Philosophy of Life Sciences

Term Project Proposal: Egoism vs. Altruism

Authors:
Gabriele Libardi (328552)
Ekrem Fatih Yilmazer (321967)
Kevin Theodric Uning (329020)
Kasra Kiaee (322219)
Professor:
Christian Sachse

March 13, 2021

Contents
1 Introduction 2

2 Egoism-Altruism: Two Sides of the Same Coin 3

3 Altruism and Egoism in Animals 4

3.1 Unit of Selection - Gene versus Individual Organism Selectionism . . . . . . 4
3.2 Consequence of Gene Selectionism - Supervenience of Behavior on Genes
and Hamilton’s Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1 Potential Incompatibility between Gene Selectionism and Common
Models of Group Selectionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Game Theory as a Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Altruism and Egoism in Humans 9

4.1 Empirical Evidence for Altruistic Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 The Notion of Memes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

References 13

1
1 Introduction
Egoism and Altruism are two concepts that have always been thought of as opposite be-
haviors. In particular, the first one is usually considered as a negative behavior while
the second one is seen as a good quality of a person. An egoist, which comes from the
Latin word ”ego” meaning ”I”, is one who considers his/her “own good” more important
than that of “others”. Conversely, an altruist, which comes from the Latin word ”alter”
meaning ”other”, is one who puts the “good of others” first over his/her “own”. Although
these two categorization does indeed describes some of the behaviors of animals and hu-
mans, in reality, both egoistic and altruistic nature exist in them and none of the two can
solely describe them. As seen in nature, the survival of every organism stems from an
egoistic behavior, meaning that every one of them is egoistic. However, depending on the
environment the individual is in, such as being in a group, they may then show altruistic
behavior. This leads us to the main question, ”Is the nature of mankind truly egoistic
or altruistic?”. To answer this question, it is firstly important to first understand both
egoistic and altruistic behavior and how they are related to each other.
While egoistic behavior can be briefly described as above, egoism itself includes several
points of view of the problem. For instance, one of the views is known as ethical egoism
is an ethical position that one should move according to its own personal interests. In
contrary to ethical egoism, there is psychological egoism, which states that people only
act out of their own interests. Then, there is also another view known as rational egoism,
which argues that it is simply rational to act in one’s own personal interests.Finally, there
is also ethical utilitarianism, which states that one should consider their own interests
without having any regard for others (as selfishness does, elevating the interests and his
own ”ego” over others), but at the same time, an individual should not (as altruism does)
sacrifice one of his interests to help those of others, since one of his personal interests is
substantially equivalent to those of others.
In contrast to egoism, altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for the
happiness of other human beings or other animals, resulting in a quality of life both ma-
terial and spiritual. One can see altruism in biological observations when organisms make
an action which will cost themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability
of survival or reproduction), but will benefit another individual, without the expectation
of reciprocity or compensation for that action. Whereas in society, altruism can be seen
as the basis of most religions (such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism,
Judaism, and Sikhism, etc.), among most of which, altruism is considered as a very impor-
tant moral value. Similar to egoism, altruism also exists in various forms. For example,
there is e↵ective altruism, which is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence
and reasoning to determine the most e↵ective ways to benefit others. E↵ective altruism
encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions and to act in a way that brings
about the greatest positive impact, based upon their values. It is the broad, evidence-
based, and cause-neutral approach that distinguishes e↵ective altruism from traditional
altruism or charity. Additionally, there is also pathological altruism, which is a form of
altruism that is taken to an unhealthy extreme, and either harms the altruistic person or

