DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of Altruism Sarah Siemens Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of Altruism Sarah Siemens Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University Altruism Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 An Analysis of Altruism Sarah Siemens Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University Scientists, freethinkers, and philosophers have attempted to find an explanation of the role of altruism in a natural world that is compatible to the dominantly accepted Darwinian principle of natural selection. Many postulates have been developed in an attempt to explain how self-sacrificial behaviors are cohesive within the “survival of the fittest” ideology. This has caused many scientists to broaden the definition of altruism to understand its components in the physical world. In order to understand how absolute altruism is solely found through God’s love, it is necessary to examine each subset of scientific altruism to reveal their differences. None of the subcategories of altruism are equivalent to the self-sacrificing love of God; however, they do offer an interesting perspective of how selflessness can be explained in a scientific context. Simply described, altruism is the obvious that none of their explanations highest form of love. It is the action of self- compare to the absolute benevolence found sacrificing, self-emptying, or offering in God’s love. complete benevolence to another being. It is French philosopher Auguste Comte a challenge to completely comprehend first coined the term ‘altruism’ in 1851 as he altruism because the concept of self- attempted to capture the moral high ground sacrifice is incompatible with the “survival of his new religion.1 Comte believed the, of the fittest” ideology commonly associated “law of flesh and the law of God could be with Darwinian explanation. Darwin’s replaced by the scientific distinction theory of natural selection deems the act of between egoistic instincts located in the placing another’s needs before oneself as a posterior part of the brain and altruistic completely unnatural act; yet, self-sacrificial instincts located in the anterior part of the behavior is evident in many areas of life. brain.”2 This altruistic-based religion served Self-sacrifice has attracted the minds of the purpose of eliminating the faith portion freethinkers as they have tried to grasp this of Christianity as well as disconnecting non- unnatural concept. Whether evolutionary, belief from immorality, politics and psychological, or theological, every corruption, thus creating a religion that was attempted explanation has a different able to exist without the language and mechanism of interpreting self-sacrificial metaphysics of Christianity. Comte argued love, and each are important to explore in that his new religion could even be regarded order to fully understand altruism’s as morally superior to Christianity, which he perplexity. After examining the described as, “an essentially selfish system evolutionary, and psychological realm’s based on each individual’s desire for infinite mechanism of defining altruism, it becomes reward and fear of eternal punishment.”3 1 Auguste Comte was raised in the Catholic Church His new religion was based on positivism and its core but decided to create his new “religion of humanity” values were altruism, order and progress. after his lover and inspiration, Clotilde de Vaux, died. 2 D. Wilson, 2014, p. 90. 3 ibid., p. 91. Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 1 Altruism Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 Although Comte’s new self-sacrificial meta- self-sacrificial actions, these actions should narrative did not develop into an accepted be attributed to the organisms’ selfish genes religion, it aroused curiosity to further attempting to prevail. Simply stated, the explore how altruism concepts could fit into degree of genetic similarity between two a selfish world. organisms is directly related to their inclination to perform altruistic acts towards An Evolutionary Explanation of Altruism each other. Dawkins states, “in order for Altruism can be categorized into altruistic behavior to evolve, the net risk to three main areas: evolutionary, the altruist must be less than the net benefit psychological and theological. Each one to the recipient multiplied by the defines altruism differently. Evolutionary relatedness.”7 Although a relatively simple altruism can be explained as “a behavior that concept, problems arise with this theory enhances the fitness of someone else at when the extent to which an organism can some cost of fitness to the donor;”4 it is determine their relatedness to another is put usually measured by the parameters of in question. It seems highly unlikely that furthering one’s genetic offspring. The main organisms that lack cognitive recognition, purpose is to explain how self-sacrificial nor have communicated a long history of behavior can occur in a world of natural ancestral heritage, like sentient humans selection. Schloss presents this dilemma by would be able to determine which other stating, “if the struggle for existence is the organisms share related genes. Dawkins engine of natural selection and survival of refutes this issue by stating that knowledge the fittest is the direction of travel, then of “true relatedness may be less important in those organisms that sacrifice their evolution of altruism than the best estimate biological well-being for the good of another of relatedness that animals can get.”8 This will be kicked off the train.”5 To answer this initial concept of genetic altruism helped lay question, scientists have developed theories a common foundation for other theories to including kin-selection theory, selfish-gene build upon and further develop evidence in theory and group-selection theory; each support of