All Articles All Articles

Sometimes asking for the impossible is the only realistic path. Banner

Misunderstanding Altruism

Misunderstanding Altruism

By Dennis Loo (6/11/14)

If the dominant ideas of our times preach that individualism and selfishness are the truest nature of humans, then it only stands to reason that altruism should be derided as non-existent. Quite a few people argue that even those acts that many would consider altruistic are in fact not because those who perform acts on behalf of others derive personal benefit from it. Since it makes people feel good who do things on behalf of others, they are not truly altruistic because if they were, they would not expect anything in return, including feeling any personal pleasure in making personal sacrifices for others.

If we look at what it is that makes sociology a science, however, and we take that fundamental principle of sociology (and anthropology) seriously and fully consistently, then we would have to argue against those who assert that altruism is fictive. If social life requires mutual interdependence for society to be even possible, and if humanity could not exist absent group life, then reciprocity is an indispensable ground rule for social existence.

Imagine a society in which no one ever thanked someone else for assisting them in any way (such as holding a door open for them when they’re carrying groceries in both hands). Imagine a world in which some version of “please” was non-existent. Imagine a society in which “being polite” had no meaning and everyone did only that which served their own narrow personal interest and if anyone occasionally did something on behalf of someone else it was never ever acknowledged with a smile or thank you or pat on the back or kiss on the cheek. Is that a world that you would want to live in? Could such a world even exist at all?

Some people would object, however, that reciprocity, the mutual expectation that others in your society will observe social norms that call for assisting one another and showing through words and/or deeds that you are aware that your existence and welfare depend upon others, is really only egoism in disguise.

If you expect something in return, even if it’s in the form of feeling good that you have done something for others anonymously (such as putting money into someone else’s expired parking meter), then you are not really being altruistic since you are in fact getting some personal benefit from knowing that you have done something good for someone else. In order for you to truly be altruistic, you must not expect anything in return for your good deeds. You must only always give without ever receiving anything from anyone else or even from yourself in the form of feeling happy that you have done something for others.

The first thing I would say about that line of argument is that it is a peculiar standard to set for people: you are only being selfless if you derive no benefit whatsoever from doing good things on behalf of others. You must feel nothing whatsoever and indeed, it would be best, given this line of reasoning, if it made you feel worse to do good things, then you truly are selfless.

It should be apparent that this line of reasoning has some inherent problems.

The second thing I would say about this is even more important: it is only to be expected that the vast majority of people in any society should expect and must rely upon others to consistently, if not invariably, show tacit or explicit appreciation for others who do things on their behalf.

If we ourselves and others don’t know that people should show appreciation for others – by saying thank you and showing courtesy and consideration for others – then that would mean that as a society we could not count on others to abide by the basic ground rules for social life itself. If that were true, then we could not live together and if we cannot live together, humans could not survive because our very survival requires that we cooperate with each other.

Many or most people have been taught that there is such a thing as “human nature.” They learn this notion outside of and despite anthropology and sociology because both of these social sciences repudiate the idea of some unchanging “human nature.” Those who invoke the idea of “human nature” usually say, “humans are naturally selfish or naturally self-centered.”

But there is nothing natural about being human, so how can there be a trait that is naturally human? To be fully human you must have human DNA but human DNA only makes it possible to become human. It does not guarantee it. In order to become a human being you must have human DNA and then you must learn how to be human through a protracted process of training which we call parenting and socialization/rearing. Children who have been abandoned by humans and have survived because they have been raised by wolves or other social animals, or children who have been so savagely mistreated by human caregivers that they have been chained up in a closet like a badly cared for dog, grow up to look like humans, but they lack some of the attributes such as the ability to speak a human language and some critical parts of their brains never properly develop. They look like humans but they are not fully human because they were not raised as humans and taught to be human.

It is not a bad thing but a good thing that people who do things for others in general expect some acknowledgement for their actions. If no one expected any acknowledgement ever and they derived no pleasure from doing anything for anyone else, then a) there would be no social norms at all and b) social existence would be impossible and therefore humanity would be impossible. We only can survive and thrive because of others and there must be some ground rules for that group existence, otherwise groups could not exist at all. This is why putting people into solitary isolation for an extended period of time is a form of torture. Humans need others so badly that one of the coping mechanisms for people forced into extended isolation is for them to imagine voices in their heads. They are trying to provide company for themselves in the absence of real company. And of course, when you start hearing voices in your head this is also a sign that you are going mad from being isolated too long.

The idea, then, that altruism only exists when someone never expects anything from anyone else in the form of appreciation and that the altruistic person must not and cannot derive personal benefit in the form of feeling good about doing something good for others because that would be a sign that they are really just selfish, is looking at humans from an analytical framework that negates the existence of social groups. If you recognize that social groups have to possess certain characteristics that allow them to be groups, including mutual expectations by the group’s members, then the idea that altruism can only exist outside of those realities is really a perspective that reflects a variant of extreme individualism. It abstracts the altruistic individual from any ties to the larger society and treats that “altruistic” individual as some supra-individual.

