The Self-Sacrificing Human Mind

Write an essay addressing the topic below:

Is the human mind designed to be truly self-sacrificial? Discuss different theoretical perspectives on altruism, as well as evidence in support of these
theories. Ensure that among these theories, you both discuss kin selection theory
and identify whether any available evidence disconfirms this theory.
*Explore reciprocal altriusm/empathy altruism

Word limit: 1500 words, not including title and end-text references.

Your essay needs to provide an answer to the question by applying social psychology
theories and relevant evidence-based research (not just the material in the textbook).
In addition to the material in the textbook, here are suggested readings to get you
started:
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the relationship of
negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 907-914.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
20, 65-122.
Kruger, D. J. (2003). Evolution and altruism: Combining psychological mediators with naturally selected tendencies.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(2), 118-125.
McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., Cohen, A. D. (2008). An adaptation for altruism: the social causes, social effects,
and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 281-285.

ANSWER

The Self-Sacrificing Human Mind

Self-sacrifice is the psychological readiness to experience suffering for a cause. In most cases, people make sacrifices only if there are two conflicting values. In this situation, there are two valuables they cannot both be (McCullough, Kimeldorf & Cohen, 2008). As a result, a person is obligated to let go of one value for the sake of the other. However, it is essential to remember that not all sacrifices one makes are self-sacrifice. According to evolutionary psychologists, they believe that it is the habit of human nature to help others, if not entirely, at least half. They argue that as much as helping other people could be costly to the helping individual, altruism benefits both the helper and recipient. Altruism is any behavior that intends to increase the welfare of another individual. They include actions that do not offer a direct reward to the individual who performs them  (Schnall, Roper & Fessler,2013). These behaviors are reflective, intuitive and automatic in some cases. For example, if one meets a beggar in the streets and decides to get them a meal, it is altruistic. It is so because they helped this person, and they do not have any expectations of future assistance from them. The human mind is self-sacrificial by nature.

It is possible to state that human minds are self-sacrificial because it is natural for the human spirit to redirect instinct drives. People often do this to the point of throwing their lives away (Kelcourse, 2015). Humans, unlike animals, have spirit and a more developed brain that guides us into. Therefore, it is possible to argue that our spirit is responsible for playing the determining role in us taking part in self-sacrificial and heroic behaviors. It is also essential to note that the human spirit undergoes various developments, and hence it results in one having many different manifestations and stages throughout their lives (Alyushin, 2014). Naturally, we are all self-sacrificing, and it all depends on the situation one faces. Human nature to put themselves in other people’s shoes whenever they are faced with challenges. They often tell themselves, “this could have been me”; hence they get the motivation to help each other.

Kin Selection Theory

In the essence of evolutionary, gene survival is more vital than that of an individual. Therefore, if behaviors like altruism have a higher likelihood of enhancing the success of reproduction by assisting the whole species to prosper and survive, there are higher chances of behavior to increase fitness (Frank, 2013). The behavior will also be passed from one generation to the next, and lastly, it becomes a part of human nature. Kin selection is a natural selection type that looks into the role family members and relatives play when evaluating an individual’s genetic fitness. Kin selection only happens when an organism, animal or human, takes part in a self-sacrificial behavior (Kruger, 2003). The behavior that he takes part in is not for himself but his relatives and family’s good. From previously done research, it is clear that we are most likely to help our kin, unlike we are to help strangers. If two people needed a kidney transplant, and one was from your family, and the other one was a stranger, the chances are high that you will donate a kidney to the family and not the stranger. According to the revolutionary principles, the genetic closeness degree should correlate positively to the chances that we help our closest than strangers.

Evidence of disconfirmation

From the explanation of this theory, it makes a lot of sense to many people. However, if it right that natural selection exists to weed individual’s traits that limit reproduction’s success, then what is the explanation of existing altruistic traits that minimize reproductive fitness? According to this theory, the traits are passed on from relatives to their close ones because they share many similar genetic materials. However, what if we are concentrating so much on an individual? An altruistic behavior like looking after another bird’s nest may indeed reduce the individual’s reproductive fitness. Yes, it does, but what if it increases the whole group’s net fitness? In 1871, Darwin postulated the group selection idea. From the theory, with an increase in the group’s reproductive capacity, there is passing on of the altruistic traits. Before kin selection, group selection was the most preferred and suitable solution to the altruism problem. The king selection argument is mathematical and not theoretical, as most people believe. With the help of complex mathematical simulations, Maynard Smith and Hamilton proved that simple selection groups lacked the evolutionary capacity to cause continued altruistic behavior persistence from one generation to another (Servedio et al., 2014). The argument further gets complicated because, naturally, most social groups are made of close relatives. Therefore, it becomes hard to understand where group selection and kin selection begins.