2
causes well-intentioned actions to do more harm than good.
Interestingly, even among these various forms of egoism, many if not most of them
still allow various seemingly altruistic behavior and vice versa, such as the case with
psychological egoism. Psychological egoism is the concept that human beings are always
motivated by their own legitimate interests or convenience, even in actions that seem to
show themselves as acts of altruism. It argues that when people decide to help others, they
ultimately do so simply to derive the personal benefits that individuals themselves expect
to gain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. According to some psychologists, sociologists,
and philosophers, there is no totally disinterested altruism, as a benefit of the donor could
always be identified, such as think of gratification, cessation of empathy, self-realization,
and fulfillment of the meaning of justice. The validity of this argument depends on whether
intrinsic rewards qualify as ”benefits”. One can argue that psychological egoism is true
both because it is established by reflections on human psychology and on simple empirical
evidence. A specific form of psychological egoism is psychological hedonism, the idea that
the final motive for any action of human will is the desire to experience pleasure or avoid
pain. Consequently, altruistic behaviors can be tolerable from an egoism point of view
even if it sacrifices one’s advantage. On the other hand, given that one’s action benefits
both the society and him/herself, one can argue that an egotistical behavior is in fact a
form of an e↵ective altruistic behavior. This then, begs the question, ”If altruistic behavior
exists even in egoism and vice versa, are egoism and altruism truly di↵erent from each
other?” and if so, ”Who is the true beneficiary of these egoistic and altruistic behaviors?”
and finally, ”How is this related and reflected in human behaviors?”. In this paper and in
the spring term project, we will be exploring the nature of egoism and altruism starting
with the general concepts, followed by an attempt to explain it using natural selection,
and ended by an analysis of human behaviors.

2 Egoism-Altruism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Nevertheless, egoism had a fundamental role in the survival of mankind and, in general,
of all living beings. This argument is dealt with widely by Charles Darwin, who said
that in the struggle for survival the egoistic beings will beat the altruistic ones, indeed
these last ones are destined to die out, due to their attitude to sharing their resources
in favor of the others and at the expense of their owns. Thus the evolutionists deny the
existence of altruism, even apparently altruistic behaviors are actually results of mostly
selfish motives. Whatever we do, a good or bad thing, we do it only for ourselves. First
comes one’s own good, and if by doing so one does good to others, this is even better, but
this is not the main purpose. But also Darwin, as a good observer, noticed that Nature
overflows with altruistic behaviors, for instance, animals that sacrifice their lives (such as
the bee that commits suicide by emitting its sting) and millions of individuals who give up
reproducing to serve their own community. Should not an altruist already be extinct? In
order to answer this question, Darwin thought that in some cases the individual prefers to
cooperate with other individuals, because doing so his group becomes stronger, winning
the fights with other groups.

3
 Thus here another side of the coin arises, that is called altruism, the complete opposite
of egoism. Altruism is defined as a concern for the welfare of others and is considered
as a virtue in many cultures, and as such is encouraged. People sacrifice some part
of themselves, be it money or time, to help others in need. This kind of behavior is
encouraged by a lot of cultures, and usually, it is considered a more noble behavior than
egoism, although this is essential for the survival of the species. However, with deep
consideration, one can notice that something happens when one makes a good action. In
particular, every time a selfless act is committed, there is some kind of reward, usually
just gratitude, even if, according to the definition of altruism, nothing would be asked
in return. Also when one does not look for gratitude, one ultimately acts for a purpose.
Whatever the intended purpose, in the end, it will always be connected to selfish ends,
and therefore, in other words, to the survival of the species. For instance, one can take
some evident cases of altruism such as voluntary works. One may argue that volunteering,
as the word suggests, is works of altruism because nothing is asked in return, it is done
for the good of others. But is it really true that nothing is received in return? Perhaps
nothing material is received in return, but certainly, something is received. So the question
to ask is: what prompts a person to do an altruistic act such as volunteering? [19]
Whatever a person does, it is done for his own good, and if a person, helping others,
feels good about himself or rather, makes him feel good, it turns out, after all, that even
the most altruistic of acts is driven by personal ineptitude to be happy with the acts done
and somehow to feel fulfilled as men. In other words, there is no selfless altruism. This
absolutely does not mean that all people think only of themselves and that it is, therefore,
wrong to help others. Here we just want to pay attention to the fact that altruistic acts
are also driven by selfish motives, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Apparently, this
concept can lead to discontent, but this is due to the fact that we have always been
educated to consider the altruistic person good and the selfish person bad when in reality
this distinction has no justification.
These considerations, and this link between egoistic and altruistic acts, lead us to think
that altruism and egoism cannot be distinguished, but that they are sides of the same coin.

