On Human Nature

One of the paradoxes in human behavior is the existence of altruism, rare as it may be in certain places. Altruism, by definition, is the offering of generosity without expecting reciprocal favors from the object of one’s generosity. Human culture judges this behavior advantageous for the common good, sanctifying true altruism “in order to reward it and thus to make it less than true, and by that means to promote its recurrence in others” (149). The irony is obvious: Society rewards altruism as it is good behavior, but rewarding it makes it less altruistic.

Lesser forms of altruism are present in certain animals at all levels of the animal kingdom. Birds will issue a cry to warn the surrounding area of a predator, and chimpanzees will adopt orphans of their tribe. It is curious that extreme forms of altruism are found at extreme ends of the animal kingdom, in that humans share this trait with the lowest of animals—social insects in particular. In social insects, one finds “altruistic suicide”, the sacrifice of individuals for the sake of their colony: “members of ant, bee, and wasp colonies are ready to defend their nests with insane charges against intruders” (151). While it is clearly a detrimental act for the individual—as it results in death—it is advantageous behavior for the colony as a whole.

The question at the heart of altruism is how such a trait can be passed on genetically if the altruistic sacrifice themselves and (presumably) fail to reproduce at the same rate as their companions. Edward O. Wilson notes that a “narrow interpretation of Darwinian natural selection” should predict precisely this outcome as “people governed by selfish genes must prevail over those with altruistic genes, there should also be a tendency over many generations for selfish genes to increase in prevalence” (153). The persistence of altruism, however, is caused by the beneficiaries of most altruism: an altruistic individual’s close family and friends. When family relations are the first beneficiaries of an altruistic act, the survival of those with similar genetics is ensured, allowing for similar genetic material to be available for future reproduction.

Wilson dubs this extreme form of altruism as “hard-core altruism”, while lesser forms are dubbed “soft-core altruism” (155). Hard-core altruism genuinely expects no reciprocation, while soft-core altruism is usually calculated and exercised in hopes of reciprocation, some benefit to the individual performing the action. However, while hard-core altruism is beneficial for one’s family and nation, it is not beneficial for global cooperation. It is soft-core altruism that creates the bonds necessary for a functioning society: “Reciprocation among distantly related or unrelated individuals is the key to human society” (156) in that it allows for trade deals and expectation of fulfilled promises.

In general, humans fall in the middle of the two extremes of soft-core altruism (beneficial to an individual’s family and children alone) and hard-core altruism (sacrifice for the sake of one’s community). As a whole, the altruism of the human “appears to be substantially hard-core when directed at closest relatives” (159) while the remainder of human altruism is soft. Altruism is guided by strong emotional responses exhibited most clearly in circumstances that directly upend altruistic activity: “the cheat, the turncoat, the apostate, and the traitor are objects of universal hatred” (162). In the end, it seems that even morality is fabricated by “the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact” (168).