Here are some questions from a religious apologist on the subject of “self-sacrifice”. The debate began on the subject of an absurd ritual commanded by God as described in Deuteronomy 25:7-9.
If a man refuses to "go in unto" his dead brother's wife, she shall loosen his shoe and spit in his face
The Apologist responded by raising multiple topics including the Golden Rule, democracy, survival of the fittest, genetics and the mechanisms of self-sacrifice. All of which have nothing to do with Deuteronomy 25:7-9.
It's a fascinating case study of Ignoratio Elenchi and a strategy of trying to drown an argument by introducing multiple new arguments and questions, perhaps as a way to avoid the awkward question of the nature of God implied in the commandments.
Anyway, here is an FAQ based on the off-topic questions that arose…
1 On what logical basis would you appeal to someone who would necessarily have to surrender his/her life for the greater benefit of others in that society?
I can't imagine myself making any such appeal. If someone has to "necessarily" surrender their life then no appeal is necessary. People's actions are controlled by their emotions, not by logic, and most people who put their lives at risk to save others don't logically think about the risk they are taking. They just do it. Most people who put themselves in danger feel they are likely to survive because they are in control. But sometimes that's a false assumption because it's not based on logic.
The reason why most people behave that way, is because altruism is part of human nature, and it exists because it gave us an evolutionary advantage.
1a What if an airplane is about to crash and there are 12 people on board and 6 parachutes. Who gets to bail out and who crashes with the plane?
It's impossible to answer such a hypothetical question with any authority because it's too easy to change the details as we go along. Perhaps the women and children could bail out. Perhaps there was a terrorist on board who stole a parachute for himself and slashed all the other parachutes with a knife. Who knows? We can go on forever with such hypotheticals. The point is that such examples are extremely rare and regardless of who bails out, the effect on the species is insignificant (see #9)
1b What if a bomb goes off in a crowded public place, so many people get trampled to death by the majority seeking to put themselves out of danger as their first "emotional" response, regardless of what happens to anyone else?
Indeed, most people would flee from such a situation and it makes perfect sense. When I was in an underground station that caught fire a few years ago, the staff instructed us to get out as fast as possible, which people did. (No one was trampled to death as you suggested). What the staff did not want was members of the public staying behind trying to help, and probably getting in the way.
1c Are people who actually choose to put themselves in danger in scenarios such as 1b for the sake of others motivated "just naturally" to do so, or do the values that they hold tend to play a part in motivating their response?
It's impossible to generalise. If we assume the staff who helped us evacuate the underground station, and the firefighters who dealt with the blaze fit your description, then they would be in those jobs for a variety of reasons. Some may have been born with a natural inclination towards that kind of role, some not. But as with #1a, such extreme examples do nothing to natural altruism that human beings display every day.
2 People who act self-sacrificially don’t pass on their genes.
That’s a false assumption. The definition of “self-sacrifice” is…
There is no reason to assume that someone who behaves self-sacrificially will not pass on their genes. Being self-sacrificial does not require one to die without having reproduced. Also, self sacrificial behaviour can exist without reproduction (worker bees for example).
2a To help others by advancing a cause is precisely what a religious belief does
This is a misstatement of the definition in 2. The definition says to help others OR to advance a cause. It does not say "to help others by advancing a cause." Of course, religions can bring benefits, but acting so as to advance a cause can be a good thing or a bad thing - depending on the cause.
Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense. (see #10)
3 Those who act selfishly in letting someone else sacrifice themselves are more likely to pass on a "selfish" gene.
This statement includes another false assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as a “selfish” gene (presumably the apologist means a gene that makes someone selfish). It's not that simple - genes influence each other and it's not easy to define selfishness (and indeed, selfishness is not always a negative trait).
3.1 In what way is this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gE_IPTXznM inaccurate?
It totally misrepresents the book it claims to be based on (The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins). The person who produced the cartoon either hasn't read the book or didn't understand it at all. It's not the behaviours that are selfish, it's the genes themselves. Selfish behaviour is often not advantageous. If you go around pushing the little guy out of the way to steal food all the time it might protect some of your genes but if you cooperate with the tribe and pool your resources you can propagate more of your genes. That's why the human race evolved the way it did.
