BrainStuff Classics: Do Truly Unselfish Acts Really Exist?

in return. You could debate the philosophy of harm and good, of cause and effect, of intent and result, and philosophers have for pretty much ever. But looking at it from another angle, why would we humans possess a sense of selflessness or altruism in the first place? Is there a

biological basis for your good deeds? Whenever researchers use magnetic resonance imaging or MRI to observe test subjects as they perform a particular task, it seems that some new secret of our brains is unlocked, and altruism is no exception. One two thousand and six study focused on anonymous charitable donations, which are pretty specific altruistic acts the giver receives no

tangible reward. They give away hard earned money to benefit a total stranger, and they can't expect any thinks because the donation is anonymous. It's altruism at perhaps its purest, But researchers found that the subjects who contributed to charities did receive some benefit the warm fuzzies. In the study, the volunteers had a choice. They could keep money or donate it to charities of differing ideologies. The researchers found that giving money activated the same reward center in the

brain that was activated when the participants received money. Another study in two thousand and seven also used MRI to study the phenomenon of altruism. These researchers, however, concluded that people aren't altruistic because they receive a good feeling when they perform a selfless act, but because they perceive that

others are likely to return the favor. The researchers found that the area of the brain that's activated when people analyze social bonds indicates that before we do something nice for someone else, we might first examine whether or not that person would reciprocate if the shoe were on the other foot. If we think someone else would act altruistically toward us, the study suggests we would be more likely to act altruistically toward that person. According to evolutionary theory, however,

behaviors develop when they help living things to survive. Animals feel discomfort when they're hungry, signaling it's time to eat. A plant might shed its leaves in the fall to create a protective mulch barrier to keep its roots warm during the winter. Flora and fauna survive by looking out for themselves. By this logic, altruisms shouldn't even exist because behaviors that make it through the process of natural selection need to help that creature, or at least its genetic material, survive.

So the idea that we have a natural imperative to help others at our own detriment fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Altruism must serve some unseen purpose that favors our survival. Take the example of a parent risking their life to save their childs or helping your sibling

out with a loan when they're in a crunch. These both support the belief that altruism is kinship based, meaning our blood relatives are generally the beneficiaries of our altruism, which lends itself to an extension that altruism exists to protect the genetic line. Author Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, considers humans as mere vehicles for a genetic line. Since we pass on half of our genes.

When we protect our offspring or blood relatives at the risk of our own lives, our altruistic behavior is merely our genes acting to protect their lineage. There are other interpretations of altruism within the sciences. However, one explanation posits that altruism lies not within some genetic urge, but outside of ourselves. French sociologist Emildur Kem stripped any application of terms like good to describe acts of altruism in his

theories concerning morality. To dirk Hem, altruism existed outside of the individual. It was an external social force prescribed and demanded not for the benefit of any individual, but for the benefit of society, simply to keep society intact. Dirkhm defined altruism as the violent and voluntary act of self destruction for no personal benefit, and the opposite of rational self interest to the sociologist, behaviors like altruism exist because the needs of the society and the needs of the

individual are at odds. Since people perceive the collective group to be more important than the individual, self sacrificing behavioral concepts like altruism are required to keep the individual in line and subservient to the greater good. Although Dirkhm's critics say he jumps to conclusions in his explanation for altruism and morality in general, other anthropologists side with his interpretation. Some consider it an impossibility for society to have developed

without the cooperation that altruism fosters. The implication that altruism is an external so social mechanism is sometimes called social subjectivism, which is more widely defined as the belief that groups of people, not individuals, collectively create our reality and perhaps especially concepts of truth and morality. It means that we as a group have managed to create an intangible ideal

like altruism and created its high value as well. People see those who make personal sacrifices for the common good or for the good of another person as noble and admirable. If Dirkham and others who share a like mind about altruism are correct, then we have bought into altruisms so deeply that our brains have evolved to deliver pleasure to

us when we perform selfless acts. To individualists or egoists or objectivists, on the other hand, the concept of altruism as a social fabrication is a dangerous thing, something that defies true human nature. The idea here is that every person is responsible for their own life and happiness, and that we must let every other person be equally self responsible.

This belief follows that altruistic behavior allows people to be exploited by detalitarian governments trying to control people's lives write down to people's moral right to exist. Altruism, in this view, is an aspect of subservience with a dubious benefit of having been duped into feeling good about it. It seems we've gone a bit far afield to answer such a seemingly simple question. Is there such a thing as a truly unselfish act? If MRI evidence is accurate, then we

have the reward system to contend with. If evolutionists are correct, then we perform altruistic acts in order to ensure the survival of our genes, and if subjectivists or objectivists are right, then we're altruistic merely because we conform to social standards. So far, the existence for a truly unselfish act isn't looking good. But there are two silver linings to this

admittedly sort of dark cloud. Although we are rewarded one way or another by performing an altruistic act, it still remains up to the individual whether or not to perform one. Of helping one another feels good, does that make it any less worthwhile? Today's episode is based on the article is there such a thing as a truly unselfish act? On how stuffworks dot Com written by Josh Clark. Brain Stuff is production of iHeartRadio in partnership with how stuffworks

dot Com and is produced by Tyler Klang. Four more podcasts from my heart Radio visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.