No one could possibly fit such a description nor would you want such a person to be in existence because if someone truly would refuse to have any appreciation shown for what they do, they would be a very bizarre person to have around. “No, don’t thank me. No, don’t show me any appreciation because if you do it would ruin my altruism. I feel no satisfaction for doing things for others. In fact, it makes me feel worse each time I do it, which is why I’m really a genuine altruist because it actually makes me feel bad since if it made me feel good in any way that would make me selfish. And selfishness is what I want to avoid at all costs!”

Social life necessitates reciprocity. If reciprocity was not something that we could generally count on, then we could not live together at all. There is a reason why almost everyone feels annoyed at others who fail to show any social graces such as thanking people for little and big favors alike. It’s because on an unconscious level we know that our very existence as a species requires that others observe and recognize the importance of mutuality.

Not only, then, is altruism on some level or another necessary for human life, the more it exists the better. It is a good thing, not a bad thing, that people who make sacrifices for others feel some level of personal fulfillment for doing things on behalf of others. It is what you would want in a fulfilling society that people feel better when they are helping others. 


One of the reasons why so many people continue to think that humans are naturally selfish is because we are constantly told that this is so by popular culture, by the propagandists for capitalist ideology, and by many others strongly influenced by that ideology. It is also, after all, the logic underlying the American Dream which a majority of Americans subscribe to consciously. I say "consciously" because the mutual expectations that nearly everyone has in our daily lives - showing appreciation for the many favors that others do for us everyday, telling people "bless you" when they sneeze, and so on - are so ingrained in us that if you ask people why people who don't demonstrate these social skills are hard to be around and why we try to avoid such people, they have a hard time answering it other than to say that it's rude if people don't abide by these social conventions. It is so fundamental to our day to day existence to depend upon others around us, reinforced constantly by our behaviors and expectations, that most people can't even tell you why we do it or even properly realize on a conscious level how crucial it is. 

In short then, we're taught both critical social skills from infancy and the dominant official ideology tells us the opposite of this, that we are "naturally" self-centered. The two messages are conflicting but because the second message is the overt one and the first message is something we learn through osmosis and without knowing consciously why we do it, the overt message is what people tend to emphasize and think is the primary one, even though people's daily actions belie that. Understanding how indispensible cooperation and reciprocity is to our very existence and sense of fulfillment is something that needs to be made conscious for us because then the overarching ideology of selfishness could be clearly shown to be not only discordant with actual life but a major threat to our collective welfare and that of the planet. 


