January 31, 2026 • 7 mins
Neurologists and philosophers alike may argue that altruism doesn't exist because no act is ever completely unselfish. Learn why -- and why humans may have evolved this way -- in today's episode of BrainStuff, based on this article: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/unselfish-act.htm
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Brainstuff, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey brain Stuff
Lauren vogelbaumb here with a classic episode from our archives.
This one gets into some actual brain stuff. It's about
the psychology and sociology of altruism. Why do we do
nice things for other people even at our own expense?
(00:26):
Hey brain Stuff, Lauren vogelbomb here. Is there such a
thing as a truly unselfish altruistic act? One in which
someone benefits while the person performing the act receives nothing
in return. You could debate the philosophy of harm and good,
of cause and effect, of intent and result, and philosophers
have for pretty much ever. But looking at it from
(00:47):
another angle, why would we humans possess a sense of
selflessness or altruism in the first place? Is there a
biological basis for your good deeds? Whenever researchers use magnetic
resonance imaging or MRI to observe test subjects as they
perform a particular task, it seems that some new secret
of our brains is unlocked, and altruism is no exception.
(01:09):
One two thousand and six study focused on anonymous charitable donations,
which are pretty specific altruistic acts the giver receives no
tangible reward. They give away hard earned money to benefit
a total stranger, and they can't expect any thinks because
the donation is anonymous. It's altruism at perhaps its purest,
But researchers found that the subjects who contributed to charities
(01:31):
did receive some benefit the warm fuzzies. In the study,
the volunteers had a choice. They could keep money or
donate it to charities of differing ideologies. The researchers found
that giving money activated the same reward center in the
brain that was activated when the participants received money. Another
study in two thousand and seven also used MRI to
(01:51):
study the phenomenon of altruism. These researchers, however, concluded that
people aren't altruistic because they receive a good feeling when
they perform a selfless act, but because they perceive that
others are likely to return the favor. The researchers found
that the area of the brain that's activated when people
analyze social bonds indicates that before we do something nice
for someone else, we might first examine whether or not
(02:13):
that person would reciprocate if the shoe were on the
other foot. If we think someone else would act altruistically
toward us, the study suggests we would be more likely
to act altruistically toward that person. According to evolutionary theory, however,
behaviors develop when they help living things to survive. Animals
feel discomfort when they're hungry, signaling it's time to eat.
(02:34):
A plant might shed its leaves in the fall to
create a protective mulch barrier to keep its roots warm
during the winter. Flora and fauna survive by looking out
for themselves. By this logic, altruisms shouldn't even exist because
behaviors that make it through the process of natural selection
need to help that creature, or at least its genetic material, survive.
(02:55):
So the idea that we have a natural imperative to
help others at our own detriment fly in the face
of evolutionary theory. Altruism must serve some unseen purpose that
favors our survival. Take the example of a parent risking
their life to save their childs or helping your sibling
out with a loan when they're in a crunch. These
both support the belief that altruism is kinship based, meaning
(03:16):
our blood relatives are generally the beneficiaries of our altruism,
which lends itself to an extension that altruism exists to
protect the genetic line. Author Richard Dawkins, in his book
The Selfish Gene, considers humans as mere vehicles for a
genetic line. Since we pass on half of our genes.
When we protect our offspring or blood relatives at the
risk of our own lives, our altruistic behavior is merely
(03:39):
our genes acting to protect their lineage. There are other
interpretations of altruism within the sciences. However, one explanation posits
that altruism lies not within some genetic urge, but outside
of ourselves. French sociologist Emildur Kem stripped any application of
terms like good to describe acts of altruism in his
theories concerning morality. To dirk Hem, altruism existed outside of
(04:03):
the individual. It was an external social force prescribed and
demanded not for the benefit of any individual, but for
the benefit of society, simply to keep society intact. Dirkhm
defined altruism as the violent and voluntary act of self
destruction for no personal benefit, and the opposite of rational
self interest to the sociologist, behaviors like altruism exist because
(04:26):
the needs of the society and the needs of the
individual are at odds. Since people perceive the collective group
to be more important than the individual, self sacrificing behavioral
concepts like altruism are required to keep the individual in
line and subservient to the greater good. Although Dirkhm's critics
say he jumps to conclusions in his explanation for altruism
and morality in general, other anthropologists side with his interpretation.
