Table of Contents
Introduction
Three cavemen gather resources for their survival, scrounging for berries, spearfishing for primordial sushi, starting fires to stay warm, and cooking their food for the best nutrient availability. Then, another caveman comes running their way. Each caveman makes a decision. One fights, one flees, and one invites the spear-carrier over for some sushi. Who lives and who dies?
Organisms have been facing this situation throughout their years of existence and evolution: the circumstances between self-preservation and self-sacrifice, egoism vs. altruism.
For those who may not know, egoistic acts refer to behaviours that serve to benefit the self. Oftentimes, this can be at the expense of others.
For example, taking candy from a baby is an act that could be deemed selfish at the expense of the child. Another act may be a child not wanting to share his toy with a fellow playmate. Whatever the situation, the self is at the core of motivation for the behaviour.
On the other hand, altruistic acts refer to behaviours that are concerned with the well-being of others without expectation of personal gain or reward.
For instance, someone donating money or giving food to a homeless person or allowing someone to go ahead of you in the grocery line. Again, whatever the situation, the other person is usually the focus of their behaviour.
But is that true?
Is genuine altruism real?
Are altruistic behaviours selfless, or do they just appear that way?
This is the topic of today’s blog post. I will discuss topics that dive into the realm of moral philosophy and the neuroscience of altruism, and subtopics such as evolution, egoism, and selection theory.
I will include personal anecdotes as well as scientific data to illustrate my argument that genuine altruism does not exist.
Disclaimer: This post may communicate my personal biases, so readers should be aware that while my argument is grounded in evidence, it may also reflect my reasoning and beliefs about human nature.
Also, simply put, I am arguing that altruistic acts are selfish; this does not mean I believe people who commit altruistic or self-serving acts are bad or insincere. I am simply presenting an argument using logical, philosophical, and scientific reasoning.
The 3 Little Cavemen
At the core of evolution, for every organism, is the need to survive and reproduce. Without survival & reproduction, organisms could not have evolved into the forms we see today. In the Caveman Dilemma, one caveman did not live long enough to reproduce.
If you guessed the caveman who gave out invitations for a sushi dinner, then you would be correct (for the point I am trying to make). That caveman named Share did not live long enough to pass on his genes to the next generation. The other two cavemen, Fight and Flight, continued to thrive and pass along their genes to their offspring.
While this story may not describe a real historical event, it does depict an important evolutionary principle: behaviours that promote the survival, well-being, and reproduction of the organism are the ones that are more likely to persist.
We and other species have evolved with this fight-or-flight (and sometimes freeze) response in the face of danger as a method of protection. Organisms that successfully fought off other organisms were likely to reproduce. Organisms that successfully fled from predators were also likely to reproduce.
However, those organisms that tried prioritising the needs of themselves and other organisms often found themselves left behind in the competition that is life. Altruistic behaviours (like Share’s) may seem virtuous, and to an extent, they may very well be.
Still, if they consistently reduce the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce, then they are highly unlikely to be favoured by natural selection.
Individuals, organisms, who prioritise their needs and safety above all else, are the very ones that continue to live long enough to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. In keeping with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the organism’s basic physiologic and safety requirements must be first met before the organism can focus on expanding its needs involving others. From the first cell to the first independent organism, self-preservation has often been favoured by natural selection over self-sacrifice.
So, then why do we still see people working together to prosper and grow? Why do we invite other people over for sushi, especially if Share’s behaviours were not favoured by natural selection in the first place?
The answer lies in how natural selection itself evolved.
Yoder & Decety (2018) state that humans have achieved unrivalled evolutionary success because of our more advanced “social decision-making” abilities. While natural selection and evolution have typically favoured those who are focused on their goals and needs, group selection–a derivative of natural selection– has favoured “the altruist,” or rather, a group of altruists (Oakley, Knafo, Madhavan, & Wilson, 2012).
Briefly, individual selection focuses on the needs of the individual, while group selection focuses on the needs of the group, as it consists of multiple individuals working in tandem.
Somewhere along the lines of evolutionary rope arose a situation where an individual was joined by the company of another individual to increase the survival of both in a symbiotic relationship. These sorts of relationships between non-related individuals most likely developed from kin or related members branching out and extending networks to other or shared similar values, goals, and survival and reproductive needs.
No matter the path taken, groups that consist of individuals focused on the needs of the collective tend to fare better than groups that have more selfish individuals.
However, just because a successful groups contain more “altruists,” it doesn’t necessarily mean the individuals in this group aren’t selfish. It may just suggest that these individuals have found the most beneficial way– helping the group to help themselves–to maximise their odds of survival and reproduction.
