In this blog post, we will explore from various angles whether altruistic behavior in humans stems from true purity or is an expression of hidden selfishness.
“Are humans good or evil?” Everyone is familiar with this debate through the opposing theories of innate goodness and innate evil. Then how about this question? ‘Are humans selfish or altruistic?’ This question is a slightly more advanced form of the previous question. This is because it considers not only human nature, but also human relationships with others. The scope of the question has also been expanded. While the conflict between the doctrine of innate goodness and the doctrine of innate evil mainly considered philosophical issues, the conflict between selfishness and altruism considers not only philosophical issues but also various fields such as biology, economics, and psychology.
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, so it is not a simple issue. Everyone knows that humans do not only engage in altruistic or selfish behavior. Therefore, this debate focuses on how to explain altruistic behavior rather than whether humans are selfish or altruistic. In other words, those who argue that humans are selfish claim that the fundamental cause of altruistic behavior is selfish nature. On the other hand, those who argue that humans are altruistic claim that altruistic behavior stems from a pure heart.
My opinion is that altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone. In this article, I will present other factors besides selfish nature to explain altruistic behavior. Along with this, I will refute the arguments of those who claim that humans are selfish. Therefore, let us first examine the arguments that human altruistic behavior stems from selfish nature. There are two main arguments. The first is that genes have selfish characteristics that aim solely at survival and reproduction. In order to spread their genes widely, people behave altruistically toward those who are related to them. The second is the “tit-for-tat hypothesis.” This hypothesis explains that human altruistic behavior is based on repeated interactions and is intended to benefit oneself in the future.
However, humans are purely altruistic. This means that we are capable of altruistic behavior purely out of altruistic motives, without selfish purposes or expectations of reward. What are selfish purposes? Selfish purposes refer to the aforementioned desire to spread one’s genes widely and to gain future benefits for oneself. Consider the case of a subway hero who sacrificed his life to save a drunk passenger who had fallen onto the subway tracks. What benefits or rewards could he have gained from his sacrifice? His sacrifice deeply moved people, but he would not have given his life for that. In other words, his actions were purely altruistic. The drunk man and the subway hero were not related. Furthermore, the subway hero did not consider the benefits that would come back to him in the future when he sacrificed his life. His pure motivation to save the drunk man without expecting any reward or benefit led to his altruistic act of sacrificing his life.
So where does this pure motivation come from? At this point, we need to consider other factors. The first is empathy. All humans have the ability to empathize with others by reading signals such as facial expressions to understand their emotions and feelings. An example of this is when we cry or laugh while watching a movie or drama. In fact, the perception-motor network system in the brain actively responds not only to one’s own actions but also to the actions of others. Research has also shown that simply seeing another person’s pain activates the same part of the brain as when one is injured, through the action of mirror neurons. This empathy explains why altruistic behavior is more common among blood relatives. Humans have a brain circuit that activates when we experience intense emotions such as fear. This circuit also activates when others experience intense emotions, and it is particularly sensitive to the emotions of loved ones. In other words, when we see others suffering or sad, we can empathize with them through our ability to feel their emotions. This explains why we engage in altruistic behavior to help others. Take, for example, helping a friend carry a heavy load. When we see our friend carrying a heavy load, we can empathize with the difficulty of carrying something heavy. This emotion manifests itself in the altruistic act of helping our friend carry their load.
The second factor is communitarianism. Humans are influenced by the values and standards of the communities to which they belong. We live in a society that considers altruistic behavior to be right and encourages it. Altruistic behavior is not for selfish purposes, but can be seen as a natural behavior as a member of such a society. Here, some people may question whether our society really considers altruistic behavior to be right and encourages it. It is not simply based on the teachings in morality textbooks and the words of adults that we should live with consideration for others. The case of the subway hero mentioned earlier was widely reported with the title “hero,” and many people evaluated his actions as “brave” rather than “pathetic.” These cases support the idea that our society recognizes altruistic behavior as right and encourages it.
The third is the psychological priming effect. The priming effect is when a stimulus presented first influences the processing and interpretation of a stimulus presented later. Even if it is not due to communitarianism, it is possible to behave altruistically based on the stimulus of recognizing altruistic behavior as correct. In other words, altruistic behavior can occur based on individual experience, not the influence of the community. The case of boxer Choi Yo-sam, who donated his organs after being declared brain dead, was widely reported in the media, and the number of people who applied to donate their organs increased more than fourfold compared to previous years, supporting the priming effect. Of course, as explained above, our society considers altruistic behavior to be right and encourages it. Therefore, we can see that the effects of communitarianism and the priming effect appear simultaneously in our society.
So far, we have explained various factors that must be considered in order to explain altruistic behavior. Some may point out that there are clearly altruistic acts that are motivated by selfish purposes, such as future benefits or the opinions of others. However, as mentioned earlier, my argument is that altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone. Humans have a selfish nature. There are clearly altruistic behaviors that stem from this selfish nature. However, there are also clearly altruistic behaviors that cannot be explained by selfish nature alone, and these can be explained by the various reasons mentioned above.
Furthermore, one may question whether the selfish nature that has existed since the past has been internalized and manifested as pure altruism. This means that selfishness is hidden within us, unbeknownst to us. This argument will be very powerful for those who believe that selfish behavior can be explained by selfish nature. If pure altruism ultimately stems from selfish nature, then the arguments presented by the author ultimately support their claim. However, there is a major flaw in the seemingly valid argument that “pure altruism is inherent selfishness.” Consider once again the example of the subway hero mentioned earlier. He sacrificed his life to save a drunk man who was not even related to him. He had no prior relationship with the drunk man. Even if he did, there was no long-term benefit to be gained from sacrificing his life. Based on the above reasoning, he must have helped the drunk man out of pure motivation, either because he shared the pain he would feel if he were hit by a subway train or because he believed that altruistic behavior was right. Those who disagree with my argument will argue that this pure motivation is the result of his past selfish nature becoming internalized. However, what must be considered here is the fact that some altruistic acts involve self-sacrifice. If selfish nature had been internalized in humans over a long period of time, then even when acting altruistically, we would have been designed to act only to the extent that we did not harm ourselves. However, we engage in altruistic behavior even at the cost of harm to ourselves, or even death in extreme cases. This point is the biggest flaw in the argument that the pure motive for altruistic behavior is an inherent selfish nature. Therefore, it is difficult to explain human altruistic behavior solely by selfish nature.
So far, I have argued that altruistic behavior cannot be explained by selfish nature alone, examined the grounds for the opposing view and the lack of those grounds, and presented not only my own grounds but also my thoughts on the expected counterarguments. This article has not been able to reveal the fundamental cause of altruistic behavior in humans. However, the important point is that there are clear flaws in explaining altruistic behavior solely by selfish nature, and therefore other factors must be considered. The question of how to explain altruistic behavior in humans has been a subject of great debate since ancient times, and a definitive answer has yet to be found. The cause of the altruistic behavior that we naturally exhibit in our daily lives ultimately lies in our subconscious, and it is our great task to identify that cause.