evolutionary altruism. relies on the fundamental concept that self- The next step in understanding sacrificial actions evolved as a mechanism evolutionary altruism is to consider kin- for survival. selection theory. Charles Darwin stimulated Richard Dawkins’ 2006 publication thought regarding this theory in his book of The Selfish Gene is an influential The Descent of Man. His intent in this book contribution, towards the concept of was to broaden his original theory by morality vindicated by genetics. Dawkins’ expanding the natural selection process to theory is based on the foundation that “we act within the family instead of solely the are survival machines, nothing more than individual. Darwin believed the parent to robot vehicles blindly programmed to offspring self-sacrificial relationships is the preserve the selfish molecules known as cause of the apparent morality found in genes.”6 This theory emphasizes that nonhumans. This thought coincides with the although organisms may appear to perform genetic theory previously mentioned. The 4 Post, 2002, p. 17. Quoted from Elliott Sober, “The 6 Dawkins, 2006, preface. ABC’s of Altruism.” 7 ibid., p. 95. 5 ibid., p. 214. Quoted from Jeffrey P. Schloss, 8 ibid., p. 105 “Emerging Accounts of Altruism: ‘Love Creation’s Final Law’?” Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 2 Altruism Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 kin-selection theory asserts that “organisms generation. Altruism will evolve, as the sometimes give up the possibility of shared genes are likely to be the ones generating direct offspring if their self- programmed for altruistic behavior.13 This sacrificial action toward kin could generate example can be further developed to account multiple offspring from those with whom for each relative of the altruistic individual they share many genetic similarities.”9 according to Hamilton’s equation. Essentially, the theory claims that self- Thus, kin-selection theory explains sacrificial behavior was initiated with altruistic evolution based on furthering parents caring for their offspring with the genetic offspring among relatives. However, goal of furthering their genes and then the theory fails to demonstrate how self- evolved into the altruistic actions seen in sacrificial behaviors develop in larger nonhumans. Dawkins states that “all communities of unrelated organisms. examples of child protection and paternal Philosopher Elliott Sober and biologist care, and all associated bodily organs, milk- David Sloan Wilson’s publication of Unto secreting glands, kangaroo pouches, and so Others: The Evolution and Psychology of on are examples of the working in nature of Unselfish Behavior, is the main contributor the kin-selection principle.”10 W.D. to the acceptance of the group-selection Hamilton furthered Darwin’s original theory as it helps expand altruism past its thoughts when he introduced the concept of sole genetic responsibility. It helps answer inclusive fitness as an additional explanation Dawkins’ previously mentioned problem on the progression of maternal love evolving about how nonhumans can determine their into altruistic actions in nonhumans. relatedness to one another in order to Inclusive fitness is defined as, “the sum of perform altruistic actions for genetic an individual’s own fitness plus the sum of success. Group-selection theory is defined as all the effects it causes to the related parts of “a group, such as a species or a population the fitness of all its relatives.”11 Using these within a species, whose individual members parameters, Hamilton derived the equation: are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the “the cost to the giver is less than the gain to welfare of the group; the sacrificing group the beneficiary, multiplied by the index of as a whole may be less likely to go extinct genetic relatedness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 P.M
    Conference Schedule CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The NRHC Game Night Providence Ballroom 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Big Picture Discussion Bristol/Kent FRIDAY, APRIL 13 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. City as Text Intro and Speaker Narragansett Ballroom 10:00 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. City as Text Providence 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. City as Text Reflection Narragansett Ballroom 5:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Graduate and Transfer Fair Waterplace Ballroom 6:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Student Art Show Waterplace Ballroom 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Banquet Narragansett Ballroom 9:30 p.m. - midnight Open Mic Night Narragansett Ballroom SATURDAY, APRIL 14 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast Narragansett Ballroom 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Poster Session I Narragansett Ballroom 7:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:05 a.m. - 10:20 a.m. Session I Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 10:35 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. Session II Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Presidential Lunch and Address Narragansett Ballroom 1:40 p.m. - 2:55 p.m. Session III Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 3:10 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Altruism Researchers Must Cooperate Biologists Studying the Evolution of Social Behaviour Are at Loggerheads