Reciprocal Altruism

Reciprocal altruism is the belief that if we are helpful to other people, they will owe us, and in the future, they will return the favor (Sullivan, Luke & Hrolenok, 2010). Hence, by helping and assisting other people, one increases their chances of receiving assistance from others. For a long time, the altruistic behavior presence in humans and animals was a challenge for Darwinian evolution’s account via natural selection. However, after many generations came and passed, a natural selection dictated that any altruistic behavior from the genetic basis should be removed entirely from the population. Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist, was the first to describe reciprocal altruism. He described it as a solution to the existing problem of how altruistic behaviors were directed towards non-kin had the possibility of emerging via natural selection. According to Trivers, he argued that a person could act in this manner, for example, by sharing a meal or drinking water to increase the survival chances. It could do that because, just like the other individual, the giver could also depend on the receiver at some point in the coming years. However, it is essential to note that there are various conditions to be applied and for it to work effectively. The first condition for reciprocal altruistic theory to work is that the people involved must interact occasionally and continuously. Doing so increases the repayment opportunity to arise whenever need be. Secondly, the involved individuals must be in a position to recognize others reliably. Lastly, the assisted individual must be able to remember and recognize the past behavior they previously received (Killingback & Doebeli, 2002). For these conditions, this theory is not as popular and familiar as the kin-directed altruistic theory.

Most often, the reciprocal altruistic theory is usually discussed in the game theory context, the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (Fletcher & Zwick, 2007). The game provides a smart way to observe cooperative behavior in a game’s context. Robert Axelrod, a political scientist and William Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist, analyzed the game. In this game, two prisoners have to choose whether to cooperate and refuse to confess or defect and confess a shorter sentence. Some people argue that reciprocal altruism is not legit or genuine altruism. They argue that this theory has a more selfish goal and expects repayment after assisting another person in need. It contracts the definition of altruism as it is all about self-sacrifice to benefit other people and not oneself. However, the argument that altruistic behaviors could come from natural selec5tionthrough reciprocal altruism mechanism does not state anything about the organism that participates in altruistic acts.

Conclusion 

Naturally, it is not easy to tell whether we are naturally born as self-sacrificing individuals or not. It is so because when one is assisting you in times of need, we are never aware of what their intentions for helping are. As much as some people help with no expectation of future favors, most people help expecting favors. However, in most cases, people genuinely assist others regardless of who they are. According to kin selection theory, we are more likely to help our family members than st5rangers.there is nothing wrong with this at all. It would not be fair for a family member to donate their kidney for a stranger, yet the same kidney would have saved their grandmother’s life. It is the right thing to do. The reciprocal theory is more of a favor than anything else. It is so because it is only favored that one does expect the same in his future. It has extreme conditions that make it less of altruism.

References

Alyushin, A. (2014). Self-sacrificial behavior and its explanation in terms of Max Scheler’s concept of spirit. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48(4), 503-523.

Fletcher, J. A., & Zwick, M. (2007). The evolution of altruism: game theory in multilevel selection and inclusive fitness. Journal of theoretical biology, 245(1), 26-36.

Frank, S. A. (2013). Natural selection. VII. History and interpretation of kin selection theory. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26(6), 1151-1184.

Kelcourse, F. B. (2015). Human development and faith: Life-cycle stages of body, mind, and soul. Chalice Press.

Killingback, T., & Doebeli, M. (2002). The continuous prisoner’s dilemma and the evolution of cooperation through reciprocal altruism with variable investment. The American Naturalist, 160(4), 421-438.

Kruger, D. J. (2003). Evolution and altruism: Combining psychological mediators with naturally selected tendencies.

McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., Cohen, A. D. (2008). An adaptation for altruism: the social causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 281-285.

Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. (2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychological science, 21(3), 315-320.

Servedio, M. R., Brandvain, Y., Dhole, S., Fitzpatrick, C. L., Goldberg, E. E., Stern, C. A., … & Yeh, D. J. (2014). Not just a theory—the utility of mathematical models in evolutionary biology. PLoS Biol, 12(12), e1002017. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002017

Sullivan, K., Luke, S., & Hrolenok, B. (2010, May). Can you do me a favor?. In The Thirteenth International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies TRUST-2010 (p. 167). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229028557_Can_You_Do_Me_A_Favor

To get your original copy of this completed paper, please Order Now