Analysis of Real Altruism

A feeling of helping people in need and helping people in need is happening in everyone's life. It is widely believed that animals are expected to help each other and be rewarded. However, in some cases, aid is not related to immediate benefit, or these benefits do not exist. This behavior attracted the attention of psychologists. This can be regarded as true altruism. Psychologists are researching this problem and are offering various ideas to explain altruistic behavior.

So what is the psychological interpretation of the universal equation of altruism and morality? Rand advocated various explanations reminiscent of Nietzsche's analysis of altruistic psychology. The motivation of altruistic theorists and missionaries is largely due to the desire to dominate and manipulate others. People who accept their teachings are usually guilty for their outstanding achievement or they are guilty of "knowledge honesty, love for the truth ..., or passionate devotion to ideas" Because they are saved, they are the same. Do not sacrifice yourself to sacrifice yourself ("Not selfish self", 1973, 1982). Some altruists are altruists (1973b), as their spirituality is still frozen in the past as survival needs to sacrifice some people for others. . As long as everyone in the relationship acts reasonably, Rand himself will reject the zero sum picture of interpersonal relationships.

Regarding human behavior, the distinction between "real" altruism, which is defined by the conscious intention of the agent to help other people with bio-altruism defined by fitness results is meaningful. (We may use the label "psychological altruism" instead of "real" altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? As Elliott Sober (1994) asserts, they seem to be independent in both directions. See also Vromen (2012) and Clavien and Chapuisat (2013). Actions that consciously help other people may not have any effect on their biological adaptability and therefore are not considered to be selfish in terms of biological significance. Conversely, behaviors taken purely for selfish reasons, that is to say without recognizing the intention of helping others, may greatly enhance their biological adaptability.

This is an attractive controversial seed. In fact, Trivers (1971) and Dawkins (1976) themselves were also tempted. But do not be convinced. The important thing to keep in mind is that bio attractions can not be made equal to altruism in the daily regional sense. Bioartitism is defined by fitness results, not incentives. Most "creatures" do not have "real" altruism or "real" selfishness when "real" altruism refers to consciously useful altruism. For example, ants and termites may not have the intention of consciousness, so their actions can not be aimed at promoting their own interests and others' interests. Therefore, the above argument of evolution shows that essentially altruism is obvious.