Darwin and Selfless Generosity

Last month the New Your Times Magazine carried

this article discussing why humans might do good deeds toward others with
seemingly no payback. This is not an isolated article, but an
ongoing debate among behavioral scientists. The condition is an anomaly for the ubiquitous
buy-in to Darwinian theory, and this article is no exception. If one accepts
Darwinian theory as the "universal acid" that replaces all other foundations of thought, then everything must
ultimately be explained in terms of survival of the fittest. All altruism must
be somehow the result of something that benefits the doer (or else the gene that
causes the behavior will not be passes on). There is no way around it; believers
don’t have to like it–If Darwinian theory is true, then all human tendencies,
no matter how loving, patriotic, ethical, of otherwise giving they may appear,
must ultimately be motivated by selfishness.

Evolutionary psychologists have worked hard to come up with
selfish explanations for altruism, pro-social behavior, or whatever
they want to call it, but the gaps are blatant. The Times Magazine
article introduces four major contenders for Darwinian explanation, and then
shoots each down as not quite adequate to explain the philanthropy of
Bill and Melinda Gates.

May I suggest another possibility–not necessarily a
religious one? What about cognitive dissonance–the human need to make sense of
all things together and create balance in one’s own mind?
Cognitive dissonance
posits that humans will be motivated toward equality simply to balance their own
thinking about themselves and the world around them. For instance, if I am paid
less than the person next to me for doing the same job, all else being equal, I
will have a tendency to produce less than that person, just to balance what
aught to be. By this same logic, if one receives much, one would tend to feel a
responsibility to give or share with others. My two examples fit cognitive
dissonance as expressed in equity theory.This is not a religious concept,
and it can easily be explained as a capacity
that would contribute toward survival, so why is it not a contender to explain
altruism? Because it recognizes that humans alone possess the capacity for
cognitive dissonance. Regardless of its survivability, Darwinian thinking cannot
acknowledge that humans possess any quality that is not simply a matter of
degree in difference from the rest of the animal kingdom. (Darwin said that if
there are no degrees, his theory would "absolutely break down.")

This last example might also fit the concept of guilt,
which is hard pressed to find its place in Darwinian thinking. 
But consider an even larger step away from
Darwinism–gratitude. We have this word in English because we hold this concept
as viable. Gratitude informs my giving behavior when I expect neither return
(reciprocity) nor balance (equity), when I perceive that I am either incapable
of or not required to pay back. The concept implies that one can give post gain
(when there is nothing left to gain) and post obligation (when free from any
obligation at all). This can in no way be reconciled in Darwinian theory, and
yet we all hold this concept. Either gratitude exists, or Darwinian theory is a
universal truth. If you hold Darwinian theory as a universal truth, this could
cause you some cognitive dissonance.

This entry was posted on April 6, 2008 at 6:40 pm and is filed under Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.