3 Altruism and Egoism in Animals

In the previous section, we have discussed the dual point of view of altruism and egoism.
Although it may seem logical, we have yet to present and discuss any empirical evidence
to support the notion. In this section, we will further develop this view through the
discussion of the unit of natural selection, the consequence of gene selectionism for the for
altruism versus egoism, and game theory as a tool to better model the dual point of view
of altruism and egoism.

3.1 Unit of Selection - Gene versus Individual Organism Selectionism

To support the dual point of view and to lay the foundation for the following altruism
and egoism discussions, this sub-section in the spring project will review the concept
of gene selectionism and why it is now the generally accepted view in contrast to the

4
individual organism selectionism, as was also reviewed by Brian Garvey (2007).[6] To
be precise, we will be following the debate between Sterelny and Kitcher (1998), [18]
the proponent of gene selectionism, against Elliott Sober (1984), [17] the proponent of
individual organism selectionism. To summarize the arguments from both sides, Sterelny
and Kitcher argue that gene selectionism o↵ers a ”greater comprehension” compared to
that of individual organism selectionism as it can explain phenomena that individual
organism selectionism cannot explain. Two example to this are the segregation distorter
and the sex-ratio distorter genes, in which the genes gain advantages at the sacrifice of
the individual. Sober, however, provided a counter-argument stating that there are cases
where individual organism selectionism prevails in some cases, where in on circumstance
an individual with a homozygote gene is advantageous while in another circumstance
an individual with a heterozygote gene is advantageous. That is, the genes are traits
belonging to the individual, which helps them in the natural selection, and thus, the unit
of selection does not concern the gene. This argument, however, was rejected by Sterelny
and Kitcher in such cases, the advantage of an individual depends on the environmental
factors and similarly, so does genes. Consequently, gene selectionism can be seen as a
more comprehensive approach that also covers all of the individual organism selectionism
approach. As seen in this short summary of the debate, there are two key points, which
are the level of comprehension of each approaches and the environmental e↵ects on each
approaches. These two points will be deeply discussed during the project in the spring
term. As for the bibliography, we will be following along the discussion from the book by
Garvey (2007), [6] paper of Sterelny and Kitcher (1998) [18] and the book of Sober (1984).
[17] Additionally, we will also be discussing the famous book by Richard Dawkins, ”The
Selfish Gene” (1976) [5] as well.

3.2 Consequence of Gene Selectionism - Supervenience of Behavior on

Genes and Hamilton’s Rule
One fortunate consequence of gene selectionism is that we now have a logical framework
where we can mathematically analyze any individual behavior, such as using the game
theory or the Hamilton’s rule. [6] This is because unlike living organisms, genes are objects
that will always follow physical rules. In other words, if gene selectionism is indeed the
main unit of natural selection, the individual with the gene will behave in such a way that
the gene will be multiplied the most. In other words, altruistic behavior can simply be
interpreted as a consequence of the genes such that these genes are multiplied as much
as possible and naturally, egoistic behavior can be explained with the same reasoning.
Obviously, this is assuming that an individual’s behavior depends on his/her genes and
so, it is important to give a strong argument if not to proof this point. Then, it is also
crucial to show the actual role of genes in a↵ecting the individual’s behavior, such as the
”green beard” concept and the Hamilton’s rule. [7, 8]
Unfortunately, in discussing the relationship between an individual’s behavior and
his/her genes, one can very easily fall into the discussion of freewill instead, which may not
be answered anytime soon. This has to be avoided and to do so, we will attempt to show
that behaviors can still depend on genes regardless of the existence of freewill. While it is