The book describes this with numerous real life examples, none of which are in the cartoon. For example, Joe’s strategy will fail when he tries to steal from people
who protect and guard their food stores efficiently. Joe and his family will
not survive. In real life there are a whole range of different strategies at
play and populations reach a natural equilibrium where the Joes are in a
minority. If you don’t want to read the Selfish Gene book, then at least read
chapter 5 and understand the concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). (There is a link to the book at the bottom of the page), Or just look at nature as a whole and ask yourself why predators and scavengers
are so heavily outnumbered.
3.2 You've created your own scenario
instead of the one where Joe gets away with his theft.
Exactly! I am just as capable of creating scenarios as
anyone else, and I could create hundreds more, because in real life, there are
hundreds more, thousands more, all of which play a part in the overall population and that's how an
equilibrium is reached. A thief does not define a population. As with 3.1 - At least read chapter 5 of the book and understand the
concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). Or just look at nature as a
whole and ask yourself why predators and scavengers are so heavily outnumbered.
4 Acting self-sacrificially is counter-intuitive and necessarily references a higher moral value as a reason for doing so.
Maybe it is counter-intuitive, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true, and it also does not necessarily reference a “higher moral value” (whatever that means!) Altruism is part of human nature, and it does seem counter-intuitive because it doesn’t appear to benefit the individual. And it’s not limited to humans – we can see it throughout the animal kingdom. One example is Vervet monkeys who give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. Birds, buffalo, insects, bees and many other species display altruism. A population where the majority were selfish would not thrive (depending how we define "selfish").
5 A person who sacrifices him/herself is out of the picture: his/her genes won't be passed on to anyone because s/he is dead!
This statement consists entirely of three false assumptions: (a) a self-sacrificial person will end up dead, (b) they will die before they have reproduced and (c) sacrifice is a genetic trait. With regard to (c) - consider the worker bees that die when they sting attackers, thereby preserving the food supply for the population. Worker bees don't reproduce so their genes are never "passed on".
6 A selfish person has a better chance of passing on their genes than a dead self-sacrificial person.
This assumes the dead self-sacrificial person has not already “passed on their genes.” It also seems to be assuming that selfish people live longer than self-sacrificial people. In any case, it doesn’t explain the evidence which shows that selfishness within a population has a negative impact, which is why selfish individuals are in the minority. But again note the problem with the word "selfish". There are examples of selfishness which benefit the wider population. The people with the best chance of passing on their genes are normal people, because normal people outnumber abnormal people.
7 Self-sacrificial people are less likely to pass on their genes than selfish people.
It’s tempting to believe that, because it's intuitive, but evidence shows the exact opposite is true. As mentioned in #4, the existence of self-sacrifice does seem counter-intuitive from a Darwinian perspective. Natural selection leads us to expect individuals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others. But by behaving self-sacrificially, an individual reduces its own fitness, so it should be at a selective disadvantage compared to one which behaves selfishly.
Imagine some members of a group of Vervet monkeys give alarm calls when they see predators, but others do not. Surely the latter will have an advantage? By “selfishly” refusing to give an alarm call, a monkey can reduce the chance that it will itself be attacked, while at the same time benefiting from the alarm calls of others. So we should expect natural selection to favour those monkeys that do not give alarm calls over those that do. But we are stuck with the fact that the alarm-calling, self-sacrificial behaviour exists! So how did it evolve in the first place, and why has it not been eliminated by natural selection? How can the existence of altruism be reconciled with basic Darwinian principles?
Or consider the worker bees in Q5 who don't pass on their genes at all!
The first issue is the problem with the word "selfish" which we automatically associate with negative behaviour. But as we've seen there are examples of selfishness which benefit the wider population. The concept which explains the evolution and existence of self-sacrificial behaviour is “inclusive fitness” .
7a Humans don't fit the model described in 7
In fact they do, and we see examples every day. Research has shown that our personalities are mainly determined by nature rather than nurture. Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on our personalities. The researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact.
8 What are the odds of survival of the self-sacrificer's child or children without his/her being present to raise and protect them?
This again includes the false assumption that self-sacrifice requires death. But to answer the question, all things being equal, the odds are the same as for any child who loses a parent. It depends on the society they are living in. A child who lives in a population that is naturally altruistic is more likely to be treated better than a child in a population that is not. So this is another aspect of how altruism develops through evolution and a purely selfish (in the negative sense) population would die out. We can easily imagine how an altruistic population would provide an extended family to a disadvantaged child. In fact this is normal behaviour in many species.
