpoint than that of egoism. Egoism can clearly be derived from a biological desire to personally succeed, which has spread into human behavior and culture. Altruism on the other hand, still makes little sense biologically, so one must look at something more specifically psychological. Martin Hoffman, amongst other psychologists, has suggested empathy, “an affective response appropriate to someone else's situation rather than one's own,”[7] as an altruistic motive. Hoffman proposed that one develops empathy alongside developing a differentiation between oneself and others as an infant.[8] By extension of this, a person starts imagining how they would feel in another's place and reacts accordingly. In such a situation, people act to aid one another because they feel that they know what it is like to be in that person's dilemma, and that they can resolve that problem with no personal loss or gain from their action.[9] Empathy seems to make sense in the context of altruism, as there is no personal loss or gain, literally or emotionally, required to act out of empathy, simply a feeling about another individual, in which one is able to solve, or aid in, that other’s dilemma. The most famous example of this may be people who saved Jews during the Holocaust. There have been studies and interviews comparing those who did and did not rescue Jews under Nazi Germany. Those who were rescuers do not feel or appear to have gained anything by helping Jews, instead having rescued Jews because they felt that they should. Those who did not, claim to have been unable to help or feared for themselves and their families, whereas rescuers actively endangered themselves and their families, seeing no reward or adulation until well after the fact.[10] That feeling, mentioned above, is an empathic one, in which the rescuers felt a level of understanding with the Jewish plight, whether or not they truly understood it. This empathy lead to some of the most profound rescues in history, with entirely altruistic motivations.

Economics also takes issue with the existence of altruism. Economically speaking, all people should be rational and self-interested, however altruism inherently contradicts this. Because these contradictions have been noticed in real world situations, simulations and studies have been run trying to understand the phenomena. Michael J. Gill calls those who are consistently altruistic in economic situations “consistent contributors.”[11] He explains the behavior of these consistent contributors, saying, “...their generosity is not dependent on cooperation by others, they place themselves at great of risk incurring more costs and deriving fewer benefits than others in their group. If CCs were motivated by fairness, one would expect that over time they would reduce their contributions to match those of others. Yet, they do not.”[12] Economically, this point about fairness is very important. It indicates that there was not someone acting in a socialist or communist manner, trying to put all players on equal footing. Instead this demonstrates that there were people behaving in a way that actively put themselves at a disadvantage, thus showing definitively altruistic behavior.

An additional occurrence of altruism, economically is the very existence of third sector organizations — organizations that are neither in the private sector or affiliated with any government agency. This includes charities and non-profit aid organizations. The immediate reaction to this is probably one that points out the multitude of times in which workers or administrators of these TSO’s have benefited or acted out of selfishness. However, this reaction does not take into account that these benefits often appear after that fact, and may therefore serve as motivation after the fact with no bearing on the initial behavior. Clohesy explains these actions in terms of the whole organization, saying, “Altruism in TSOs means, first, the provision of service in ways that are respectful of persons rather than impersonal or standardized even if this is quantitatively less efficient; and, second, an independent and, if necessary, adversarial stance toward government because the TSOs’ missions are public.”[13] This strict definition is rare in occurrence, but not unheard of. This may be an organization acting at its own expense, rather than an individual, but the fact that individuals have to make decisions for these organization shows altruism on their part. This act of altruism is on a larger scale, where far more can be gained and lost, and yet individuals still take part in decisions that are ultimately altruistic.

Outliers or not, altruists appear to exist within human behavior and psychology. As unorthodox as these people appear under the lense of a multitude studies and subjects, their behaviors are clearly observable in social situations. Though there is no way to be absolutely certain of any person’s inner motivation, it would seem foolish to assume that egoism is constant when exceptions appear to occur. Debate over the course of centuries, from every form of academia, seems to come to the conclusion that true altruism does occur.