5
obvious that genes may a↵ect an individual’s behavior when there is no freewill, the main
question is then whether or not genes can still a↵ect an individual’s behavior alongside
his/her freewill. We think that the answer lies behind the concept of supervenience where
genes may be one of the deciding factors on the behaviors. Naturally, this would still
mean that the concept of freewill has to be weakened and so, one interesting question to
be discussed is how strong can the freewill be for behaviors to still supervene on genes to
make a di↵erence in gene selectionism. Regardless of the answer to this question, however,
we will show the supervenience of behaviors on genes based on empirical evidences. A
few possible candidates for these evidences are the following two experimental findings
of altruistic bacteria that would share their food [13] and the set of neurons used by
monkeys to predict other monkey’s behavior [9]. The first finding of the altruistic bacteria
is important as they are fairly simple living organisms which actions are directly related
to the chemical reactions in their body, which are also directly related to their genes.
That is, we will first establish the concept of behavior supervenience on genes in simple
organisms. Then, through the second finding of the predictive neurons, we will establish
the possibility of behavior supervenience on genes in more complex organisms such as
mammals. In the second finding, it was found that monkeys have specific sets of neurons
to predict the likelihood of other monkey’s cooperation. While this does not have any
direct relationship with egoistic or altruistic behavior, this shows that decision making
processes depend on such neurons, which are formed according to their genes as well.
That is, we will discuss how behaviors of complex organisms still supervenes on their
genes just like simple organisms, albeit this may be less direct.
After establishing the gene-behavior relationship, the next step is to show the possible
methods of how genes may induce altruistic behavior. At this stage of the project, there are
two possible methods that will be discussed, which are the phenotype based and behavior
based methods. As the name suggest, phenotype based altruistic behavior relies on the
visible marks on the individual that may trigger altruistic behavior. This includes the
famous concept of ”green beard” gene by Hamilton (1964),[7, 8] which was found in red
fire ants by Keller and Ross (1998). [10] The green beard gene concept states that a gene
may enhance its chance to be multiplied if other individuals with the same gene can be
identified and helped, which results in an altruistic behavior. Additionally, this phenotype
based altruistic also includes the famous Hamilton’s rule (1964) [7, 8] where an individual
may sacrifice itself in order to save a number of its relatives, which can be mathematically
modeled by weighing their relationships. This is included in the phenotype group since
kinship, in a way, has a significant reliance on physical attribute similarities as well, which
will be lightly discussed in the spring project. The other group, however, depends on the
behavior of an individual to another, which may or may not trigger altruistic behaviors
depending on the action, which may happen in more complex organisms such as mammals.
This is also known as reciprocal altruism that was developed by Edward O. Wilson (1978)
[20] where an individual is more likely to sacrifice its advantage when expecting it back
in the future. All in all, there are various methods in which genes may induce altruistic
behavior and so, in the spring project we will be covering the empirical evidence of each
methods and how the genes have impacted each methods. As for the planned reading, in

6
addition to the references in this section, we will also plan to read the book ”The Selfish
Gene” by Richard Dawkins. [5] Additionally, if possible, it may also be interesting to
compare the efficiency of each methods through mathematical models, which may show
the more common altruistic behavior.

3.2.1 Potential Incompatibility between Gene Selectionism and Common Mod-

els of Group Selectionism

Figure 1: Group selectionism model example given in the review of group selectionism by
Garvey (2007). [6]

At the start of altruistic behavior discussions, one of the most confusing things has
been the possible mechanism behind group selectionism. This is because it was initially
believed that individuals may only be either egoistical or altruistic in a predetermined
group. [6] Based on this gene selectionism, however, there are a few potential problems
with this initial setup, namely the dual point of view of egoism and altruism and the
unchanging group size, shown in figure 1. As discussed in the previous section, since the
genes will behave in such a way to maximize its duplication chance, the individual may be
both egoistic and altruistic at di↵erent times. To add, due to the altruistic methods above,
this duality will also be enhanced depending on the situation, such as altruistic behavior of
a non-group member, which then triggers a positive feedback of altruistic behavior. That
is, the group size may change in size depending on the situation, environment, and time.
In other words, with the involvement of genes, the currently available group selectionism
approaches may be too simple to model altruistic behavior based on gene selectionism and
thus, incompatible with each other. This, however, does not mean that group selectionism
is completely useless but rather, should be improved based on the on gene selectionism.
This is where the game theory may be useful in improving the base model for group
selectionism as it can take the duality of egoistic and altruistic behavior into account
while basing the ”game rules” on gene selectionism.

