Altruism rejects the egosit view that people only act out of self-interest, and proposes that we can do things for the sake of other people - that we can care for others and help them - even when there is no reward for ourselves (there might even be cases when putting others first costs us something).

The theory of altruism is important in ethics, and is debated in psychology, and evolutionary biology.

For altruism to be true it does not need to be the case that we always put others first, only that we do sometimes. And neither does altruism have to involve self-sacrifice - there could be a reward for the person. All that is required for an act to be altruistic is that it has been motivated by a concern for others.

If altruism is true, then this would have a big impact on how we think about society, and the way that we interact with other people. For example, we would have to think carefully about when we should be putting others first, and whether we ought to be less self-interested.

Altruism vs psychological egoism

It is argued that there are many examples of people showing altruistic behaviour, which are possible counter-examples to egoism.

If there is a case of a genuine act of altruism, then egoism is not true because it would not be the case that all human behaviour is motivated by self-interest.

The argument goes like this:

Premise 1: Egoism states that all human behaviour is based on self-interest.
Premise 2: There are counter-examples to egoism (when someone acts for the sake of others).
Conclusion: Therefore egoism is not true.

So the question we need to ask is this: Are there genuine examples of altruistic behaviour?

Examples of altruism

Here are four people for whom altruism is a hugely important part of their lives:

Malala Yousafzai is a Pakistani activist who fights for girls' education. Despite being shot in 2012 by the Taliban for her activism, she continues to promote education and women's rights worldwide. Malala won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 (aged 17, making her the youngest recipient of a Nobel Prize), and she donated her share of the prize money (approximately £400,000) to build schools and support various educational projects around the world. Malala is a good example of someone who dedicates her life to the well-being of others despite the cost to herself (including death threats, and, as we have read, being shot).
Bill Gates & Melinda French Gates started the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which focuses on improving global health and education. These philanthropists have donated tens of billions of dollars to fight diseases like malaria and polio, improve sanitation, and support education in developing countries. By giving away their wealth they are acting for the sake of others.
Zell Kravinsky is a successful businessman and altruist. Kravinsky wanted to help others, so he gave away most of his million dollar fortune. But this was still not enough, and he felt that he could do more, so he decided to donate one of his kidneys to a stranger. It would be difficult to argue that this is an act performed out of self-interest - especially given the health risks involved in donating a kidney.

It might be the case that for these people, altruism is an important and central part of their lives, whereas for others doing something for someone else might be a rare event. This makes it no less valuable. We must remember that altruism does not say that we always act for the sake of others, but only that we sometimes do.

Altruism as natural human behaviour

Some philosophers, including the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment thinker David Hume, have argued that altruism is natural - that acting for the sake of others is motivated by the feeling of compassion, and is part of who we are as human beings.

Hume believed that we are more motivated to act for the sake of others who are close to us - our family and friends - than for the sake of strangers, but nonetheless, despite us not being ‘perfect’ altruists, doing something for others is still an important part of human life.

Mary Midgley (20th-21st English philosopher) agreed with Hume that altruism is part of our nature. Midgley argued that all social animals (including humans) have evolved the feeling of sympathy, which connects us to others, and give us the ability to act altruistically.

Argument for altruism: psychology

Researchers in the field of psychology study people’s behaviour. One important area of research is the possibility of altruistic behaviour, and the underlying reasons for it.

Some psychologists believe that humans can act altruistically. They think that we can do things for others with no reward for ourselves. These psychologists would support this view by pointing to examples of people who dedicate their lives to others.

Daniel Batson (20th-21st century American psychologist) believes that altruism is caused by empathy (understanding and sharing the feelings of others).

One of Batson’s experiments (1981) to support the connection between empathy and altruism is outlined below.

The participant was told that they would watch Elaine take a test, and that Elaine would receive an electric shock whenever she got an answer wrong. After watching for some questions, the participant was given a choice: either to leave, so they would not have to watch anymore, or swap places with Elaine so she did not have to suffer anymore.

