Do Truly Unselfish Acts Really Exist?

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.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio. Hey
brain Stuff, Lauren Vogelbam. 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

(00:23):
for pretty much ever. But looking at it from 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 residence imaging
or mri I to observe test subjects as they perform
a particular task, it seems that some new secret of

(00:44):
our brains is unlocked, and altruism is no exception. One
two 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 ranger,
and they can't expect any thinks because the donation is anonymous.
It's altruism, and perhaps it's purest. But researchers found that

(01:08):
the subjects who contributed to charities 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 seven

(01:30):
also used m ri I to 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 perceived 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

(01:51):
first examine whether or not 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,

(02:12):
signaling its time to eat. 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,
altruism 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. So the idea

(02:35):
that we have a natural imperative to help others at
our own detriment flies in the face of evolutionary theory.
Altruism must serve some unseen purpose that favors our survival.
Take the example of apparent 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 our blood relatives are

(02:57):
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,

(03:17):
our altruistic behavior is merely 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 Emil dirk Hem stripped
any application of terms like good to describe acts of

(03:38):
altruism in his theories concerning morality. To dirk Hm, altruism
existed outside of 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.
Dirk Hem defined altruism as the violent and voluntary act
of self destruction for no personal benefit, and the opposite

(04:00):
of rational self interest. To the sociologist, behaviors like altruism
exist because 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

(04:22):
derk Hem's critics say he jumps to conclusions in his
explanation for altruism and morality in general, other anthropologists side
with his interpretation. Some consider it an impossibility for society
to have developed without the cooperation that altruism fosters. The
implication that altruism is an external social mechanism is sometimes
called social subjectivism, which is more widely defined as the

(04:44):
belief that groups of people, not individuals, collectively create our
reality and perhaps especially concepts of truth and morality. It
means that we 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

(05:06):
as noble and admirable. If Derkham and others who share
like mind about altruism are correct, then we have bought
into altruism so deeply that our brains have evolved to
deliver pleasure to us when we perform selfless acts. Two
individualists or egoists or objectivists. On the other hand, the
concept of altruism as a social fabrication is a dangerous thing,

(05:28):
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. This belief follows that altruistic behavior allows people
to be exploited by totalitarian governments trying to control people's
lives write down to people's moral right to exist. Altruism,

(05:50):
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 our field to
answer such a seemingly simple question. Is there such a
thing as a truly unselfish act? If mri I evidence
is accurate, then we have the reward system to contend with.
If evolutionists are correct, then we perform altruistic acts in

(06:13):
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. 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

(06:34):
an altruistic act, it still remains up to the individual
whether or not to perform one and if helping one
another feels good, does that make it any less worthwhile.
Today's episode was written by Josh Clark and produced by
Tyler Clang. To hear more from Josh, check out his
podcast The End of the World with Josh Clark. Brain

(06:55):
Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How Stuff Works.
For more on this and lots of other sticky top
visit our home planet, how stuff Works dot com and
for more podcasts for my heart Radio, visit the I
heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
your favorite shows.