The Nature of Selflessness
A Theory on the Biological Roots of Altruism
Introduction
When we think of the best and most admirable qualities of human nature, our unique capacity for selflessness and compassion often comes to the forefront of our minds. The very thought of inspiring acts of heroism and compassion has the power to warm our hearts and revitalize our faith in humanity despite the apathy, brutality, and jaded cynicism that is so often found in the reflection of our species. When so many of our so-called moral behaviors are restricted to kin-based loyalties and transactional motivations, the human impulse toward disinterested charity and self-sacrifice inclines us toward the idea that there is something sublime and beautiful about the human character. That we are not merely carnal beasts, but unique organisms possessing a nature that defies and transcends the grips of nature’s Darwinian pressures. A nature that can find no rationale in purely naturalistic explanations offered by biology alone. That we are in possession of something categorically divine.
How else could we explain acts of charity, courage, and altruism toward strangers, or even enemies? What about when someone offers their time or resources without any expectation of being repaid? Must death-defying displays of courage and daring always be rooted in kin-based loyalty or hopes of reciprocation? How could these behaviors possibly fit into a biological model that ultimately benefits the agent who displays it? It may be tempting to subscribe to this rosy view. Yet those who understand the value of understanding the true nature of our impulse, cannot be satisfied with this rosy view. This article will strive to explain altruistic action in a way that will lend an understanding of our most esteemed impulses while highlighting how they can be either advantageous or detrimental to us.
The Naturalistic Explanation
The answer to this question is that there is a perfectly rational theory that not only provides an explanation consistent with Darwinian contours but also reveals the less-than-heartwarming implications of our supposedly saint-like predisposition toward altruistic behavior. This theory argues that altruistic behavior such as generosity and courage is driven by instincts designed to assert social dominance and plays an important role in reinforcing hierarchies among human social groups. If we interpret “selfless” behavior through this lens, we can identify the biological advantage conferred by such behavior.
The Potlatch
Altruistic behavior comes in many forms, but perhaps the custom that best illustrates this theory is the Potlatch, a custom practiced by Northwestern indigenous American tribes. As Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins states, the practice is essentially a form of competition, whereby rival chiefs compete through lavish feasts and displays of generosity until one is left broke, oftentimes with the winner not faring much better. Certain school curriculums, which continue to gloss over Indigenous American history, tend to misinterpret the Potlatch as a demonstration of First Nations’ reverence of generosity. Such a description is often made to serve as a contrast between the seeming enlightened selflessness of indigenous Americans against the modern West’s pathologically avaricious nature. However, in a potlatch, generosity is only a warm-and-fuzzy means toward a more practical end. Potlatches function to structure intertribal hierarchies, while reinforcing the dominant status of the chiefs through what the Norwegian-American economist Thorsten Veblen termed, “conspicuous consumption.”[1]
The Brown Babblers
To further illustrate the point, Dawkins turns our attention to the theories proposed by fellow evolutionary biologist, Amotz Zahavi. During his years studying the brown babbler birds, he observed an interesting behavior, from which he drew the theory that acts of selflessness act as a mark of superiority and improve social status. Babblers are very social birds, that breed cooperatively, donate food to each other, and give warning cries to each other in times of danger. We may be tempted to explain this behavior in terms of kin-based cooperation or reciprocal principles. However, the rest of Zahavi’s observations led him to reach a very different conclusion. He notes that babblers often compete for the role of sentinel and that donations of food offered by subordinate members of the group are often violently rejected. These behaviors seem to rule out the possibility of reciprocal motivations and simple family ties. Instead, birds that frequently donate food and risk themselves to signal danger, do so to advertise their superiority to the rest of the unit. These actions are costly and often dangerous. Yet, that is precisely the point. Only those birds genuinely skilled in accessing food can afford to distribute excess resources to others; only the most vigilant and evasive can expect to survive the hazards of perching exposed on a high branch, carefully surveying the landscape for approaching raptors. As Dawkins summarizes, “Advertisements of superiority are authenticated by their cost.” According to Zahavi, such actions prove advantageous, rewarding the bold and generous with improved status, along with such perks as attracting mates.[2]
Examples in Humans
“But, wait!”, the Devil’s advocate replies. Brown Babblers are just one species of bird. The last time I checked, we’re humans, and using the peculiar behaviors of brown babblers to draw conclusions about human morality is grabbing at straws, to say the least!”