This strategy has been particularly effective in humans as we have evolved a strong psychological need to belong to social groups (Wilson, 1995). If a member acts more self-centeredly, they risk disapproval, exclusion from the group, or death for violating group standards, thereby diminishing their odds of survival and reproduction. This is why it is in the best (self) interest of the individual to conform to the values and needs of the group.
Is Sharing Really Caring?
One of my favourite television shows, House M.D., has a quote that reads, “Gifts express guilt. The more expensive the expression, the deeper the guilt,” to which I thought this would fit perfectly with the contents of this post.
To explain, I have a roommate–let’s call him Jay. Jay is a kind but agreeable person who avoids confrontation at almost any cost.
On a bi-weekly basis, Jay finds himself donating food and money to homeless people on the side of the street, whether he is walking back from school or running late to his appointment.
Most people might think that Jay is just a very kind man who wants to help as many people as he can. I don’t believe this.
I believe Jay is experiencing something deeper on a psychological level that is compelling him to engage in this charitable behaviour; after all, natural selection has mostly favoured selfish behaviours and not charitable ones.
The Neuropsychology of Altruism
As a principle, Jay is the product of his genetics interacting with his environment, so we can assume his personal experiences and his child development have influenced his present behaviours; the same goes for everyone.
So, his charitable behaviours may just be the result of his parental values being passed on. Or maybe, through psychological conditioning, Jay is experiencing a type of guilt that is compelling him to engage in charitable behaviour. According to Oakley et al. (2012), the guilt he may be feeling is a type called survivor’s guilt. It is the feeling of guilt associated with benefiting in situations when others are suffering (or not benefiting), such as having money when the homeless person does not.
When I told Jay that he might benefit from being more selfish from time to time, he responded with “I try but then i feel like shit after.” These feelings of survivor’s guilt can also overlap with responsibility guilt in that Jay could be experiencing a combination of guilt for benefiting when others are not and guilt associated with believing it’s his duty to help those in need.
This situation is important to illustrate why Jay’s empathy appears altruistic but is egocentric. When we empathise with somebody, we experience what that person is feeling. If someone has experienced pain from a physical or emotional event, we, as empathetic observers, react to that event as if we were the ones experiencing it.
We place ourselves in the shoes of the victim and feel the pain they feel, although not to the same degree. However, this is precisely the reason why we want to help others in need. When someone is suffering, we either feel what they feel or we feel guilty about our situation in respect to theirs.
We then react to those negative internal feelings with thoughts and behaviours intended to alleviate our suffering. We help others because our internal suffering stems from their actual suffering. In other words, charity and altruistic behaviours are not driven by a desire to help, but by a desire to alleviate one’s internal state of agony. This suggests that Jay’s actions are not necessarily motivated by others’ suffering but more by his internal state of discomfort.
Should we still consider this altruism? To answer that, let’s move from psychology to neuroscience to better explain the neurological state of Jay during his charitable behaviour.
Neuroscience research has identified many regions responsible for empathetic, altruistic, and charitable behaviours. To understand the neural science, here are the most relevant cortical and subcortical regions involved in empathy and moral behaviour, many of which will be covered in the discussion below.
Cortical Structures Involved in Altruism & Prosocial Behaviours.
| Brain Regions | Function in Altruism & Prosocial Behaviour | Key References |
| Ventromedial PFC | Moral Reasoning, Evaluation of Social Outcomes | Pascual & Rodrigues (2013); Morishima et al. (2012) |
| Orbitofrontal Cortex | Emotional Value of Decisions, Reward Learning, Conformity to Social Norms | Pascual & Rodrigues (2013) |
| Anterior Cingulate Cortex & Anterior Insula | Affective Empathy, Conflict Monitoring, Anticipation to Reward | Chen et al. (2024); Filkowski et al. (2016); Oakley et al. (2012) |
| Subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex | Guilt, Moral Emotion, Pathological Altruism | Oakley et al. (2012) |
| Superior Posterior Temporal Cortex | Active during charitable donations | Morishima et al. (2012) |
| Temporoparietal Junction | Perspective-taking, Social Cognition | Morishima et al. (2012) |
| Dorsal Medial PFC | Perspective-taking, Social Cognition | Morishima et al. (2012) |
Subcortical Structures Involved in Altruism & Prosocial Behaviours.
| Brain Regions | Function in Altruism & Prosocial Behaviour | Key References |
| Striatum/Nucleus Accumbens | Reward Processing, Feelings of Pleasure | Filkowski et al. (2016); Chen et al. (2024); Alcaro et al. (2007) |
| Ventral Tegmental Area | Dopamine Release, Reward/Goal Driven Behaviour | Filkowski et al. (2016); Alcaro et al. (2007) |
| Hippocampus | Shift from empathic awareness to motivated prosocial action through memory. | Chen et al. (2024) |
Now, I want to highlight a few brain-based mechanisms that illustrate why people’s altruistic behaviours–like those of Share and Jay–are selfish.
