The Samaritan Paradox Revisited: The Karma Ran Over the Dogma

Scientists have long puzzled why in a so-called “survival of the fittest Darwinian world” perfect strangers “paradoxically” volunteer to help others even when such aid may come at some cost to themselves.

Scientists and philosophers from the fifth century to the present day (e.g., Augustine of Hippo, Michal de Montaigne, Thomas Henry Huxley and Richard Dawkins to name a few) have contended that humankind’s goodness is just a veneer over a morality that is rotten and self-serving at its core. Some suggest that no act of “unsolicited pro-sociality” (“other-regarding preferences”) can be characterized as wholly unselfish. There is always something to be gained from the act, they insist, even if it is only to “feel good”.

In the Primiere January 2005 issue of Scientific American Mind, Ernst Fehr and Suzann-Viola Renninger published an article entitled “The Samaritan Paradox” that discussed experiments they conducted with University of Zurich students. In April of 2010, I had the opportunity to hear Fehr recount his experiments at the Mind and Life Conference attended by the Dalai Lama in Zurich and his position had not changed.

Briefly, the experiments investigated student’s reactions to “cheaters”, in which participants rewarded cooperation and punished those who defected, even when it was costly to do so. Researchers defined the latter action as true altruism, based on the apparent “sacrificial” nature of the punisher’s actions. Is the act of punishment true altruistic behavior, though? This strikes me as being more tit-for-tat, what many term “reciprocal altruism”, and the result of one who has followed the rules of engagement and feels righteous outrage. I contend that the punisher’s motivation arose from “self” rather than out of “selflessness”; it reminds me of the peeved “sandbox” attitude: “If I have to do it, then you have to as well.”

In his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins challenged readers “to teach generosity and altruism, because we are all born selfish.” He argued that, “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” This argument promotes the notion that altruism is nothing more than disguised egoism, that philanthropy is less the expression of love than the cool calculation of the entrepreneur seeking future profit by clever public relations: something akin to the tit-for-tat fair-play “altruism” displayed by the university students of Fehr and Renninger's experiments.

Fehr and Renninger disagreed with Dawkins’s cold conclusion about humanity and suggested that their experiments provided evidence that humans may be born with the potential to be selfless, that “our genes even guide us toward such behavior”. While I don’t think their experiments have shown this, I do agree with their assertion (but based on other evidence).

However, Fehr and co-researchers—rightly or wrongly—went on to state in their article that “a body of evidence supports the notion that Homo sapiens is the only species capable of strong altruism.” This was based, they said, on a significant number of laboratory experiments conducted by economists and social scientists from a new branch of research they called “experimental economics”. I must question this conclusion when absolutely no evidence for this was presented in their article (which focused entirely on human experiments), nor did they provide sufficient documentation for defining “strong altruism” on what is surely a continuum. The article opened with a similar unsubstantiated statement (“humans alone extend altruism beyond kin, frequently helping perfect strangers for no obvious reason.”) The conclusion that animal altruism starts and ends with kin was not proven, nor is it, in my opinion, an accurate assertion. Several anthropologists argue that morality and true altruism are qualities limited to humans as a result of learned behavior and cultural ethics. I found the experiments upon which they based their conclusions less than convincing and ironically came full circle with the cynicism of the Dawkins camp.

Why do we feel the need to exclude the rest of the animal world from this beautiful (and divine) trait, so much so, that researchers make grand claims based on limited to faulty experiments and in other cases overlook other evidence? This, particularly when a significant body of evidence exists to prove otherwise (see my previous post entitled “What Altruism in Animals Can Teach Us About Ourselves”, where I do provide evidence and examples from various researchers).

What are we afraid of?

While I find growing arguments for human innate virtue heartening, I wonder with dismay at our continued exclusionary viewpoint. Why must humans be continually viewed as separate from the rest of the planet? If we’re good then why must we be the only ones that are good? It isn’t a contest…

The authors ended their article with this statement: “In an age of enlightenment and secularization, scientists such as Charles Darwin shocked contemporaries when they questioned the special status of human beings and attempted to classify them on a continuum with all other species. Humans were stripped of all that was godlike. Today biology is restoring to them something of that former exalted position. Our species is apparently the only one with a genetic makeup that promotes selflessness and true altruistic behavior.” (italics are mine).

