Speaker 1: Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio. Hey
Speaker 1: brain Stuff, Lauren Vogelbam. Here is there such a thing
Speaker 1: as a truly unselfish altruistic act? One in which someone
Speaker 1: benefits while the person performing the act receives nothing in return.
Speaker 1: You could debate the philosophy of harm and good, of
Speaker 1: cause and effect, of intent and result, and philosophers have
Speaker 1: for pretty much ever. But looking at it from another angle,
Speaker 1: why would we humans possess a sense of selflessness or
Speaker 1: altruism in the first place? Is there a biological basis
Speaker 1: for your good deeds? Whenever researchers use magnetic residence imaging
Speaker 1: or mri I to observe test subjects as they perform
Speaker 1: a particular task, it seems that some new secret of
Speaker 1: our brains is unlocked, and altruism is no exception. One
Speaker 1: two six study focused on anonymous charitable donations, which are
Speaker 1: pretty specific altruistic acts. The giver receives no tangible reward.
Speaker 1: They give away hard earned money to benefit a total ranger,
Speaker 1: and they can't expect any thinks because the donation is anonymous.
Speaker 1: It's altruism, and perhaps it's purest. But researchers found that
Speaker 1: the subjects who contributed to charities did receive some benefit
Speaker 1: the warm fuzzies. In the study, the volunteers had a choice.
Speaker 1: They could keep money or donate it to charities of
Speaker 1: differing ideologies. The researchers found that giving money activated the
Speaker 1: same reward center in the brain that was activated when
Speaker 1: the participants received money. Another study in two thousand seven
Speaker 1: also used m ri I to study the phenomenon of altruism.
Speaker 1: These researchers, however, concluded that people aren't altruistic because they
Speaker 1: receive a good feeling when they perform a selfless act,
Speaker 1: but because they perceived that others are likely to return
Speaker 1: the favor. The researchers found that the area of the
Speaker 1: brain that's activated when people analyze social bonds indicates that
Speaker 1: before we do something nice for someone else, we might
Speaker 1: first examine whether or not that person would reciprocate if
Speaker 1: the shoe were on the other foot. If we think
Speaker 1: someone else would act altruistically toward us, the study suggests
Speaker 1: we would be more likely to act altruistically toward that person.
Speaker 1: According to evolutionary theory, however, behaviors develop when they help
Speaker 1: living things to survive. Animals feel discomfort when they're hungry,
Speaker 1: signaling its time to eat. A plant might shed its
Speaker 1: leaves in the fall to create a protective mulch barrier
Speaker 1: to keep its roots warm during the winter. Flora and
Speaker 1: fauna survive by looking out for themselves. By this logic,
Speaker 1: altruism shouldn't even exist, because behaviors that make it through
Speaker 1: the process of natural selection need to help that creature,
Speaker 1: or at least its genetic material, survive. So the idea
Speaker 1: that we have a natural imperative to help others at
Speaker 1: our own detriment flies in the face of evolutionary theory.
Speaker 1: Altruism must serve some unseen purpose that favors our survival.
Speaker 1: Take the example of apparent risking their life to save
Speaker 1: their childs or helping your sibling out with a loan
Speaker 1: when they're in a crunch. These both support the belief
Speaker 1: that altruism is kinship based, meaning our blood relatives are
Speaker 1: generally the beneficiaries of our altruism, which lends itself to
Speaker 1: an extension that altruism exists to protect the genetic line.
Speaker 1: Author Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, considers
Speaker 1: humans as mere vehicles for a genetic line Since we
Speaker 1: pass on half of our genes. When we protect our
Speaker 1: offspring or blood relatives at the risk of our own lives,
Speaker 1: our altruistic behavior is merely our genes acting to protect
Speaker 1: their lineage. There are other interpretations of altruism within the sciences. However,
Speaker 1: one explanation posits that altruism lies not within some genetic urge,
Speaker 1: but outside of ourselves. French sociologist Emil dirk Hem stripped
Speaker 1: any application of terms like good to describe acts of
Speaker 1: altruism in his theories concerning morality. To dirk Hm, altruism
Speaker 1: existed outside of the individual. It was an external social force,
Speaker 1: prescribed and demanded not for the benefit of any individual,
Speaker 1: but for the benefit of society, simply to keep society intact.