First, why do we experience others’ pain? What exactly is empathy in the brain?
Chen et al. (2024) suggest that the availability of mu-opioid receptors in particular brain regions is associated with empathy, moral, and prosocial behaviours. Such regions include the amygdala, anterior insula, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activated during helping behaviour.
MORs are receptor proteins that bind to endogenous opioid peptides that give us a sense of relief (from pain) and pleasure. These can also be stimulated by exogenous substances, as in the case of morphine or prescription opioids.
What makes this finding a compelling part of my argument is that individuals who had lower MOR availability in these emotional-processing regions experienced greater empathetic distress when observing others in pain. This is likely what Jay is experiencing neurologically when observing others who are in need. The observation of suffering then affects Jay’s emotional circuits because they have a reduced ability to buffer pain via the decreased availability of MOR.
Also, the study examined brain regions (the hippocampus, the striatum, and the ACC) that exhibited a higher availability of MOR. From this information, I will make a speculation. Higher availability in these regions may help shift thoughts–empathetic distress–to motivated prosocial behaviour. In this case, lower MOR availability allows the brain to “feel”, and higher MOR allows the brain to react in a way that will reduce distress from empathising.
In addition, charity and altruism aren’t only about escaping distress but also about feeling pleasure. We’ve all experienced this. That pleasurable feeling after doing something nice for someone else. These feelings after doing a good deed are heavily tied to brain regions associated with the mesolimbic reward system, including the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the striatum, and the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) (Alcaro et al., 2007).
These pleasurable and motivating feelings are the same ones we get from eating food, being liked socially, and having sex. Filowski et al (2016) describe this bodily response as the “warm glow” effect–a pleasurable sensation experienced after giving or helping others.
This is where I embrace the logical argument of altruism. If we revert to how I initially defined altruism, behaviours that are concerned with the well-being of others without expectation of personal gain or reward are considered altruistic. But, they are reinforced due to the pleasurable experience provided. These feelings are a form of intrinsic motivation for an individual.
Regarding Jay, he has stated that he feels better after donating his money. Assuming it is from the “warm glow” effect and not from his guilt being alleviated, shouldn’t we consider this part of his motivation and reasons to donate in the first place?
In psychology, the law of effect posits that behaviours that are rewarded are likely to be repeated, whereas those that are not are less or not likely to be.
From these premises, it is likely that Jay, and people in general, would not repeat charitable behaviours if there were no rewarding feeling afterwards.
In other words, “altruism” is a subconscious biological agreement in that we help others, but in return, we get a sense of internal relief and internal pleasure. So, while altruistic behaviour may look selfless on the observable surface, underneath lies a system of emotional regulation and neurochemical rewards that benefits the self.
Therefore, if we benefit psychologically and neurologically from giving or helping, can it still be considered selfless?
Conclusion
In the end, what we call altruism, while helpful, may not be as selfless as it appears. If helping others increases survivability, reduces guilt, rewards the brain, and reinforces behaviour, then altruism–no matter how virtuous it may seem– is, fundamentally, a sophisticated form of selfishness.
References
Alcaro, A., Huber, R., & Panksepp, J. (2007). Behavioral functions of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system: an affective neuroethological perspective. Brain research reviews, 56(2), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.07.014
Chen, J., Putkinen, V., Seppälä, K., Hirvonen, J., Ioumpa, K., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., & Nummenmaa, L. (2024). Endogenous opioid receptor system mediates costly altruism in the human brain. Communications Biology, 7(1), 1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-07084-7
Filkowski, M. M., Cochran, R. N., & Haas, B. W. (2016). Altruistic behavior: Mapping responses in the brain. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 5, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.2147/NAN.S87718
Morishima, Y., Schunk, D., Bruhin, A., Ruff, C. C., & Fehr, E. (2012). Linking brain structure and activation in temporoparietal junction to explain the neurobiology of human altruism. Neuron, 75(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.021
Oakley, B. A. (2012). Pathological altruism. Oxford University Press.
Pascual, L., & Rodrigues, P. (2013). How does morality work in the brain? A functional and structural perspective of moral behavior. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00065
Wilson, J. Q. (1995). The moral sense. Free Press.
Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2018). The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1414817