    COMMENT PHYSICS How the media COLLECTIVES Leadership EXHIBITION New show EVOLUTION Responses to misconstrued Steven tips learned from house- highlights 300 years of recent reappraisal of kin Hawking’s latest book p.657 hunting bees p.658 science in Berlin p.660 selection p.661 Altruism researchers must cooperate Biologists studying the evolution of social behaviour are at loggerheads. The disputes — mainly over methods — are holding back the field, says Samir Okasha. ast month, 30 leading evolutionary now calling for a radical rethink, arguing that I contend that there is little to argue about. biologists met in Amsterdam to discuss kin selection is theoretically problematic, and Much of the current antagonism stems a burgeoning controversy. The question has insufficient empirical support, and that from the fact that different researchers are PARKINS D. Lof how altruistic behaviour can arise through alternative models better account for the evo- focusing on different aspects of the same phe- natural selection, once regarded as settled, is lution of social behaviour2. Others regard kin nomenon, and are using different methods. In again the subject of heated debate. selection as solid, and the rethink as unneces- allowing a plurality of approaches — a healthy The question dividing biologists is the sary and potentially retrograde. thing in science — to descend into tribal- degree to which inclusive fitness theory, or kin Rival camps have emerged, each endors- ism, biologists risk causing serious damage selection, explains the evolution of altruism ing a different approach to social evolution. to the field of social evolution, and potentially — in which an animal provides a benefit to Heated exchanges have occurred at confer- to evolutionary biology in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Empathy in Elephants
    Do elephants show empathy? Article (Accepted Version) Bates, Lucy A, Lee, Phyllis C, Njiraini, Norah, Poole, Joyce H, Sayialel, Katito, Sayialel, Soila, Moss, Cynthia J and Byrne, Richard W (2008) Do elephants show empathy? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15 (10-11). pp. 204-225. ISSN 1355-8250 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/81549/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Do elephants show empathy? Lucy A. Bates1, Phyllis C.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 16 Kin Selection Challenges to Natural Selection
    Lecture 16 Kin selection Challenges to Natural selection: Sexual Selection Kin Selection Types of social interactions Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Recipient benefits Recipient harmed Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Recipient Cooperative benefits Recipient harmed Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Recipient Cooperative Altruistic benefits Recipient harmed Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Recipient Cooperative Altruistic benefits Recipient Selfish harmed Types of social interactions “Actor” → “Recipient” Actor benefits Actor harmed Recipient Cooperative Altruistic benefits Recipient Selfish Spiteful harmed The evolution of altruism The evolution of altruism • an altruistic act benefits a recipient at a cost to the actor The evolution of altruism • an altruistic act benefits a recipient at a cost to the actor • how can altruistic behaviors evolve? The evolution of altruism • an altruistic act benefits a recipient at a cost to the actor • how can altruistic behaviors evolve? let B = benefit to recipient (surviving offspring) The evolution of altruism • an altruistic act benefits a recipient at a cost to the actor • how can altruistic behaviors evolve? let B = benefit to recipient let C = cost to actor The evolution of altruism • an altruistic act benefits a recipient at a cost
    [Show full text]
  • Reciprocal Altruism: the Effect of Self-Esteem and Anticipation of Face-To-Face (NJ Interaction on Reciprocation
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 055 284 CG 006 614 AUTHOR Gregor, Gary L.; Conner, Hubert TITLE Peciprocal Altruism: The Effect ofSelf-Esteem and Anticipation of Face-to-Face Interaction on Reciprocation. INSTITUTION Utah Univ., Salt Lake City. PUB DATE Apr 71 NoTE 18p.; Paper presented at Annual Conventionof the Western Psychological Association, SanFrancisco, Calif., April 21-24, 1971 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *Behavior; Behavior Patterns; BehaviorTheories; Interaction; *Interpersonal Relationship;Motivation; Personality; *Rewards; *Sanctions; *Self Esteem;Self Evaluation ABSTRACT The study attempts to measure theeffects of self-esteem and face-to-face interaction on aperson's giving behavior (altruism). Seventy-two introductorypsychology students were paired on a task whichrequired that one of each pair become "indebted" to the other. Their roles werethen reversed, and data was r:ollected to see if the debtor-turned-creditor gaveback more than he had received (reciprocal altruism). Thetheoretical bases, procedures, and variable manipulations aredescribed in detail. A major finding of the study is the negativecorrelation between self-esteem and reciprocation. That is, personswith high self-esteem reciprocated )-ss than those with lower self-esteem.Two possible interpretatiorw are offered. It is also reportedthat, where subjects anticipated face-to-face confrontation withthe other member of their pair, they were more likely to reciprocate.Overall, a cynical interpretation of this finding is favored by theauthors: in the absence of a threat to punishment, onedoesn't repay his debts unless he must face his creditor. (TL) (Paper 1)resented at the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, 1871) -4- CO Reciprocal Altruism: the effect of self-esteem and anticipation of face-to-face (NJ interaction on reciprocation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics BIOSEMIOTICS