Yes, the brown babbler is just one species of bird, and it would be absurd to endorse a moral theory about humans from them if such similarities were not so obvious in human behavior. However, this is not a case of trying to jam square pegs through round holes. Such acts of altruism, especially acts of courage and generosity, play an important role in structuring and reinforcing human hierarchies.
Courage
First, consider courage. It’s a universally respected trait. It takes many forms across cultures, ranging from martial virtue found in warlike societies such as Rome to the martyrdom revered in groups such as the early Christians whom they persecuted. In all cases, the value that any society derives from courage is the willingness of certain members of their group to accept risk at their own expense for the benefit of the collective. The soldier who holds his position against overwhelming odds, the saint who defends the beliefs of his congregations despite threats of persecution, and the steadfast firefighter who braves a blazing structure fire to rescue those caught within it, are all praiseworthy in the eyes of the community they represent. Exceptionally gallant troops earn the Medal of Honor and other decorations of valor. Martyrs and others who defend their faith at their own risk are revered as Saints. Even local heroes win the enduring respect of their communities. There is little doubt that acts of courage are rewarded with substantial status and social credit.
Bravery is, no doubt, a gold standard currency in any society. It is also a difficult one to live up to. All courage requires consistent reserves of discipline, conviction, and nerve, and the capacity for brave courageous action varies significantly throughout societies. Yet, the brave and the bold are indispensable to any people. Therefore, individuals may compete with one another in feats of courage, and winners are typically rewarded with honors and social status. This is particularly common among young males, who regularly engage in high-risk feats in front of their peers in a bold –albeit crude –display of guts. Moreover, more high-status individuals, who have demonstrated their grit, will typically downplay or reject the offers of subordinates to shoulder risk on their behalf, as it undermines their hard-won social position. Services rendered by these underlings are accepted only as acts of gratitude and displays of loyalty toward their superiors. Either that, or superiors assign undesired perilous activities to subordinates, which functions to reinforce their lofty place in the pecking order. In these matters, the greater member has the choice of what he does himself, and what he delegates to others, a luxury that does not extend to his weaker counterparts. Historically speaking, one may think of the Japanese Samurai, European Knights, Norse-Gael Gallowglasses, and other esteemed warrior noblemen of their time. In all these examples, martial courage is a chief characteristic that cemented their high value in society and justified their privileges. One may wax poetic about the self-sacrificing nature of their most beloved heroes; ultimately, however, these esteemed individuals, through their willingness to tolerate risk and bear injury, earn the reward of respect and honor, which often paves the way toward greater wealth, power, and status in their society.
Generosity
Generosity is also a universally praiseworthy characteristic in the eyes of just about any social organization. A member’s willingness to share resources with the rest of the group plays an integral role in their collective well-being and reinforces the friendly bonds between them. One can easily imagine how quickly a group of stingy penny-pinchers would fall apart. As demonstrated earlier in the potlatch example, however, generosity is not simply a show of love and compassion. It is, like courage, an expression of power. Of course, such acts can be driven by love and compassion; yet the necessary end-product of all acts of philanthropy is an affirmation and reinforcement of the power of the giver over the receiver.
First and foremost, as in displays of courage, philanthropy conveys a sense of superiority of one over the other. Just as bold action declares, “Look how superior I am, I can bear a level of risk that you can’t”, charity says, “Look, how great I am, I can afford to give you resources.”
One glaring example of this is our welfare state. Our current government is a Constitutional Republic that routinely utilizes democratic practices. The legitimacy of this form of government rests on the belief that the government exists to serve the needs of the people, rather than rule over them. Because of this, it is easy to interpret our current public assistance apparatus as an example of our government serving the needs of its least fortunate citizens. But despite the overall immense wealth in the United States and decades of expanding public aid programs, poverty is still widespread, while the populace at large seems to be growing only more dependent upon further assistance from the state. This trend demonstrates the real and pernicious function of our robust public welfare system. It promotes dependency and ingratiation throughout the population, which serves to strengthen and reinforce the dominance of the state over citizens.
