In this blog post, we explore whether altruistic behavior stems from genuine goodwill or is a strategy for self-interest.
Most of us who live in society know how to help and cooperate with others. We are aware that altruistic behavior does not necessarily bring benefits to ourselves. However, we may not have ever thought about why we behave altruistically. This question has been studied and debated for a long time in various fields, such as evolutionary biology and sociobiology. This has led to the emergence of various hypotheses explaining why we behave altruistically. One of these is the reciprocal altruism hypothesis, which states that humans behave altruistically because they receive as much as they give.
According to this hypothesis, humans behave altruistically toward others because they expect to receive altruistic behavior from them in the future, as if it were insurance. If the other party does not behave altruistically but instead acts in a way that is most beneficial to themselves, then the individual will also pursue their own benefit in the next situation. In conclusion, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis states that people engage in repeated altruistic behavior because it is more beneficial than pursuing only their own interests, as both parties benefit from alternating altruistic behavior.
Another hypothesis that explains why humans engage in altruistic behavior is the kin selection theory. This theory explains that we engage in altruistic behavior in order to increase the survival probability of our genes. In other words, helping relatives who carry my genes survive and reproduce ultimately benefits the survival of my genes. This kin selection theory provides an important clue for understanding altruistic behavior in humans from the perspective of evolutionary biology.
There is also a view that altruistic behavior in humans stems from social norms and a sense of moral obligation. As social animals, we can maintain our social status and promote trust and cooperation within society by complying with social norms and moral rules. These social norms and moral obligations lead to behavior that pursues the interests of the community beyond individual interests.
Suppose that I want to eat half a chicken because it is too much for me to eat all by myself. However, if a whole chicken costs $10, half a chicken will cost a little more than $5. Let’s assume that it costs $6. If I buy a whole chicken and share it with my friend, I will lose $4 compared to buying half a chicken and eating it by myself. However, if my friend buys another chicken and we split it, I will have eaten 6,000 won worth of chicken for free, so I will have gained 2,000 won, and my friend will also have gained 2,000 won. However, if instead of buying one chicken to share, each person buys half a chicken to eat, then in the next situation, it would be the ideal choice for everyone to buy only what they want to eat, as neither side would lose out. Comparing the two situations, taking turns buying one chicken each is the most beneficial situation. The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis states that by anticipating future benefits (e.g., “He will be generous next time”) and acting altruistically, one can elicit altruistic behavior from the other party.
There is a problem with this hypothesis. What would happen if it became impossible to buy chicken anymore? If it is certain that chicken will become unavailable, and both people know when that will happen, neither of them will want to lose out by buying a whole chicken at the last moment. Furthermore, if one person knows that the other will only buy half a chicken at the last moment, they will also only buy enough chicken for themselves just before the last moment. As a result, no one will act altruistically. Therefore, this hypothesis requires the premise that the situation of buying chicken must be repeated, that is, the situation in which altruistic behavior is possible must be repeated.
Repetition and reciprocity cause humans to act altruistically. However, when it comes to repetition, the limitations of this hypothesis become apparent when there is an end. Nevertheless, even if there are limits to the repetition of specific human behaviors, the story is different when we consider repetition and reciprocity not as one-to-one repetition and reciprocity, but as repetition between groups and within groups. From a broad perspective, just as it is impossible to predict the future, it can be said that there are no limits to human behavior itself. Therefore, if we look at repetition and reciprocity from a broad perspective, many of the limitations of this theory will be compensated for. In conclusion, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis can be said to be a hypothesis that explains how altruistic behavior has a decisive influence on human development and how humans have come to engage in altruistic behavior with all members of society through reciprocity.
In social life, altruistic behavior is an important factor that promotes harmony and development of society as a whole, going beyond the interests of individuals. As altruistic behavior increases, social trust grows, cooperation and mutual support are strengthened, and this ultimately leads to the improvement of the welfare of society as a whole. In this context, understanding and encouraging altruistic behavior in humans is a very important task.
Finally, altruistic behavior in humans is a complex phenomenon that cannot be explained by theoretical hypotheses alone. We constantly experience altruistic behavior in our daily lives, and through it, we form deep connections with others. These experiences form a fundamental part of human nature and cause us to deeply reflect on why we help and live with one another. Therefore, altruistic behavior can be considered an important act that reflects an essential aspect of human existence.