7
3.3 Game Theory as a Tool
We have already discussed about the dual point of view of altruism and egoism. Also
you have seen that to lessen the complexity of our discussion, we started about animal’s
gene and studying this behaviour in their actions. Regarding this dual point of view, in
this subsection, we will review the subject in a whole di↵erent perspective; we will use
mathematical model building techniques to see that whether can we build a model that
describes the animal behaviours with both the ontology of egoism and altruism?
Going deeply to the question, firstly we can start with the definition of Game Theory.
In this kind of theories, all the ideas are being led through reaching an specific goal, in
a special framework, which is the game, with some players who play legally, through the
game rules. For example we are going to study an ”evolutionary stable strategy”, meaning
that the goal of the game is to survive at the end. The players, in this case the animals,
can play through di↵erent kind of actions, which the core of the actions are built through
the fact that how harmful and dangerous they will face in the battles with the other kind
of animals; the action which is called ”battle” in here. But usually two types strategies for
battles exists, ”limited war” and ”total war”. In the former, animals do not try to harm
each other that hard to be irreparable and the latter is the reverse.
The question of our model arises when the studies show that animals, usually, choose the
”limited battle” strategy, although they can easily harm each other so badly that one side
gets killed easily. How can we explain this strategy? Is it egoistically suitable? How about
the altruistic point of view?
Thinking about it a little, we can find an altruistic reasoning for ”limited battle” strategy.
Not causing serious injuries during the battles, simply will help all the animals not to
extinct and for sure it is an evolutionary friendly strategy. Meaning that decreasing the
chances of extinctions of di↵erent species is a way of thinking altruistically to help all the
weak egoistic behaviors to live among their society of their genes. This is a very simple
reasoning for an observed behavior. But can we explain this phenomena egoistically too?
We can see that due to complexity, as we have to observe each individual animal with
di↵erent abilities, we can not answer the question easily. Whatever we think of, there
can be a counter example and all the stable strategy that we have to think of, may di↵er
within examples .
This is when we use the game theory as a tool to find an explanation for statistical
behaviour of animals in battles, and all from and egoistic point of view. To make the
story short, we have to start by building a simplified model of animal types. Then we
have to di↵erentiate between the types by the kind of policies they have during the battles
with each other. At the end, we need to assign reasonable numbers for the behaviors and
check that whether the model that we have built has an ”evolutionary stable strategy”
or not. That would be all the process that can be seen by the works of Maynard Smith
[15][16]. The results of these works show that we can explain all these ”limited battle”
strategy, by an egoistic ontology.
Again we have another triumph for the idea of dual point of view of egoism vs. altruism.
There are events that can be explained by both point of views at the same time. Also note

8
that we have only studies with simplified animal models. Going through human models
everything would be more complicated and in our point of view, harder to distinguish
between one ontological approach to the other.
Game Theory is an approach that we can always use of; from very simple models to
complicated ones. During this study, we will be having Game Theory as a tool always in
our minds and use it whenever modeling was going to be used. All the notes and papers
which have used this mathematical model building, for example in economy, biology and
theory of evolution would be have the same structure explained above and will be helping
us through this path in the spring semester project. For a more general explanation you
can see[1] and [4].

4 Altruism and Egoism in Humans

The ideas in preceding chapters were discussed in order to give more general answer to
the question ”Egoism and Altruism” by investigating all living creatures. As the gene
selectionism approach suggested, an individual’s altruistic behavior may stems from the
egoistical behavior of genes. That is, altruistic behaviors can be traced back to the genes
of the individual and the environment they are in. Although this point of view can be
applied to humans, as discussed above, the e↵ect of genes are becoming less direct and less
visible with increasing organism complexity. As humans are not simple animals with basic
functions and have enormously complex social structures, it is not sufficient to conclude
with approaches discussed before.
Maasai people, who live in Kenya and Tanzania, have really interesting tradition known
as osotua(asking for help).[14] Once two person start an osotua relationship, they are
obliged to help each other without expecting a payback as long as they do not put their
life in danger. This might even mean losing all animals that the person have. But what
is the reason that they act this way? Do the environmental circumstances force them to
help each other? How did they build a social convention that prevents acting egoistically?
In 1982, when the Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River, the passengers
were stuck at the tail of the plane inside -30 degree of water.[12] When the state sent an
helicopter to save the passengers, Arland Williams, who was in better condition among
all survivors, helped each passenger to reach safety one by one. When all survivors were
saved except Arland, personnel realised that Arland was no longer there and defeated by
the freezing temperatures. In other words, he used all his power to save other lives to the
bitter end. If the main motivation of human behaviour is self-interest, why did Arland
choose to help people, whom he even does not know, until his death? Simiarly, Kamikaze
attacks of Japan war strategy can be given another example for ultimate sacrifice. Why
did Japanese soldiers give their lives for the name of their country? Did they kill their
themselves to save Japanese people who they do not know or did they do it for glory of
their nation? Why did some Japanese soldiers apply seppuku,a Japanese Suicide ritual,
after they lost the World War 2? As we can deduce from these examples, humans are too
complex for applying simple models as we did in in animal point of view. We have complex
bounds, moral virtues and various cultures which a↵ects our behavior and incentives.

