| back to Past Shows |
![]() Notes on show: Original Airdate 06/29/2008 |
|||||||||||||
Altruistic behavior is something we
might assume takes place every day. A person stops to help an elderly
member of society across a street, an adult donates his/her time at a
local charity, or someone else might even put himself or herself in
harm’s way for the immediate benefit of another without really
thinking about the consequences. However, it’s not clear what
this sort of altruistic behavior actually comprises, or whether genuine
altruism really exists. Today’s episode digs into these questions
about altruism from two main standpoints. The first is from Biology,
which considers how our conception of right and wrong may have been
wired into us through evolution. The second considers altruism from the
psychological standpoint. This view grants much more importance to the
role of an individual’s psychology and his/her intentions when
committing an action, which potentially leaves more possibility for
genuinely altruistic acts to occur. Our guest Jeff Schloss joins Ken and John as they consider why altruism is even important for humans. Jeff begins by introducing a number of ideas relevant to altruism, like the notion of a ‘selfish gene’, and how Darwin would have despaired if a true altruism existed in the animal world. Genuine altruism seems to be at odds with the most basic of evolution’s tenets, contradicting the notion that reproductive fitness is guiding behavior across all types of species. At this point, John wants to know how psychology and morality come to bear on the issue. There seem to exist such things as morally right and morally wrong actions. If altruism doesn’t place any demands on, or value in, the psychological state of the individual committing an altruistic act, is there really anything mandatory about acting morally? Jeff thinks that people can really intend to act without conscious expectation of return, but that it could still be motivating certain actions. He introduces the idea of indirect reciprocity for consideration. Importantly, he thinks that while we are in fact hardwired to behave a certain way, culture is able to condition us and act on the substrate evolution has provided, which itself is receptive to cultural conditioning. The conversation is just as interesting when the other side of the issue is addressed. If there is a component of altruism
that is provided for innately by our biology, it seems to follow that
constraints on such ability will also exist. It opens up for discussion
the idea that certain moral rules and demands to which we hold
ourselves might actually be too extreme given our biological
capabilities. In this way, biology might constrain the range of
possible moral norms with which we can act in accordance. Jeff posits
that the “genetic leash” imposed on human action and
culture could be broken by culture, whereby the limits of cultural
variability might remain unconstrained.
Alexander, R.D. Darwinism and Human Affairs. Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Post, Stephen Garrard. Altruism and Health: Perspectives from Empirical Research. Post, Stephen Garrard et al.
Vilarroya, Oscar. Social Brain Matters: Stances on the Neurobiology of Social Cognition.
|
||||||||||||||
| ©
2004 Philosophy Talk Productions. All rights reserved. Created by Whitetail Web Design. |