It is important for us to recognize that ALL life is capable of true altruism, not just humans. Itt is time that we recognize the virtue of the entire planet. It’s time we respect the complex ecological network that is Gaia, and our place in it, if we—and the planet—are to survive. We can be special without it being at the expense of other beings. Surely we are big enough—and special enough—for that.

Several years ago I read an interesting article by acclaimed science author Greg Bear. I knew I was hooked when he ended his first paragraph with: “the touting of one view of evolution, the so-called neo-Darwinian redaction, and its unique labeling as "scientific," and the contrasting of that view with only one other view, Creationism, rankled me.” Here’s what Bear says and it's really all about self-limiting perception:

The "selfish gene" is certainly a valid concept in some instances, but not in the vast majority. Rather, because genes rely on interaction with many other genes-hundreds in some cases-to be effective, they are less like competitive rogues than tame office-workers. The "social gene" becomes a better model. And in fact the social aspects of the genome have been championed for decades by brave molecular biologists and geneticists, including Lynn Margulis.

Altruism in societies [not just human societies] is well demonstrated, and rationally quite defensible. That genes operate in their own societies, and that species both compete and collaborate in those larger societies called ecosystems, functioning as nodes in an extended neural net, makes … cooperation and altruism far more tractable.

…I do not think that we can any longer support random mutation as the sole cause or even the major cause of variation. Darwin himself deliberately avoided subscribing to chance as the sole cause of variation, thus leaving the actual cause to be discovered in the future. Later generations leaped in well before the facts were available, and cemented the hypothesis, slowing the pace of biological discovery by actively discouraging alternatives…

The paucity of hypotheses in biological science may be something of an intellectual crime, perpetrated by academics protecting their own fiefdoms against assault by barbarian unbelievers-hardly an atmosphere in which to raise and tutor new generations of biologists.

These bills are now coming due... "Emergent properties," "complexity," and other buzzwords arouse my suspicions because they could serve to hide our ignorance of the basic processes at work in cells, organisms, and throughout nature-processes very similar to the processes in our own brains. These processes involve the encoding of information in morphologically based neural networks, where the "neural nodes" can range from genes to organisms in a species to species in ecosystems, and the use of that information to alter patterns, structure and behavior.

…A key question is whether genetic processes are formally describable, as some systems biologists believe, or more closely related to natural languages, as some computer programmers believe.

Information theory will be a rich lode for the exploration of all these topics…We know the brain works. We know that ants and bees cooperate to solve problems beyond the individual. We know that bacteria form complex communities, social groupings, as in biofilms, to take advantage of resources or face environmental challenges. Community interaction and problem-solving seems to be a key behavior in nature, as important as competition.

What most researchers are seeing, around the world, is this: Too few genes, too much interaction, too much intergenomic activity, and rapid adaptation, much of it, perhaps most of it, highly regulated and organized…There may indeed be teleological and intelligently directed evolution… DNA itself may be creative, and in its own way, goal-seeking and problem-solving.

What does any of this have to do with altruism and shared altruism in all life? Read again and this time look outward, beyond the limits of your traditional learning.

Greg Bear is a New York Times bestselling author of more than thirty books such as Darwin’s Radio, Quantico, Vitals, Blood Music, the Forge of God, and Mariposa. Bear has served on political and scientific action committees and has advised Microsoft Corporation, the U.S. Army, the CIA, Sandia National Laboratories, Callison Architecture, Inc., Homeland Security, and other groups and agencies.

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.

What Altruism in Animals can Teach Us About Ourselves

In spite of everything, I still believe that people really are good at heart – Anne Frank

In an article entitled “Human Morality: Innate or Learned” Rebekah Richards writes, “Morality, integrity, generosity, honor – these are concepts our society esteems, rewards, and expects. They are principles embodied by our cultural heroes, and values which we strive to develop in our children. But where do these qualities originate? Are we taught to be good, or do we possess innate virtue? Are we condemned to a constant battle against our ‘lower nature’?”