Rules of Thumb and Biological Misfires
In any case, should we just deny the genuinely warm-and-fuzzy feeling people often get when we help those in need? What about anonymous giving? Plenty of people donate services and resources without recognition and receive nothing in return. Explain that! People do good things because it’s the right thing to do, and it feels good. Only the worst of us do such things for the social benefits derived from it!”
Perhaps the most cynical and egoistic of us act selflessly solely for the intended purpose of accruing social currency. For most of us, though, charitable works indeed promote feelings of fulfillment and self-worth. Moreover, the act of anonymous giving circumvents the receipt of any social benefits, increasing our esteem for our noble actions. Finally, increases in social status don’t necessarily correlate even with explicit generosity, as some people give profusely of themselves, only to find that their extensive sacrifices have been taken for granted. So, how does all of this stack up against our theory?
To explain this, I must invoke Richard Dawkins again, who points out the role of “rules of thumb” imprinted in our DNA. He illuminated the matter in two ways. First, he argues that humans do not need to cognitively understand the evolutionary motivations underpinning their behavior to express them. Secondly, he points out cases of “misfires” in genetically promoted behavior.
Regarding the cognitive understanding of our moral impulse, he flatly states that “Selection does not favour the evolution of a cognitive awareness of what is good for your genes. That awareness had to wait for the twentieth century to reach a cognitive level, and even now full understanding is confined to a minority of scientific specialists.”[3] Humans does many things without understanding why. Much of moral action is the same way. We may turn to religious or ideological beliefs to slake our human need to understand, but in the end, our altruistic inclinations, just like kin-loyalty, are rooted in biological imperatives that operate regardless of any rational justification.
What selection does favor, according to Dawkins, is rules of thumb, which are essentially general impulses toward certain behaviors. These impulses are observed throughout organic life, including humans. As the late evolutionary biologist also states, these impulses sometimes misfire. To illustrate this point, he refers to the evolutionary strategy of the cuckoo bird. He states,
“In a bird’s brain, the rule, ‘Look after small squawking things in your nest, and drop food into their red gapes’ typically has the effect of preserving the genes that built the rule, because squawking, gaping objects in an adult bird’s nest are normally its own offspring. The rule misfires if another baby bird somehow gets into the nest, a circumstance that is positively engineered by cuckoos.”[4]
He goes on to posit the question of whether or not our Good Samaritan impulses are examples of misfires in our natural impulses. In this author’s opinion, very likely so. Anonymous giving, in any form, rewards the giver with a rush of hormones that elicit a pleasant psychological state, yet deny the philanthropist of the social capital that he could receive through that very action. Religious systems effectively encourage this loss of social reward by deluding people with promises of divine reward during or after one’s mortal existence. Furthermore, misguided moral philosophies that promote the principles of universal love and charity –in complete denial of the essentially animal nature of human beings –tricks their adherence to naively throwing their pearls before swine. Thus, our impulses are rooted and biologically geared to convey social advantages. However, like many “rules of thumb”, they are susceptible to misfires.
Conclusion
The biological nature of altruistic behavior may be a hard thing to accept. After all, we humans are generally raised alongside some ideology, religious or otherwise, that holds this ostensibly “selfless” behavior as a cardinal virtue. However, when we consider the findings presented by evolutionary biology, the primal practical character of human moral impulses, altruism included, have marked social benefits. Perhaps, in light of this, “selfless” might be better termed as “self-risking”, much like stock trading. Those who can withstand the rigors and risks of any action also reap the rewards. Conversely, truly “selfless” behavior, is a gross evolutionary misfire reinforced by delusions. For example, a sniveling sidekick that constantly goes out on a limb for his master may believe themselves to be gaining favor in the eyes of their superior, while in fact, they simply viewed as a frivolous, yet unneeded convenience, fit for disposal at a moment’s notice.
Ultimately, it is vital for those who seek to better themselves as individuals to understand the true nature of our generative impulses, so that we guard against the delusions that lead us toward the squandering of our compassion and philanthropy and lead us down a path of delusion and debasing subservience.
[1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, pg. 218-219
[2] Dawkins, pg. 219
[3] Dawkins, pg. 220
[4] Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 221