|
Altruism: Scientific and Religious Perspective
Muhammad Naseem Khan*
Altruism in literal sense means:
1. Selflessness:
an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern
for the welfare of others
2. Belief in acting for others’ good: the belief that acting
for the benefit of others is right and good (1)
According to The Encyclopedia Encarta (2004) altruism is
the devotion to the welfare of others. It is the English
form of the French word altruisme created by the
19th-century French philosopher and sociologist Auguste
Comte from the Italian word altrui, meaning “of or to
others.” The word has gradually come into more general use.
In philosophy altruism describes a theory of conduct that
aspires to the good of others as the ultimate end for any
moral action. In theories of ethics altruism is the
antithesis of egoism (self-interest) (2)
Encyclopedia Britannica explains altruism thus:
The term (French altruisme, derived from Latin alter,
“other”) was coined in the 19th century by Auguste Comte,
the founder of Positivism, and adopted generally as a
convenient antithesis to egoism. As a theory of conduct, its
adequacy depends on an interpretation of “the good.” If the
term is taken to mean pleasure and the absence of pain, most
altruists have agreed that a moral agent has an obligation
to further the pleasures and alleviate the pains of other
people (3)
Another more comprehensive term, that coveys the same sense
is unlimited love. Stephen G.Post (2003)
defines the term unlimited love in the following way:
The essence of the love is to affectively affirm as well to
unselfishly delight in the well-being of others, and to
engage in acts of care and service on their behalf;
unlimited love extends this love to all others without
exception, in an enduring and constant way. Widely
considered the highest form of virtue, unlimited love is
often deemed a Creative Presence underlying and integral to
all of reality: participation in unlimited love constitutes
the fullest experience of spirituality. (4)
 
Batson
(1991 p. 6), in psychological perspective, defines altruism
as ‘‘a motivational state with the ultimate goal of
increasing another’s welfare’’. Science Fair Projects
Encyclopedia defines Altruism as an unselfish interest
in helping someone else. It is a motivation that emphasizes
the welfare of others while minimizing or ignoring the
individual's own welfare. (5)
Altruism, in practice, is the performance of duties to
others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one's
efforts. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a
view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form
of gratitude or remuneration then it is not an altruistic
act.(6)
In the evolutionary sense of the term an organism behaves
altruistically if it reduces its own fitness and augments
the fitness of others.
In the discussion to follow we first discuss the altruism
in evolutionary Biology perspective, and then in religious
backdrop.
Altruism and Evolutionary Biology
The basic idea of natural selection is that characteristics
evolve because they help the individuals who possess them to
survive and reproduce. A herd of zebra, for example, will
gradually increase in speed because faster zebras do a
better job evading predators. They are fitter. If their
off-springs resemble them they have better chances of
survival as well. In this example natural selection favours
those who help themselves. Natural selection thus does not
benefit other species. It therefore appears that helping
other individuals to survive and reproduce at the expense of
one’s own survival and reproduction is the very thing that
natural selection will eliminate. In short, natural
selection appears to be the process that promotes
selfishness and stamps out altruism. Darwin was aware of
this puzzle because in nature organisms in many instances
behave in ways that appear altruistic. For instance, a
honeybee sacrifices its life for the colony when it uses its
barbed stinger to attack intruders to the nest. Human beings
characteristics like honesty, charity, heroism, sympathy,
fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, etc, are acts in which they
act for the welfare of others. These altruistic
characteristics are explained by Darwin by his idea of
group selection. He says that sometimes selection acts
on groups as it acts on individuals. In Descent of
Man Darwin writes:
It must
not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality
gives a slight or no advantage to each individual man and
his children over the other men of same tribe, yet that an
increase in the number of well-endowed men and advancement
in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense
advantage to one tribe over the another. There can be no
doubt that a tribe including many members who, from
possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism,
fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always
ready to aid one another and sacrifice themselves for common
good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this
would be natural selection. At all times throughout the
world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and morality is
one important element in their success, the standard of
morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus
everywhere tend to rise and increase(Darwin 1871,p166)
(7)
Up to 1960s the adaptationist explanation was accepted
uncritically in evolutionists. G.C. William’s 1966 book,
Adaptation and Natural Selection, vigorously rejected
adaptations that exist for the good of the group. Group
adaptations were considered only a theoretical possibility
which need to be replaced by more plausible explanations.
The evolutionary biologists, in this pursuit, tried to
explore selfishness in altruistic acts. Ghiselin (1974,
p.274) says:
The
economy of nature is competitive from beginning to end…The
impulses that lead one animal to sacrifice himself for
another turn out to have their ultimate rationale in gaining
advantage over a third…where it is in his own interest,
every organism may reasonably be expected to aid to his
fellows…yet given a full chance to act in his own interest,
nothing but expediency will restrain him from brutalizing,
from maiming, from murdering–his brother, his mate, his
parent, or his child. Scratch an “altruist”, and watch a
“hypocrite” bleed.
(8)
Many evolutionary biologists maintain that when one
apparently acts altruistically he acts to promote genetic
self interest because he is helping copies of their own
genes that are found in the bodies of others .(9). Richard
Dawkins in, Selfish Gene, writes:
I shall
argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a
successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene
selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in
individual behaviour. However, there are special
circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish
goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the
level of individual animals........universal love and the
welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply
don’t make evolutionary sense.(10
)
Stephan G.Post (1997) has strongly repudiated this
depiction of human nature by Richard Dawkins. He says that
the overall impression given by such rhetoric is that human
nature is fully determined by so called selfish genes that
are motivationally controlling. Of course genes are merely
bits of DNA, incapable of motivations themselves, and as
elements in human nature do not explain the human beings in
any full sense…Dawkins allows for a very limited potential
for altruistic motives and behaviour, but his robotic
survival machine can only be altruistic to the extent that
it serves the purposes of successful procreation, whereby
genes are migrated to the next generation of survival
machines. This reductionism is philosophically indefensible.
(11)
Human behaviour is influenced by many factors; included
among them are culture, mind, moral sense, spirituality,
religious and ethical wisdom, survival needs of the larger
groups and also the direct power of unlimited love. The
evolutionary biologist may succeed in explaining the
beginnings of altruism, but seem almost oblivious to the
full narrative of human experience. (12)
Eliot
Sober and David Sloane Wilson (2000) say:
The idea
that human behaviour is governed entirely by self interest
and altruistic ultimate motives don’t exist has never been
supported by a coherent theory or a crisp and decisive set
of observations. The entire debate has been characterized by
an intellectual pecking order in which an egoistic
explanation for a given behaviour, no matter how contrived,
is favoured over an altruistic explanation, even in absence
of empirical evidence that discriminate between the two
approaches.(13)
Despite the wide influence of, Stephan G. Post maintains,
Williams, Trivers, and Dawkins, group selection has
reemerged---that is, the idea that in nature groups as a
whole can become well adapted and that the forces of natural
selection can rise above the individual to group success,
allowing genuine altruism to evolve. (14)
Back to Table of Contents |
Back to Top
| Next Page >> |