    A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics BIOSEMIOTICS VOLUME 5 Series Editors Marcello Barbieri Professor of Embryology University of Ferrara, Italy President Italian Association for Theoretical Biology Editor-in-Chief Biosemiotics Jesper Hoffmeyer Associate Professor in Biochemistry University of Copenhagen President International Society for Biosemiotic Studies Aims and Scope of the Series Combining research approaches from biology, philosophy and linguistics, the emerging field of biosemi- otics proposes that animals, plants and single cells all engage insemiosis – the conversion of physical signals into conventional signs. This has important implications and applications for issues ranging from natural selection to animal behaviour and human psychology, leaving biosemiotics at the cutting edge of the research on the fundamentals of life. The Springer book series Biosemiotics draws together contributions from leading players in international biosemiotics, producing an unparalleled series that will appeal to all those interested in the origins and evolution of life, including molecular and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, anthropologists, psychol- ogists, philosophers and historians of science, linguists, semioticians and researchers in artificial life, information theory and communication technology. For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/7710 Dario Martinelli A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics People, Paths, Ideas 123 Dario Martinelli University of Helsinki Institute of Art Research Faculty of Arts PL 35 (Vironkatu 1)
    [Show full text]
  • How the “Truth” Self Relates to Altruism: When Your Problem Is Mine
    Social Cognition, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017, pp. 204–226 CORNWELL ET AL. HOW THE “TRUTH” SELF RELATES TO ALTRUISM HOW THE “TRUTH” SELF RELATES TO ALTRUISM: WHEN YOUR PROBLEM IS MINE James F. M. Cornwell United States Military Academy, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, West Point, NY; Columbia University, Department of Psychology, New York Becca Franks University of British Columbia, Animal Welfare Program, Vancouver, BC E. Tory Higgins Columbia University, Department of Psychology, New York It has been argued that the phenomenal self sees the world from an “ego- centric” perspective. But then how do we explain why people give up their own time and resources on behalf of others? We propose that one answer to this question can be found in people’s subjective experience of motiva- tion to establishing what’s real—the phenomenal “truth” self. In seeking the truth, people want to establish not only what is correct and real but also what is right, including morally right. We propose that the experience of being effective in figuring things out and solving problems relates positively to solving others’ problems as well; that is, altruistic behaviors that help others. In support of this proposal, we touch upon ethical theories in phi- losophy and religion that have drawn the connection between seeking the truth and being moral, and we review research in comparative and social psychology suggesting how experiencing a “truth” self would support help- ing others. We also report two empirical studies demonstrating the unique relation between the subjective experience of effectiveness in pursuing the truth, particularly an affinity for solving puzzles or problems, and behaving altruistically by helping others to solve their problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Altruism an Evolutionary Pathway.A Review on The
    ALTRUISM AN EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAY.A REVIEW ON THE EVOLUTION OF ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR Thiago Perez Bernardes de Moraes The author is political scientist and researcher in the area of social psychology by Universidad Argentina John F. Kennedy Felipe dos Santos Millani The author is a biologist and master in philosophy of mind by Pontifíca Univerdidade Católica do Paraná ([email protected]) Summary: I. Introduction. II. Altruistic adaptive behavior in animals and Humans. III. Altruism an adaptive solution. III.1. Kin selection. III.2. Reciprocal altruism. III.3. Fitness indicator theory. IV. Conclusion. V. References. Recibido: 06/05/2014 Aceptado: 01/06/2014 Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas de Elche Volumen I – Número 10 – Julio de 2014 – págs. 65-82 - ISSN: 1886-6611 ALTRUISM AN EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAY.A REVIEW ON THE EVOLUTION OF ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR Summary: I. Introduction. II. Altruistic adaptive behavior in animals and Humans. III. Altruism an adaptive solution. III.1. Kin selection. III.2. Reciprocal altruism. III.3. Fitness indicator theory. IV. Conclusion. V. References. Abstract: Since the brave attempts to bring Biology to the center of the social sciences discourse, by Edward Wilson and Richard Dawkins with their books Sociobiology and The Selfish Gene, more than forty years ago, Biology has gained recognition as one of the, if not the, main area in the search for human behavior understanding. Disciplines such as behavioral genetics, cognitive neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology among others have been brought to the center of the spectacle in the quest for the understanding of the mind and the influence of those areas is growing every day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Eusociality
