Altruism Essay (conclusion)

In all, assessment of the evidence indicates that humans are only prone to altruistic behaviour towards the wider group when there is some net benefit to be gained. The Kula Ring is dependent on repeated interactions, which provides a net benefit to both individuals - consistent with Trivers' (1971) hypothesis. Where repeated interaction does not take place, the net benefit comes in the form of indirect reciprocity. Presenting oneself as an altruist is an honest signal of phenotypic quality, which correlates with reproductive success. Indeed, Milinski's (2002) study on charity indicated that individuals can gain indirect benefits in the form of reputation and status by acting altruistically. Further, Goldberg's (1995) and Mulcahy's (1999) investigations indicated that sexual selection may favour altruistic alleles. Blurton-Jones' (1984) tolerated theft model suggests that altruism is not an active process of gaining benefits, but a passive process of reducing costs. The argument being that it is more costly to defend a resource with a low marginal value than it is to give it away to another hungry individual. However, these examples rely on the assumption that the wider group is smaller than 150 individuals. Where there are no net benefits to be gained by altruistic individuals, in the context of public goods, rewards and punishments are needed to prevent the 'tragedy of the commons'. This leads to the conclusion that true altruism towards the wider group i.e. altruism without any conferred benefits to the donor, does not exist in human populations. Humans are not prone to true altruistic behaviour towards the wider group because any instance of altruism has selfish intentions. Indeed, any evidence for 'altruistic' behaviour is in fact 'mutually beneficial' because a net fitness benefit is involved (West et al 2010:10). As Dawkins points out, "it often turns out on closer inspection that acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise" (1976:4). The phrase 'no selfless good deed' seems to appropriately sum up my argument, in a Darwinian sense, that is.