Batson discovered that participants who felt more empathy towards Elaine would help her rather than leave (this is altruistic behaviour), and those with lower levels of empathy would do the opposite (this is not altruistic behaviour).

Batson’s ideas are supported by other psychologists, including Nancy Eisenberg, whose own work shows that children who feel empathy for others are more likely to help them, even when there is no personal reward. She believes that feeling empathy is a skill that we can improve through repetition - the more we help others, the stronger our empathy becomes, and the more likely we are to help others in the future.

Argument against altruism: psychology

However, some psychologists disagree with Batson, and argue that egoism is true, and therefore altruism is not possible. They believe that our behaviour is influenced by society, and if we live in a society that values helping others, then in order to fit in we are likely to behave in ways that appear altruistic, even though we are actually being selfish (just as the Abraham Lincoln story is thought to show).

B.F. Skinner (20th century psychologist) believed that we learn altruistic behaviour, through being rewarded when we act in ways that appear to be altruistic, and punished when we fail to, which reinforces this kind of behaviour. So even when we appear to be doing something for the sake of others, it is really just a reward for ourselves that we are seeking. We will return to the work of Skinner in §3.1 (Free will).

Arguments for altruism: evolutionary biology

Evolutionary biology investigates how organisms and their patterns of behaviour change over time. It has been discovered that individuals of some species help others despite there being some cost to themselves. This behaviour can be described as altruistic.

Such examples include:

Vampire bats share food (by regurgitating the blood they have eaten) with other members of their community that have not hunted successfully. This means that the bats that share their meal might not have enough to eat, but it helps the group as a whole to survive.
Velvet monkeys cry out when there is a predator (e.g., a leopard) nearby to warn other monkeys. This is good for the group - but the cost to the monkey that makes the alarm call is that the predator knows where the monkey is, so the risk to its life is increased.

In 1964, William Hamilton (English biologist) argued that animals are more likely to act altruistically towards their relatives because this helps to ensure that the family genes get passed on to the next generation. This is called kin selection. This might give support to Hume’s idea that we are more likely to act for the sake of our family members than for the sake of strangers.

A second idea that explains the appearance of altruistic behaviour in nature is reciprocal altruism. This theory was developed in the 1970s by Robert Trivers (American biologist) to explain behaviour that appears to be done for the sake of others, when the ‘others’ are not related, or even of the same species (so the behaviour is not explained by kin selection).

Trivers illustrated reciprocal altruism with the example of cleaning symbiosis in fish. This occurs when one species (e.g., a cleaner wrasse) cleans parasites off another species (e.g., a squirrelfish). This interaction benefits both parties involved: the cleaner fish receives food, and the host fish gets rid of parasites.

Argument against altruism: evolutionary biology

Other biologists disagree, and believe that behaviours that appear to be altruistic are in fact based on the most important self-interest of all - survival.

Richard Dawkins (English biologist) has argued that organisms only help and cooperate with others because doing so will increase their own chances of survival, which in turn increases the chances of their genes being passed on to the next generation. Dawkins sees genes as the ultimate cause of behaviour, and the only goal genes have is to be passed on to the next generation.

If the best way for an organism’s genes to achieve this is through the individual’s cooperation with others (even if there is a risk to the individual), then the genes will drive that behaviour. Hamilton and Trivers might interpret that as a kind of altruistic behaviour, but, Dawkins would argue, it is behaviour caused by self-interest, not care for others.

A final thought experiment

You are now in a position to come to a judgement on the egoism vs altruism debate. Maybe the following thought experiment will help you make your decision.

You are in a dark forest. No-one knows you are there. You step out into a clearing and see a shallow pond with a stranger splashing in the water and calling for help - they are drowning.

If you stop to save the drowning person you will get cold and wet. Your trip will be ruined. These are the costs to you.

No-one will believe you if you tell them later that you saved the person. The stranger will not remember you either. And you will forget all about it tomorrow. There is no reward for you.

Do you save the stranger?

Aims of punishment