(04:51):
Some consider it an impossibility for society to have developed
without the cooperation that altruism fosters. The implication that altruism
is an external so social mechanism is sometimes called social subjectivism,
which is more widely defined as the belief that groups
of people, not individuals, collectively create our reality and perhaps
especially concepts of truth and morality. It means that we
(05:14):
as a group have managed to create an intangible ideal
like altruism and created its high value as well. People
see those who make personal sacrifices for the common good
or for the good of another person as noble and admirable.
If Dirkham and others who share a like mind about
altruism are correct, then we have bought into altruisms so
deeply that our brains have evolved to deliver pleasure to
(05:37):
us when we perform selfless acts. To individualists or egoists
or objectivists, on the other hand, the concept of altruism
as a social fabrication is a dangerous thing, something that
defies true human nature. The idea here is that every
person is responsible for their own life and happiness, and
that we must let every other person be equally self responsible.
(06:00):
This belief follows that altruistic behavior allows people to be
exploited by detalitarian governments trying to control people's lives write
down to people's moral right to exist. Altruism, in this view,
is an aspect of subservience with a dubious benefit of
having been duped into feeling good about it. It seems
we've gone a bit far afield to answer such a
(06:21):
seemingly simple question. Is there such a thing as a
truly unselfish act? If MRI evidence is accurate, then we
have the reward system to contend with. If evolutionists are correct,
then we perform altruistic acts in order to ensure the
survival of our genes, and if subjectivists or objectivists are right,
then we're altruistic merely because we conform to social standards.
(06:42):
So far, the existence for a truly unselfish act isn't
looking good. But there are two silver linings to this
admittedly sort of dark cloud. Although we are rewarded one
way or another by performing an altruistic act, it still
remains up to the individual whether or not to perform one.
Of helping one another feels good, does that make it
any less worthwhile? Today's episode is based on the article
(07:10):
is there such a thing as a truly unselfish act?
On how stuffworks dot Com written by Josh Clark. Brain
Stuff is production of iHeartRadio in partnership with how stuffworks
dot Com and is produced by Tyler Klang. Four more
podcasts from my heart Radio visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Brainstuff, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey brain Stuff
Lauren vogelbaumb here with a classic episode from our archives.
This one gets into some actual brain stuff. It's about
the psychology and sociology of altruism. Why do we do
nice things for other people even at our own expense?
(00:26):
Hey brain Stuff, Lauren vogelbomb here. Is there such a
thing as a truly unselfish altruistic act? One in which
someone benefits while the person performing the act receives nothing
in return. You could debate the philosophy of harm and good,
of cause and effect, of intent and result, and philosophers
have for pretty much ever. But looking at it from
(00:47):
another angle, why would we humans possess a sense of
selflessness or altruism in the first place? Is there a
biological basis for your good deeds? Whenever researchers use magnetic
resonance imaging or MRI to observe test subjects as they
perform a particular task, it seems that some new secret
of our brains is unlocked, and altruism is no exception.
(01:09):
One two thousand and six study focused on anonymous charitable donations,
which are pretty specific altruistic acts the giver receives no
tangible reward. They give away hard earned money to benefit
a total stranger, and they can't expect any thinks because
the donation is anonymous. It's altruism at perhaps its purest,
But researchers found that the subjects who contributed to charities
(01:31):
did receive some benefit the warm fuzzies. In the study,
the volunteers had a choice. They could keep money or
donate it to charities of differing ideologies. The researchers found
that giving money activated the same reward center in the
brain that was activated when the participants received money. Another
study in two thousand and seven also used MRI to
(01:51):
study the phenomenon of altruism. These researchers, however, concluded that
people aren't altruistic because they receive a good feeling when
they perform a selfless act, but because they perceive that
others are likely to return the favor. The researchers found
that the area of the brain that's activated when people
analyze social bonds indicates that before we do something nice
for someone else, we might first examine whether or not
(02:13):
that person would reciprocate if the shoe were on the
other foot. If we think someone else would act altruistically
toward us, the study suggests we would be more likely
to act altruistically toward that person. According to evolutionary theory, however,
behaviors develop when they help living things to survive. Animals
feel discomfort when they're hungry, signaling it's time to eat.