9
4.1 Empirical Evidence for Altruistic Behaviour
There is a vast psychological literature in egoism and altruism debate. Batson and his
collegues’ experiments and conclusions are among the most remarkable studies. According
to Batson, altruistic behavior comes as a result of an emotional response to the distress of
another person. He relates this emotion to empathy and expresses his idea with empathy-
altruism hypothesis. [2]
Empathy-Altruism hypothesis assumes that the main motive of an altruistic behaviour
is emphatic emotion. By emphatic emotion, it is meant that some feelings (sympa-
thy,compassion) which are oriented to others and they are related to the perceived welfare
of other people. In other words, the hypothesis claims that empathy is the ultimate goal
of ending other’s su↵ering. [2]
There is a clear empirical evidence that emphatic feelings increase the rate of helping
but this does not show us that it is the ultimate goal of an act. The first counter argument
for the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis is aversive arousal reduction hypothesis. It basically
says that, the main aim of helping others is not increasing their welfare but avoiding
the emphatic arousal which distresses the individual. So helping others is the best way
to getting rid of the unpleasant situation. The second alternative is empathy specific
punishment. It argues that individuals help others for avoiding the oppression of society
and not feeling guilt because of being blamed for not helping. The third one is called
empathy specific rewards. It assumes it is rewarding to help someone else when we feel
empathy. Individuals goes through mood enhancing feelings because of helping the person
in need. [11]
In order to identify whether the ultimate goal for helping others is best explained by
empathy altruism hypothesis or aversive arousal hypothesis, following experiment is done.
Subjects observed a young lady called Elanie who is receiving electric shocks (she was
pretending that she is receiving electric shocks) and they have a chance somewhere in the
experiment to change the places with Elanie. The first variable of the experiment is the
empathy level. There is an evidence that human beings feel high empathy towards people
who are more similar. So some subjects had more similar features to Elanie whereas
others have less common features. [11] There was an another variable that is changed in
the experiment setup. Some of the subjects were allowed leave the experiment and relieve
their distress caused by seeing the Elanie whereas some others were not allowed the leave
the experiment. So if the individuals choose to leave the environment, it is related to
aversive arousal hypothesis while if they volunteer to take the shocks instead of Elanie, it
is related to Empathy Altruism Hypothesis. The figure 2 shows the expected results for
each explanation. The findings show that the prediction of Empathy Altruism Hypothesis
is true. The escape condition does not a↵ect the helping rates for high empathy case.
Another experiment is conducted to observe whether the empathy-altruism hypothesis
or empathy-specific punishment is true. It is based on providing justification for not
helping. In this case, the subject is inside a group and he can see whether the other
people choose to help or not. According to empathy specific punishment argument, if
other people also choose to help, then he will feel guilt and choose to help. But if other

10
 Figure 2: Aversive Arousal vs Empathy-Altruism

people also do not help, he will feel justified and choose not to help. The figure below
shows the results of the predictions of the experiments based on empathy-altruism and
empathy-specific punishment hypothesis. As in the first experiment, the findings support
the empathy altruism hypothesis. Justification for not helping does not change the helping
rates for the ones that we feel high empathy. [11]

Figure 3: Empathy Specific Punishment vs Empathy-Altruism

These experiments are strong proofs for empathy altruism hypothesis, and shows us
that humans might act for the well being of others. From psychological point of view,
since the best explanation for these experiments is Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis
we should accept it until a better one is projected.
There are several questions that can be asked in order to extend the discussion based
on Batson’s experiments. As we can see from the results of the experiments, the similarity
between the person in need and the subject is the key factor of choosing to help or not to
help. To make it more clear, if both of them were blonde and curly haired, or if they came
from similar cultural or social background, the rate of helping is high. What if the main
reason of helping is not the ending the other’s su↵ering but protecting the genes which
causes similar physical appearance? Could the reason for helping be the sustaining the
virtues, social and cultural entities? Can we say that it is still an altruistic behaviour if
we care about those instead of well-being of the person in need?

