| | 
So-Called Altruism in the Animal World
A side issue to the general misunderstanding and willful deceit by intellectuals over the meaning of altruism is its current use by biologists (and psychologists) to mean something entirely different from what it means in ethics.
You may see articles in popular science magazines about altruism in the animal kingdom. How is it possible that a bee will forgo reproduction and die for the hive, or a monkey will call out an alarm signal to the troop, warning others of the danger of a leopard or a hawk, but bringing lethal attention upon itself?
Such behavior is quite regularly called altruistic. However, it is properly called kin selection. The action of animals in such situations is the product of hardwired responses that while perhaps dangerous or lethal to the individual are helpful or lifesaving to its close kin. In the biological realm, animals cannot make the conceptual choice to pursue their own happiness. Their actions are to a large extent genetically motivated, even if there is an amount of learning and non-verbal cognition going on among higher animals. The relevant calculation is not a conscious one based on the animal's chosen values, but a reflexive one based on benefit to the animal's close genetic relatives.
For example, the alarm calls of monkeys are startle reflexes. They do not think about whether to warn their relatives, but they cry out involuntarily upon seeing the proper stimulus. So far as nature is concerned, the individual organism is always expendable so long as his genetic line flourishes. If I have a 10% chance of dying because I call out a warning, but save the lives of five nephews who each share 1/4 of my genetic endowment, then it makes sense for me to call out at a 10% risk of my own death compared to the possible loss of one of my own nephews who shares 25% of my gene line. If I call out ten times over a lifetime, but save all five nephews, I have lost 100% of my genetic "self" but have saved 5 x 1/4 =125% of my bloodline by doing so.
This line of reasoning or genetic calculation is only validly called kin selection, and should never be called altruism. Altruism would be me as a monkey calling out to the leopard because the leopard is hungry - not to save my kin but to feed my enemy.
Also, keep in mind that we really share much more in common with our close relatives than just 50% or 25% of our genes. Humans and chimps only differ in their genes by a few percent at most. Since all living humans share an ancestor less than 200,000 years ago, and probably more like 75,000 years ago, we all share more than 99.9% of our genetic endowment. Now, of course, humans do think. And a gene that made one sacrifice oneself for random strangers would still tend to breed out of the gene pool rather quickly. (And the existence of such a gene per se is a fantasy anyway - one might have a high or low level of oxytocin or other neurotransmitters by genetic endowment, making one more or less likely to be cuddly and empathetic or cold and sociopathic - but blood chemical levels simply don't translate directly into action, and especially not into complex actions such as learning CPR.) In any case, many humans will be willing, when faced with a split second stimulus, to risk their own lives to save others, and our social nature and our close genetic kinship makes this understandable from a genetic point of view.
But true altruism, self-sacrifice without any return is as unheard-of in animals as it is evil among humans. So long as such people as Peter Singer are considered professional ethicists and so long as scientists either accept false common notions or evade philosophical education altogether, we will keep hearing of altruism from scientists as if it were an expected part of the natural world. It is not, and the notion should be fought tooth and nail, for the good of the species.
Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/28, 1:27am)
|
|