Richards cites scientists and philosophers from the fifth century to the present day (all male, I might add; like Augustine of Hippo, Michal de Montaigne, Thomas Henry Huxley to name a few) who had in common the notion that humankind’s goodness was just a veneer over a morality that was rotten and self-serving at its core. Some suggest that no act of “unsolicited pro-sociality” (“other-regarding preferences”) can be characterized as wholly unselfish. There is always something to be gained from the act, they insist, even if it is only to “feel good”.

At the other end of the spectrum of a similar prejudice, some anthropologists argue that morality and true altruism are qualities limited to humans as a result of learned behavior and cultural ethics. The inference here is that those qualities we may share with animals other than humans are base and those we do not share with them are elevated.

Other scientists argue for an alternative to anthropocentric hubris. They argue that altruism is an ancient impulse and an empathic instinct; something more primitive than culture and, in fact, considerably more ancient than the human species itself. They posit that altruism is deeply innate, predating the phylogentic split that occurred six million years ago. According to them selflessness is as natural as appetite.

It was the grace of altruism that allowed it all to happen in the first place.

It started with nineteenth century scientist Edward Westermarck who argued that morality involved both humans and non-human animals and both culture and evolution (de Waal 2006). Of course, he was met with much skepticism. In 1999 zoologist Brenda Bradley wrote, “Altruism is difficult to explain within traditional models of natural selection, which predict that individuals should exhibit behavioral traits adapted to promoting genetic self-interest”. She has a point; so why limit ourselves to a traditional model then? See my article on microbiologist Lynn Margulis, who explored a nontraditional paradigm based on cooperation.

Scientists have been demonstrating for years that cooperation among organisms and communities and the act of pure altruism (not reciprocal altruism or kin/group selection) is, in fact, more common in Nature than most of us realize.

Decades of experimentation suggest moral or altruistic qualities in non-human primates, and also provide support for the idea that human morality is innate. A 1964 study found that rhesus monkeys who could pull on a chain to acquire food would refuse to pull for days if doing so delivered a shock to another monkey; they were “literally starving themselves to avoid inflicting pain upon another” (de Waal 2006).

Chimpanzees, unable to swim, have drowned attempting to save the lives of their companions (Goodall 1990). Human children as young as just over one year old were observed comforting others; household pets also demonstrated a response to distress by attempting to comfort people (de Waal 2006).

However, some researchers in recent lab studies with chimpanzees, suggested a potential absence of “other-regarding preferences” in test animals and concluded that this confirmed that such preferences are limited to humans, who alone are sophisticated enough for cultural learning, theory of mind, perspective taking and moral judgment to convince them to perform an altruistic act.

It is my opinion that these primate studies, which based their measures of “altruism” on food allocation, may have failed to demonstrate altruism due to the measure, compounded with the laboratory setting. Animals will not behave the same in their natural habitat as in a laboratory; their priorities will be different. I found it interesting that true altruism was demonstrated in life-threatening scenarios over less life-threatening ones, such as the experiments conducted in the lab by various anthropologists using food exchange. My opinion is corroborated by scientists, Keith Jensen and Felix Warneken, who concede that the distinction between food exchange and instrumental helping is a potentially crucial one.

Valid examples of true altruism in the wild in other species of the animal world do exist. The Vervet monkey is one example. This species has evolved a complex community that fosters the existence of an altruistic individual: the crier monkey.

Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though by doing so they attract attention to themselves and increase their chance of being attacked. Biologists argue that the group that contains a high proportion of alarm-calling monkeys will have a survival advantage over a group containing a lower proportion, thereby encouraging this trait to continue and evolve among individuals. The Vervet monkey crier is Nature’s Hero. And Nature’s heroes are our real altruists.

de Waal explains that “evolution favors animals that assist each other if by doing so they achieve long-term benefits of greater value than the benefits derived from going it alone and competing with others” (de Waal 2006). The prevalent phenomenon of altruism is Nature’s answer to the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

“Empathy evolved in animals as the main ... mechanism for [individually] directed altruism," said deWaal. And it is empathy—not self-interest—that “causes altruism to be dispensed in accordance with predictions from kin selection and reciprocal altruism theory.” deWaal further proposed that the scientific community has become polarized between evolutionary biologists on the one side, and, on the other, a discrete group of economists and anthropologists that “has invested heavily in the idea of strong reciprocity,” which demands discontinuity between humans and all other animals.