4.2 The Notion of Memes

A meme can be perceived as an idea, custom,behaviour or anything else that can be
passed from person to person by imitation. A saying, a religious practice, a clothe are

11
some examples of memes. From Dawkins’ perspective, if the competition between genes
is defined as natural selection, cultural selection is the competition between memes. [6]
The arguments the last chapter also can be explained by memes. What if the reason
for ultimate sacrifice of Japanese pilots is extending the lifespan of the memes that they
have? Could the reason why we help people be the common memes? We will investigate
the relation between memes and altruism more. (by investigating [5],[3])

12
References
[1] Alexander, J. (2009, July 19). Evolutionary Game Theory. Retrieved December 31,
2020. url: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/.
[2] C. D. Batson and E. Al. “Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?”
In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40.2 (1981), pp. 290–302.
[3] Susan J. Blackmore. The meme machine. Oxford University Press, 2000.
[4] Cowden, C. C. (2012) Game Theory, Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Evolu-
tion of Biological Interactions. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):6. url: https:
//www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/game-theory-evolutionary-
stable-strategies-and-the-25953132/.
[5] Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.
[6] Brian Garvey. Philosophy of Biology/Units of Selection. Acumen, 2007.
[7] W. D. Hamilton. “The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I”. In: Journal of
Theoretical Biology 7.1 (1964), pp. 1–16.
[8] W. D. Hamilton. “The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II”. In: Journal of
Theoretical Biology 7.1 (1964), pp. 17–52.
[9] K. Haroush and Z. M. Williams. “Neuronal Prediction of Opponent’s Behavior dur-
ing Cooperative Social Interchange in Primates”. In: Cell 160.6 (2015), pp. 1233–
1245.
[10] L. Keller and K. G. Ross. “Selfish genes: a green beard in the red fire ant”. In: Nature
394 (1998), pp. 573–575.
[11] C. D. Batson J. L. Dyck J. R. Brandt J. G. Batson A. L. Powell M. R. Mcmaster.
“Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypoth-
esis”. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55.1 (1988), pp. 52–77.
[12] Susan Miller. 37 years ago: The horror and heroism of Air Florida Flight 90. Jan.
2019. url: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/13/air-
florida-flight-90-crashed-potomac-37-years-ago/2565245002/.
[13] Benomar S. Ranava D. Cárdenas M. L. Trably E. Rafrafi Y. Ducret A. Hamelin
J. Lojou E. Steyer P. S. and Giudici-Orticoni M. “Nutritional stress induces ex-
change of cell material and energetic coupling between bacterial species”. In: nature
communications 6 (2015), p. 6283.
[14] Linnet Says: Giving without expecting something in return is a key part of Maasai
life. url: http://trbq.org/giving-without-expecting-something-in-return-
is-a-key-part-maasai-life/.
[15] G Smith J. Price. “The Logic of Animal Conflict”. In: Nature 247.1 (1973), pp. 15–
18.
[16] J. Smith. “The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts”. In: Journal
of Theoretical Biology 47.1 (1974), pp. 209–221.

13
[17] Elliott Sober. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus.
University of Chicago Press, 1984.
[18] K. Sterelny and P. Kitcher. “The Return of the Gene”. In: Journal of Philosophy
85.7 (1988), p. 339.
[19] The Egoism Versus Altruism Philosophy Essay. url: https://www.ukessays.com/
essays/philosophy/the- egoism- versus- altruism- philosophy- essay.php#:
~ :text=Altruism%20is%20the%20complete%20opposite, with%20them%20are%
20considered%20selfless..
[20] E. O. Wilson. On Human Nature. Harvard University Press, 1978.

14