    Vol 466j26 August 2010jdoi:10.1038/nature09205 ANALYSIS The evolution of eusociality Martin A. Nowak1, Corina E. Tarnita1 & Edward O. Wilson2 Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others, underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans. For the past four decades kin selection theory, based on the concept of inclusive fitness, has been the major theoretical attempt to explain the evolution of eusociality. Here we show the limitations of this approach. We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations. or most of the past half century, much of sociobiological greater than two times the cost to the altruist (R 5 1/2) or eight times theory has focused on the phenomenon called eusociality, in the case of a first cousin (R 5 1/8). where adult members are divided into reproductive and (par- Due to its originality and seeming explanatory power, kin selection F tially) non-reproductive castes and the latter care for the came to be widely accepted as a cornerstone of sociobiological theory. young. How can genetically prescribed selfless behaviour arise by Yet it was not the concept itself in its abstract form that first earned natural selection, which is seemingly its antithesis? This problem favour, but the consequence suggested by Hamilton that came to has vexed biologists since Darwin, who in The Origin of Species be called the ‘‘haplodiploid hypothesis.’’ Haplodiploidy is the sex- declared the paradox—in particular displayed by ants—to be the determining mechanism in which fertilized eggs become females, and most important challenge to his theory.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 P.M
    Conference Schedule CONFERENCE AT-A-GLANCE THURSDAY, APRIL 12 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The NRHC Game Night Providence Ballroom 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Big Picture Discussion Bristol/Kent FRIDAY, APRIL 13 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. City as Text Introduction and Speaker Narragansett Ballroom 10:00 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. City as Text Providence 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. City as Text Reflection Narragansett Ballroom 5:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Graduate and Transfer Fair Waterplace Ballroom 6:00 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Student Art Show Waterplace Ballroom 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Banquet Narragansett Ballroom 9:30 p.m. - midnight Open Mic Night Narragansett Ballroom SATURDAY, APRIL 14 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast Narragansett Ballroom 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Poster Session I Narragansett Ballroom 7:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Registration Narragansett Pre-Function 9:05 a.m. - 10:20 a.m. Session I Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 10:35 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. Session II Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Presidential Lunch and Address Narragansett Ballroom 1:40 p.m. - 2:55 p.m. Session III Papers and Roundtables Breakout Rooms 3:10 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Altruism: a Natural Thought History of an Idea
    Altruism: A Natural Thought History of an Idea Caroline Golub Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Prerequisite for Honors in Sociology April 2014 © 2014 Caroline Golub ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing this thesis has been an incredibly long and illuminating journey. I have learned so much and had the wonderful opportunity to really delve into and analyze different theories of altruism, enhancing my sociological background, and performing close textual analysis, an exercise that I thoroughly enjoy. I would like to thank my advisor Professor Imber, for his enduring patience, encouragement, and guidance throughout this process. Words cannot express what your support has meant to me. I would also like to thank the other department members of my thesis committee, Professor Cushman and Professor Cuba, for the ways in which you both have and continue to inspire me, within and beyond the field of sociology. Finally, thank you to my family and friends, for your endless faith and support. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction—The Origins of Altruism 4 Chapter 2: Comte’s Conception 8 Chapter 3: Mill’s and Spencer’s Interpretations 21 Chapter 4: Durkheim’s Altruistic Suicide & Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid 30 Chapter 5: Foray into Contemporary Theory 41 Chapter 6: Diverging Disciplines 46 Chapter 7: Conclusion—Altruism at Work 63 References 68 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION—THE ORIGINS OF ALTRUISM What is altruism? It is a term most people have heard of, achieving the rare feat of academic jargon converted to popular vocabulary. But even so, there are a myriad of different interpretations of the word. It seems that most everyone has a sense of what it means, rather than a distinct, unifying definition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Empathy and Altruism
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1984 The Origins of Empathy and Altruism Carolyn Zahn-Waxler National Institute of Mental Health Barbara Hollenbeck National Institute of Mental Health Marian Radke-Yarrow National Institute of Mental Health Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_habr Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, and the Comparative Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Zahn-Waxler, C., Hollenbeck, B., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1984). The origins of empathy and altruism. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 21-41). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ORIGINS OF EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, Barbara Hollenbeck and Marian Radke-Yarrow National Institute of Mental Health Bethesda, MD 20205 Empathy and altruism are most commonly thought of as forms of compassion that human beings express toward one another. However, emotions and behaviors reflecting apparent concern for others occur within other species and across species as well. Although not without controversy, ethologists and sociobiologists (e.g., Wilson 1975) have identified many behaviors in other animals and insects that may be viewed as prosocial or altruistic (e.g., cooperative efforts of bees, warn­ ing calls of many species, rescue behaviors of whales, certain acts of mammalian caregivers toward their young, etc.). There are fewer signs of altruism across species.
    [Show full text]