“One of the most striking consequences of the study of animal behavior,” says anthropologist Robert Sapolsky, “is the rethinking that it often forces of what it is to be human.” He notes that “a number of realms, traditionally thought to define our humanity, have now been shown to be shared, at least partially, with nonhuman species” (Sapolsky 2006). This makes some of us uncomfortable. To some, it threatens to make us less special. The corollary is that this demonstrates that we possess intrinsic virtue, not something “painted” on through cultural teaching or diligent personal effort. Of course, it also means that all other beings possess intrinsic value too. In the final analysis, what we generally “know” is colored by what we believe and want to continue believing.

Harvard philosopher Christine Korsgaard reminds us that, “We eat nonhuman animals, wear them, perform painful experiments on them, hold them captive for purposes of our own – sometimes in unhealthy conditions – we make them work, and we kill them at will” (de Waal 2006).

The growing knowledge and eventual acceptance that animals and very young children possess truly altruistic behavior will have deep implications on how we interact with and treat each other, our animal world and Nature generally. Which brings me to ecology and its importance in our daily lives.

We have so separated ourselves from our environment that we no longer know how—or, more importantly, are not inclined—to interact with it. Separation from something that we are a part of creates a disconnect that makes it hard for us to respect or care for. This is what is at the root of altruism: intimacy and a sense of familiarity and identity that fosters empathy and nurtures compassion. Ecology provides an understanding of our natural world that will help us to respect it and everything that is a part of it, ourselves included.

p.s. This link provides a good example of an altruistic act by a "predator" toward a creature obviously not its "kin". Tell me what you think: http://www.korduroy.tv/2010/face-off-with-a-leopard-seal

References:
Bradley, Brenda. 1999 "Levels of Selection, Altruism, and Primate Behavior." The Quarterly Review of Biology 74(2):171-194.
De Waal, Frans, with Robert Wright, Christine Korsgaard, Philip Kitcher, and Peter Singer. 2006 Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goodall, Jane. 1990 Through A Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sapolsky, Robert M. 2006 "Social Cultures Among Nonhuman Primates." Current Anthropology 47(4):641-656.
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. 2006. “Altruistic Helping In Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees.” Science, 311, 1301–1303.
Warneken, F., Hare, B., Melis, A. P., Hanus, D. & Tomasello, M. 2007. “ Spontaneous Altruism By Chimpanzees and Young Children.” PloS Biology, 5(7), e184.
de Waal, F. B. M. 2008. “Putting the Altruism Back Into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy.” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 279–300.
de Waal, F. B. M., Leimgruber, K. & Greenberg, A. R. 2008. “Giving Is Self-rewarding for Monkeys.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA. 105, 13685–13689.

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.

In Search of a New Paradigm—Part 1: Is Our Love Affair with Capitalism Over?...An Ecologist’s Perspective

Do you remember when you first fell in love? Nothing beat the exalting thrill of that first scintillating kiss. The kiss never lies. You just knew you were both in love and that it would be forever. Then followed the exciting romance…. But when the romance fell from grace there followed panic and hysteria, a devastated ego, soulful hurt and then deep grief of a terrible loss … like a piece of you had been lost. What followed the loss of wholeness and naiveté was a great skepticism in the whole relationship thing, along with a reluctance to open your heart again to anyone. You ended up not trusting in people’s intentions in order to protect your soul and your wounded heart. Some of you may have decided to never give yourself totally to love like that again. Blame love itself and never suffer the fool to it again. Welcome to the cynical world.

Is James Bond an Altruist? -- Part 2

In Chapter Three of his exquisite book, "The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation", Matt Ridley recounts the tale of Tosca, the heroine of Puccini's opera of the same name. Faced with the terrible dilemma of her lover Cavaradossi condemned to death by Scarpia, the police chief, she is offered a deal: if Tosca will sleep with Scarpia, he will save her lover's life by telling the firing squad to use blanks. Tosca decides to deceive Scarpia by agreeing to his request, but then stabbing him dead after he has given the order to use blanks. She does so, but Scarpia chose to deceive her too: the firing squad does not use blanks and Cavaradossi dies. Tosca commits suicide and they all end up dead.

Tosca and Scarpia were playing the most famous game in all of game theory: the Prisoner's Dilemma, which applies to any conflict between self-interest and the common good.