This article addresses the debate about human selfishness and altruism. I argue that altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone, but by a variety of factors, including empathy, communitarianism, and the spark effect.
“Are humans good or evil?” We’re all familiar with this debate from the theories of sexual goodness and sexual evil. But what about this question: “Are humans selfish or altruistic?” This question is a bit more advanced than the previous one. It takes into account not just human nature, but our relationships with others. It also expands the field of study. Whereas the conflict between sexuality and sexuality was primarily a philosophical issue, the conflict between selfishness and altruism involves not only philosophy, but also biology, economics, psychology, and other fields.
First, let’s consider the answer to the question of whether humans are selfish or altruistic. This debate has been going on for a long time, and it’s not that simple. Everyone knows that humans don’t act exclusively altruistically or exclusively selfishly. So rather than addressing whether humans are selfish or altruistic, the debate focuses on how to explain human altruistic behavior. In other words, those who argue that humans are selfish claim that the root cause of altruistic behavior is our selfish nature. On the other hand, those who argue that humans are altruistic argue that altruistic behavior comes from a pure heart.
In my opinion, altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone. In this article, I will present factors other than selfishness to explain altruistic behavior. Along the way, I will also refute the evidence of those who claim that humans are selfish. So, first, let’s take a look at the arguments that human altruistic behavior stems from our selfish nature. Their rationale is twofold. The first is that genes are selfish, aimed solely at survival and reproduction. In order to spread their genes, they act altruistically towards those who are related to them. The second is the “recurrence-reciprocity hypothesis”. This hypothesis explains that human altruistic behavior is for the benefit of future self-interaction in situations that are predicated on repeated interactions.
However, humans are not purely altruistic. This means that we can act altruistically out of pure motivation, without having a selfish purpose or expecting a reward. What is selfishness in this context? Selfish purposes include the aforementioned ones, such as spreading your genes, for the sake of future benefits, etc. Consider the case of the subway hero who sacrificed his life to save a drunken man who fell on the tracks. What benefit or reward could he have gained from his sacrifice? His sacrifice touched people deeply, but it is unlikely that he would have given his life for it. In other words, this is an act of pure altruism. The drunkard and the subway hero were not related by blood, and it’s unlikely that the subway hero was thinking about the future benefits of sacrificing his life. The pure motivation to save the drunkard, without any expectation of reward or gain, resulted in a selfless act of self-sacrifice.
But where does this pure motivation come from? There are other factors to consider. We all have the ability to empathize with others, to feel their emotions and feelings through cues such as facial expressions. Crying and laughing during a movie or drama is an example of this. In fact, the perceptual-motor neural network system in the brain actively responds not only to our own behavior but also to the behavior of others. There are even studies that show that seeing someone else in pain activates the same parts of the brain as when you’re injured, thanks to mirror neurons. This empathy, in particular, may explain why altruistic behavior is more common among blood relatives. There is a circuit in the brain that is activated when humans feel intense emotions, such as fear. This circuitry is also triggered when others feel intense emotions, especially when they are the emotions of loved ones. In other words, when we see pain or sadness in others, empathy allows us to feel it with them. This explains why we perform selfless acts of helping others. Take the example of helping a friend carry a heavy load. We can look at our friend carrying a heavy load and feel the same emotions we felt when we were carrying a heavy load. This emotion is manifested in the altruistic act of sharing our friend’s burden.
The second is communitarianism. Humans are influenced by the values and standards of the community they belong to. We live in a society where altruistic behavior is considered right and encouraged. We don’t do it for selfish reasons, we do it because it’s a natural part of being a member of this society. Some people may question whether we live in a society where altruistic behavior is considered right and encouraged. It’s not just that we’re taught in moral textbooks and by adults that we should be considerate of others. The case of the subway hero mentioned above was also widely reported with the title of “hero,” and many people evaluated his actions as “brave” rather than “pathetic. These examples support that our society recognizes altruistic behavior as correct and encourages it.
The third is the ignition effect in psychology. The ignition effect is the effect that the first stimulus presented affects the processing and interpretation of later stimuli. The idea is that altruistic behavior can be motivated by the stimulus of correctly perceiving altruistic behavior, even if it is not driven by communitarianism. In other words, altruistic behavior may be driven by individual experience rather than community influence. An example of the ignition effect is the highly publicized case of boxer Choi Yosam, who donated his organs after being declared brain dead, and the number of people applying for organ donation skyrocketed to more than four times the previous year. Of course, as explained earlier, our society views altruistic behavior as right and encourages it, so it can be said that both communitarianism and the ignition effect are present in our society.
Some may point out that there are also altruistic acts that are done for selfish reasons, such as for future benefits or for the sake of others. However, as mentioned above, my argument is that altruistic behavior cannot be explained “solely” by selfishness. Humans have a selfish nature. There are certainly altruistic behaviors that stem from this selfish nature. However, there are certainly some altruistic behaviors that cannot be explained by selfishness alone, and these can be explained for the reasons mentioned above.
We can also question whether our selfish nature from the past has been internalized and manifests itself as pure altruism. In other words, there is a selfishness within us that we are not conscious of. For those who believe that selfishness can explain altruistic behavior, this argument is a powerful one. If even pure altruism stems from a selfish nature, then the arguments I’ve presented ultimately support their claim. However, there is a major flaw in the seemingly plausible “pure altruism with an internalized selfish nature” argument. Recall the example of the subway hero from earlier. He sacrificed his life to save a drunken passenger who wasn’t even related to him. There was no recurring interaction with the drunk. Even if there was, there was no long-term benefit to be gained from risking his life. Based on the preceding rationale, he would have been motivated to help the drunk either because he shared the pain the drunk would feel from being hit by the subway or because he saw altruism as the right thing to do. Those who disagree with my argument would argue that this pure motive is an internalization of his past selfish nature. However, it’s important to consider that some selfless acts come at the expense of others. If we have a long history of selfishness internalized in us from the past, we should be designed to act altruistically only to the extent that it doesn’t harm us. However, we act altruistically to our own detriment, even to the point of death. This is the biggest flaw in the argument that the pure motivation for altruistic behavior is the internalization of selfishness. Therefore, it is difficult to explain human altruistic behavior in terms of selfishness alone.
So far, I’ve examined the arguments against the claim that altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone, and I’ve presented my arguments and their flaws, as well as my thoughts on possible counterarguments. This article does not identify the underlying causes of human altruistic behavior. However, the point is that selfishness alone is a weak explanation for altruism, and other factors need to be considered. The question of how to explain human altruism has been a hotly debated topic in the past, and we still don’t have a perfect answer. The causes of altruistic behaviors that we naturally perform as we go about our day are ultimately in our subconscious minds, and it’s a big challenge for us to figure them out.
