Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired

Posted by kdawson on from the good-feels-good dept.

Dekortage writes "The Washington Post is reporting on recent neuroscience research indicating that the brain is pre-wired to enjoy altruism — placing the interests of others ahead of one's own. In studies, '[G]enerosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex... Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.' Such research 'has opened up a new window on what it means to be good,' although many philosophers over recorded history have suggested similar things."

4 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by skintigh2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ignore these heathen scientist and their secular morality fantasies, everyone going to heaven knows that true morals come from [insert religion] and atheists are immoral swine. Oh, and don't judge others.

  2. Hard to believe the conclusions by Dekortage · · Score: 1, Troll

    I submitted this article, largely because it is of personal interest. I do a lot of communications-related work for nonprofit organizations (U.S. and international) and I know how hard these people work to raise money. So when scientists come along and say, "Look, people are predisposed to be generous/altruistic!", I feel like asking the old question from those Wendy's commercials: where's the beef?

    I think the fatal flaw in the research is that participants were responding to hypothetical and closely monitored situations. It cost them nothing (except a little time) to make an altruistic choice; there was no actual money involved. And when people are watching you make a choice, you tend to make the one that looks more acceptable. I'd like to see another test: send people $100 in the mail along with donation forms for a bunch of charities, and see how much money those charities get back via that form. Throw in the incentive of a matching donation program (e.g. for every dollar they donate, you will also donate a dollar). I would be shocked if people sent back a third of the money you sent them.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  3. The most important witness is the self by Geof · · Score: 1, Troll

    We don't feel guilty when there's no risk of being punished

    Speak for yourself. Some of us find our personal code of ethics important to follow whether someone is watching or not.

    Thank you.

    The most important observer is oneself. When you choose to behave a certain way, you are also choosing to be a certain kind of person. When you act selfishly or altruistically, you know about it. It changes who you are. This can probably be over-analyzed in terms of reinforcing neural pathways in the brain or somesuch. What matters is that we cannot escape our actions, regardless of who may or may not be watching, no matter the praise or punishment. It's the source of endless nobility and endless tragedy.

    even if the moral compass is in-built, it only activates in the presence of others.

    I would say it only activates in the presence of self. If not, something is missing from that self - so even then the actions define the person.

  4. The self-interest in the argument for selfishness by Geof · · Score: 0, Troll

    In my experience, even the most guilt-ridden or paranoid of people will act in extremely selfish ways if lulled into complacency.

    You think lack of fear - "complacency" - is the root of evil? You believe the "most guilt-ridden or paranoid of people" are the most altruistic - or at least behave the least selfishly? On the contrary, I suspect they are the ones whose sense of guilt is most imposed by others - and therefore most susceptible to being lifted when that enforcement is gone.

    The instrumental argument that all human motivation can be reduced to selfishness is frequently used to rationalize away guilt and responsibility for atrocious behavior. But that requires convincing oneself and others that the argument is valid. This need is even stronger for those most sensitive to or apprehensive about the judgment of others. Are the defenders of this argument insecure because of others who (perhaps hypocritically) claim superiority? Or do they secretly believe that others behave better, and are simply afraid that other people will find out - or that they will have to admit it to themselves?

    Regardless, the point doesn't hold water. All people are sometimes selfish. It does not follow that all people are always selfish. Attempts to prove that they are hinge on very fuzzy or peculiar definitions of "selfish" combined with absurdly reductionist models of human behavior, often relying on an assumed human rationality that simply doesn'h hold up (e.g. misuse of the "rational man" of economics). Science is incapable of proving the point one way or the other. In the end, moral and ethical judgments must be left, as always, to human beings.

    You can't prove that people are essentially selfish - though you can try to pursuade others. The question is, why? For selfish reasons?