Speaker 1: Dirk Hem defined altruism as the violent and voluntary act
Speaker 1: of self destruction for no personal benefit, and the opposite
Speaker 1: of rational self interest. To the sociologist, behaviors like altruism
Speaker 1: exist because the needs of the society and the needs
Speaker 1: of the individual are at odds. Since people perceive the
Speaker 1: collective group to be more important than the individual, self
Speaker 1: sacrificing behavioral concepts like altruism are required to keep the
Speaker 1: individual in line and subservient to the greater good. Although
Speaker 1: derk Hem's critics say he jumps to conclusions in his
Speaker 1: explanation for altruism and morality in general, other anthropologists side
Speaker 1: with his interpretation. Some consider it an impossibility for society
Speaker 1: to have developed without the cooperation that altruism fosters. The
Speaker 1: implication that altruism is an external social mechanism is sometimes
Speaker 1: called social subjectivism, which is more widely defined as the
Speaker 1: belief that groups of people, not individuals, collectively create our
Speaker 1: reality and perhaps especially concepts of truth and morality. It
Speaker 1: means that we as a group have managed to create
Speaker 1: an intangible ideal like altruism and created its high value
Speaker 1: as well. People see those who make personal sacrifices for
Speaker 1: the common good or for the good of another person
Speaker 1: as noble and admirable. If Derkham and others who share
Speaker 1: like mind about altruism are correct, then we have bought
Speaker 1: into altruism so deeply that our brains have evolved to
Speaker 1: deliver pleasure to us when we perform selfless acts. Two
Speaker 1: individualists or egoists or objectivists. On the other hand, the
Speaker 1: concept of altruism as a social fabrication is a dangerous thing,
Speaker 1: something that defies true human nature. The idea here is
Speaker 1: that every person is responsible for their own life and happiness,
Speaker 1: and that we must let every other person be equally
Speaker 1: self responsible. This belief follows that altruistic behavior allows people
Speaker 1: to be exploited by totalitarian governments trying to control people's
Speaker 1: lives write down to people's moral right to exist. Altruism,
Speaker 1: in this view, is an aspect of subservience with a
Speaker 1: dubious benefit of having been duped into feeling good about it.
Speaker 1: It seems we've gone a bit far our field to
Speaker 1: answer such a seemingly simple question. Is there such a
Speaker 1: thing as a truly unselfish act? If mri I evidence
Speaker 1: is accurate, then we have the reward system to contend with.
Speaker 1: If evolutionists are correct, then we perform altruistic acts in
Speaker 1: order to ensure the survival of our genes. And if
Speaker 1: subjectivists or objectivists are right, then we're altruistic merely because
Speaker 1: we conform to social standards. So far, the existence for
Speaker 1: a truly unselfish act isn't looking good, But there are
Speaker 1: two silver linings to this admittedly sort of dark cloud.
Speaker 1: Although we are rewarded one way or another by performing
Speaker 1: an altruistic act, it still remains up to the individual
Speaker 1: whether or not to perform one and if helping one
Speaker 1: another feels good, does that make it any less worthwhile.
Speaker 1: Today's episode was written by Josh Clark and produced by
Speaker 1: Tyler Clang. To hear more from Josh, check out his
Speaker 1: podcast The End of the World with Josh Clark. Brain
Speaker 1: Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How Stuff Works.
Speaker 1: For more on this and lots of other sticky top
Speaker 1: visit our home planet, how stuff Works dot com and
Speaker 1: for more podcasts for my heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.