The Existence of Genuine Altruism From Social Psychology Perspective

There are several social behaviours that humans exhibit some are negative and some are positive. Altruism is one of such social behaviours. What is altruism and is there anything like genuine altruism? This essay attempts to answer the question whether there is genuine altruism from a social psychology perspective.

Altruism is the behaviour of showing unselfish concern for the other. In many religions of the world such behaviour is often preached; in Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. In the Bible for example you will find verses like - Love your neighbour, 'And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?...'. Although the word altruism is not used but the promotion of a behaviour which puts the other first is advocated. Altruism (altruisme in French) was coined by Auguste Comte in 1854 and he used it to refer to a social instinct which put the other first benevolent and sympathetic feeling. Several scholars have tried to explain what altruism is. For Nietzsche, altruism was a psychological weakness in human beings. Kant believed that our abilities and circumstances in which we find ourselves set limits on how altruistic we can be. Oliner and Oliner define altruism as 'helping another voluntarily at considerable cost and without expectation of external reward'. According to Scott and Seglow, the evolution of altruism involves the insubordination of self-love to meeting the needs of others and this is a source of well-being for the individual as well as the society. Trivers says that the definition of altruism that appeals to him is the one which says the 'altruism is a social behaviour carried out to achieve positive outcomes for another rather than for the self'. Altruism is both a social and moral phenomenon and as such a psychological phenomenon. In the field of social psychology, a number of theories have been propounded in order to explain altruism. Two of those theories will be looked at in this essay 'first the kin selection theory and the empathy-altruism theory'.

For some psychologists, altruism can be explained from an evolutionary perspective. The kin and group selection theory by John Maynard Smith also known as the inclusive fitness theory according to W.D. Hamilton serves this purpose. Smith explains that the theory refers to 'the evolution of characteristics which favour the survival of close relatives of the affected individual by processes which do not require discontinuities in the population breeding structure'. This means that an individual will behave in self-sacrificial ways that will benefit the genetic fitness of hisher relatives. This self-sacrificing way is evident in social insects as well as in other animals. An example is the working bee that sacrifices its reproductive rights for the queen bee as well as in other animal. For Smith, the kin selection will be more effective if animals lived in family groups.

The fundamental idea of kin selection stems from Darwin's theory of natural selection which says that in the evolution of genes, it is the fittest genes that survive 'survival of the fittest'. If this is the case, how then does the altruistic gene become the dominant gene? The altruistic gene can become the dominant gene through social learning. Rushton pointed out four ways altruism can be socially learned. They are: classical conditioning 'the learning of emotional responses, observational learning of prosocial behaviour, learning through reinforcement and punishment, learning from verbal procedures such as instructions and preaching'. For this reason altruism can be seen as a selfish behaviour in which the self-sacrificing individual hopes to get something in return from the receiver or from the altruistic act itself. For this reason, several scientists argue that there are different forms of altruism like reciprocal altruism - a concept developed by Robert Trivers to refer to a tit-for-tat behaviour and endocentric altruism in which a person is mainly concerned with their moral self-image - this behaviour can be explained in terms of a person's moral development from infancy, adolescence and adulthood. Their moral reasoning begins with an awareness of punishment for non-compliant behaviour and therefore they avoid it and consciously conform with social norms.

In contrast to the kin selection theory, Batson proposes the empathy-altruism hypothesis. For him, 'a prosocial behaviour is altruistic when the ultimate goal is to increase another's welfare'. He proposes that empathic emotion can evoke motivation directed toward the ultimate goal of reducing the other's need. He acknowledges that it is possible that reducing the other's need may bring about social and self rewards, punishment and perhaps reduce the helper's own aversive arousal but it ultimately evokes the motivation to help such that these benefits to self are not the goal of helping but rather consequences of helping. As Baston notes this represents a return to the original idea of altruism as first used by Auguste Comte and perhaps reflects what genuine altruism is all about.

Kreb and van Hesteren give a stage by stage account of the development process of altruism beginning from: undifferentiated affective responses which involves the emission of survival-maintaining behaviours like smiling, to egocentric accommodation in which the main aim is to fulfil one's obligation, relive tension and please those in authority, to instrumental cooperation mainly concerned with the idea of giving in order to receive, to mutual altruism in which the goal is to maintain one's standing as a good person with the peoplegroups one identifies with, to conscientious altruism which is marked by a personal sense of social responsibility, to autonomous altruism which is based on internal values of universal dignity, equality and rights for all, to integrated altruism in which the main idea is to ensure a balanced and integrated social relations, to universal self-sacrificial love which only considers the dignity of the recipient of the altruistic act whilst giving up any concerns about the self. The authors go on to write that there are costs and benefits attached to each stage and such as material and physical costs, social sanctions as well as effects on the altruistic individual's psychological growth and integrity, amongst many others. Based on these then, can we say that individuals like Mother Theresa are genuinely altruistic? Loperato argues that though some may argue that she has not behaved altruistically and that her actions stem from an egoistic motive since as a Catholic Nun she is working for the salvation of her soul. But as he continues in his paper, the subject of altruism is not a matter of salvation of souls but rather about the improvement of the welfare of another. Individuals like Mother Theresa may indeed be genuinely altruistic since their motivation for performing those altruistic acts is to improve the fitness of the other and so any benefits which accrue to them in the process are only consequences of those acts as suggested by Baston.

Since motivation is central to altruism, it is important to note as Weiner proposes that 'a motivational episode is initiated following any outcome that can be construed as the attainment or non-attainment of a goal'. He goes on to add that emotional reactions play a role in motivated behaviour and that they are used to aid and maintain social order. But, Staub argues that they can also be self-serving and immoral which corresponds with the belief of some that there is no such thing as altruism since human beings are selfish and evil as seen in the work of Freud. Oliner and Oliner write that altruism is a voluntary and moral choice and sought to find out what differentiates those who perform altruistic acts from others. For them the question is not about whether there is anything like altruism or genuine altruism but rather whether there is a personality trait which is altruistic? They interviewed several individuals who helped the Jews escape from Nazi territory during world war II. Many of those interviewed spoke of just wanting to help because of shared humanity, justice, equal rights, amongst many other reasons. From their work, it comes to bare that the decision to behave altruistically is a matter of choice and not of genes because a number of those who helped the Jews reported that they had never had any dealings with Jews prior to the war and so their helping was not from a kin selection perspective. This does not therefore suggest that altruistic individuals have better moral character than others rather they acknowledge their shared humanity and had the inculcated the value of caring. There are other examples of altruistic acts like blood donation, living donor organ donation, the case of the Malian who scaled a Paris building to save a child (French Spiderman), the case of the cyclist trapped under a double decker in in 2015 who was saved by several passers-by who came together and lifted the bus up to free the cyclist amongst many others.

In conclusion, altruistic individuals are those whose moral courage has grown out of the routine ways they live their daily lives, the rule and examples they learned from social relationships 'parents and friends'. Altruistic tendencies are learned cultivated, nurtured and nourished.