+1 # Jessica Rodriguez 2014-06-11 19:00
Many people do nice things for others because they do expect something in return. I just ask someone and he expects it knowing that we're not suppose to. I don't think many people get this idea that media brings in. But thinking that maybe you'll get something in return I think is a capitalist idea
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Danielle Waldman 2014-06-11 22:52
I didn't think about it in that sense, "thinking that maybe you'll get something in return I think is a capitalist idea." It might very well be, though we are socialized to believe that we should be recognized and desire recognition for our acts of kindness or moving gestures.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Dennis Loo 2014-06-11 22:55
My article's main point is that it's not wrong for people to expect reciprocity. Reciprocity is a fundamental characteristic of the fact that social life requires it to function. Otherwise we'd be unable to count on others day to day because we couldn't be certain that they could be counted on. So I don't think you're correct that expecting reciprocity is a capitalist idea. It certainly predates capitalism by hundreds of thousands of years...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Menava 2014-06-11 23:31
I think reciprocity is a good and needed social function/practi ce. Yet, I think people don't value it as much because we a needed people less and less. For example, I don't need to thank someone for opening an automatic door or the bagger at Walmart because I know do it myself. Do you think with more technology we will value reciprocity any less? Or am I completely off the mark here?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Christine Lopez 2014-06-11 23:45
I agree with Dr. LOO reciprocity is in important aspect of our social life. A simple thank you goes along way,when we are polite then other people will follow. An example that came in mind is when you help some one in need right now. Some day when you need help there will be some one to help you and give you a hand.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Susan Torres 2014-06-11 19:23
I completely agree with this. Especially the fact that we, as humans, need this recognition from others. We expect others to recognize others as human beings. When someone doesn't say excuse me and just pushes through a crowd, we feel offended because they have not recognized that we exist and are another human being. At the same time I do believe humans are selfish and altruistic at the same time. They both are attributes of being humans. Just like being happy and sad are both human traits.They both exist at the same time and in a way wouldn't exist without one another. How would we know someone was sad if that was the only emotion and being happy didn't exist. I believe the same applies to being selfish and altruistic. We need selfish people in order to appreciate the altruistic individual. As mentioned in the article, I don't believe there is a completely selfish person nor a completely altruistic individual. They coexist with one another.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Danielle Waldman 2014-06-11 20:23
As social beings we all desire and crave the need to be thanked and appreciated. Even if you say that you did something for someone and don't need any recognition, that is bs, because everyone longs for that feeling of being recognized. We could not function if we did not have those feelings. I know I get mad if people don't say thank you when I hold the door open for them, because they make you feel like you're invisible and that your act of kindness is not worthy of recognition.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Jason Kubanis 2014-06-11 23:04
I agree that people crave and appreciate gratification, some more than others. People are social being and need the attention of others, like Dr. Loo stated about solitary confinement, a person who has no interaction with others begins to here voices in their head because they are lonely and are lacking interaction with others.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Susan Torres 2014-06-11 23:42
I don't neccasarily agree with you on the point that if someone says they are doing something without gratification in return is not true. I do beleive some people do act of kindness just to help others expecting nothing in return. But I do think feelings of feeling good about yourself after the act is done, is unavoidable.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Jason Kubanis 2014-06-11 20:26
This article plays right into the type of family I am from; a simple thank you goes along way within society among friends, family, and people you don’t know. My parents have raised me to thank everyone, even if it is for the smallest things. As I have followed this path throughout my life, I have been disappointed many times for not being thanked for my hard work. I believe that everyone should be thanked no matter the job or duty, as simple as holding a door open is something that everyone should recognize, instead you looked at as a door man. I believe that it is a necessity to want to be thanked; I don’t believe selfless acts should go unrecognized.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Danielle Waldman 2014-06-11 23:02
Most of us have been raised to act in this manner. We have been socialized to be kind and make friendly and outgoing gestures, because we are social beings and we all desire not only to be nice but for others to be nice back to us. We could not function as a society and a group if we did not have these tendencies. This is why people are bothered when those favors are not returned to us, not because we are selfish.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # BBalty 2014-06-11 21:39
I agree with Dr. Loo that we are all interdependent on each other. For society to exist it would require us to be selfless and socially integrated. As humans we are social creatures and It would be impossible for any human to want to be selfish and isolated from society. We have seen, as Dr. Loo mentioned, that when individuals become isolated from society they began to go insane. For example the prisoners in solitary confinement. In order for society to exist the way it does now, requires each of us to be selfless on a certain level. For example, if humans were truly selfish in nature then nobody would recycle or dispose of their garbage in the appropriate manner. Because they wouldn't care about society, only whatever is convenient to them. This, however, is in apparent in our society. People do recycle and throw away their garbage appropriately. For society to exist the way it does only proves that humans are not selfish by nature or self-centered.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Menava 2014-06-11 23:37
I agree that we need to be interdependent for survival--it's a known fact. As a social creature I act in normative ways, as do most of us. I just wonder about the interdependence being compromised as the gap between the haves and have nots grows further apart. Some people engage in I'll scratch your back and you scratch mines without being forced, but if those in power no longer need us, how will this interplay occur? Will forced be used? Just thinking about the future and if we will ever lose this human dynamic.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Jason Kubanis 2014-06-11 22:57
As stated by many others human beings are social beings, we need contact from others as well as gratification. Some are over gratified and embellish it, which can cause tension, especially in work environment when one is recognized and thanked while another has put in their hard work as well and get no gratification. Doing favors or helping someone is detrimental and can make you feel as if you are servant and that you are not good enough to be acknowledged.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Christian Damian 2014-06-11 23:56
We are all raised with a set of beliefs from our parents, family, and friends. These beliefs in our upbringing influence the way we see the world. If for example someone was raised without being taught to say please and thank you, they will have a hard time making those behaviors into unconscious reflexes. However, we as a society are very good at punishing people for not following the norm and will instinctively try to correct the person who does not follow the same behavior of gratitude and politeness we expect. While the person may learn to say please and thank you, they will have an unpleasant time doing so because they have been negatively enforced through punishment to behavior that way. They will not feel it as an unconscious decision but a forced one. This in turn shows that even if someone wanted to be individualistic or selfish, the society they belong to would steer them back to socializing through punishment.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Christian Damian 2014-06-11 23:56
However, if someone was to succeed in becoming individualistic , society would shun them and degrade them to the point of no longer being human. These people are seen as monsters or crazy and "not right." We are warned about them and told to stay away form them and do not allow them to come near us. Although they may become individualistic , they are no longer part of any society that accepts them and there for cannot function as a group.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code

Elaine Brower 2

Elaine Brower of World Can't Wait speaking at the NYC Stop the War on Iran rally 2/4/12