(02:34):
A plant might shed its leaves in the fall to
create a protective mulch barrier to keep its roots warm
during the winter. Flora and fauna survive by looking out
for themselves. By this logic, altruisms shouldn't even exist because
behaviors that make it through the process of natural selection
need to help that creature, or at least its genetic material, survive.
(02:55):
So the idea that we have a natural imperative to
help others at our own detriment fly in the face
of evolutionary theory. Altruism must serve some unseen purpose that
favors our survival. Take the example of a parent risking
their life to save their childs or helping your sibling
out with a loan when they're in a crunch. These
both support the belief that altruism is kinship based, meaning
(03:16):
our blood relatives are generally the beneficiaries of our altruism,
which lends itself to an extension that altruism exists to
protect the genetic line. Author Richard Dawkins, in his book
The Selfish Gene, considers humans as mere vehicles for a
genetic line. Since we pass on half of our genes.
When we protect our offspring or blood relatives at the
risk of our own lives, our altruistic behavior is merely
(03:39):
our genes acting to protect their lineage. There are other
interpretations of altruism within the sciences. However, one explanation posits
that altruism lies not within some genetic urge, but outside
of ourselves. French sociologist Emildur Kem stripped any application of
terms like good to describe acts of altruism in his
theories concerning morality. To dirk Hem, altruism existed outside of
(04:03):
the individual. It was an external social force prescribed and
demanded not for the benefit of any individual, but for
the benefit of society, simply to keep society intact. Dirkhm
defined altruism as the violent and voluntary act of self
destruction for no personal benefit, and the opposite of rational
self interest to the sociologist, behaviors like altruism exist because
(04:26):
the needs of the society and the needs of the
individual are at odds. Since people perceive the collective group
to be more important than the individual, self sacrificing behavioral
concepts like altruism are required to keep the individual in
line and subservient to the greater good. Although Dirkhm's critics
say he jumps to conclusions in his explanation for altruism
and morality in general, other anthropologists side with his interpretation.
(04:51):
Some consider it an impossibility for society to have developed
without the cooperation that altruism fosters. The implication that altruism
is an external so social mechanism is sometimes called social subjectivism,
which is more widely defined as the belief that groups
of people, not individuals, collectively create our reality and perhaps
especially concepts of truth and morality. It means that we
(05:14):
as a group have managed to create an intangible ideal
like altruism and created its high value as well. People
see those who make personal sacrifices for the common good
or for the good of another person as noble and admirable.
If Dirkham and others who share a like mind about
altruism are correct, then we have bought into altruisms so
deeply that our brains have evolved to deliver pleasure to
(05:37):
us when we perform selfless acts. To individualists or egoists
or objectivists, on the other hand, the concept of altruism
as a social fabrication is a dangerous thing, something that
defies true human nature. The idea here is that every
person is responsible for their own life and happiness, and
that we must let every other person be equally self responsible.
(06:00):
This belief follows that altruistic behavior allows people to be
exploited by detalitarian governments trying to control people's lives write
down to people's moral right to exist. Altruism, in this view,
is an aspect of subservience with a dubious benefit of
having been duped into feeling good about it. It seems
we've gone a bit far afield to answer such a
(06:21):
seemingly simple question. Is there such a thing as a
truly unselfish act? If MRI evidence is accurate, then we
have the reward system to contend with. If evolutionists are correct,
then we perform altruistic acts in order to ensure the
survival of our genes, and if subjectivists or objectivists are right,
then we're altruistic merely because we conform to social standards.
(06:42):
So far, the existence for a truly unselfish act isn't
looking good. But there are two silver linings to this
admittedly sort of dark cloud. Although we are rewarded one
way or another by performing an altruistic act, it still
remains up to the individual whether or not to perform one.
Of helping one another feels good, does that make it
any less worthwhile? Today's episode is based on the article
(07:10):
is there such a thing as a truly unselfish act?
On how stuffworks dot Com written by Josh Clark. Brain
Stuff is production of iHeartRadio in partnership with how stuffworks
dot Com and is produced by Tyler Klang. Four more
podcasts from my heart Radio visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
BrainStuff News
Host
Lauren Vogelbaum
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.