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