9 A self-sacrificial person is going to place him/herself in greater situation(s) of danger and thus be less likely to survive and pass on his/her genes.
A self-sacrificial person may place themselves in greater situations of danger (e.g. the Vervet monkey described in #4). Or they may not. There are many ways in which we demonstrate altruism that do not require us to be in danger. So that is an extreme example which only affects a tiny minority of the population, and is not significant enough to derail the evolutionary process. But it is wrong to assume that the individual in danger is less likely to pass on their genes. There is no reason to assume that their genes have not already been “passed on”.
10 Selfish people are more likely to pass on their genes than those who are selfless and put themselves in greater danger.
Not only is this a false dichotomy, the opposite is true, and as explained in #4 we see that self-sacrificial behaviour has evolved in in many species including our own. So, the question is – how did this happen, and that is explained in #7 but also in much greater detail here. Yet again note the problem with the word "selfish". There are examples of selfishness which benefit the wider population.
We should of course be careful about applying these evolutionary principles to humans because more than any other species, humans are a mixture of nature and nurture, hence compared to other animals, we are the products of biology and conscious beliefs and desires AND genetics. But at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above.
In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. On the other hand, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness.
Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. It is does not benefit kin - for parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adopt - and nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits (although the adoption satisfies their natural need for children). So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.
10a What is the difference between biological altruism and psychological altruism?
The article referenced above explains...
Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism.
Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's children- a quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve.
Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.
11 How it is beneficial in a survival sense for a selfless individual to be in a better position to pass along his/her "selfless" genes than a selfish person would be to pass along his/her "selfish" genes?
Firstly, we should be careful about assuming that there is such a thing as a “selfless gene” or a “selfish gene”. And we have to be clear what "selfish" means. There are examples of selfishness which benefit the wider population. In any case, it is highly unlikely that a gene could be identified as the cause of such complex behaviour! But as already mentioned in #4, the situation does seem counter-intuitive. A good explanation is provided here
“Again, we have to explore the reasons for the apparent counter-intuitiveness of the evolution of altruism. Even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into selfish people rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's children—a quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their children’s' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which genes may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.”
We must be careful applying evolutionary rules that define other species to our own species, because of our unique facility for extensive nurturing as well as our nature. Compared to many species, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their “biological fitness”, obviously, so adoption appears to be an altruistic behaviour. But can be argued it is selfish behaviour – the parents are satisfying their natural need to have a child. So a selfish act for a pair of individuals, has the effect of being altruistic for the population.
12 What makes you assume that selfishness isn't an "attractive" quality, strictly from the perspective of one wishing to pass on his/her genes?
This is another two-part question.
For the first part, let's assume the apologist is referring to the negative aspects of selfishness. There’s no need to assume that selfishness isn’t attractive. We just must ask whether we would prefer to be with selfish people or unselfish people, and the clear majority of people will choose the latter. We instinctively find greed, etc. unattractive and negative qualities.
The second part of the question is asking why that is, in terms of biology. The answer is that our instincts and emotions are the result of evolution, and so we tend to find beneficial traits attractive and positive, because they gave us an evolutionary advantage, and hence are found in most people. Obviously, we are not consciously aware of any of that unless we study biology, so it’s not right to say that we “wish” to pass on our genes.
13 Selfish people tend to do quite well in terms of power and wealth and these are attractive qualities to many females so that gives selfish people an evolutionary advantage.
Let's assume that the word "selfish" is being used in a negative sense. It’s false to assume that selfish people tend to be powerful and wealthy. Similarly, it’s false to assume that powerful and wealthy people are selfish. And why is it only “females” who are attracted to whatever?
So, if a person is attracted to another person because they are wealthy and powerful, that attraction could be negated if the person is also selfish.
Anyway, whichever way we look at it, the point is that the attributes described here only apply to a tiny minority of the population, always have and always will, because such behaviour is extremely difficult to maintain. A population with mostly greedy, narcissistic people would not survive.
14 What is the genetic payoff for people who engage in dangerous acts to save others?
I don’t know what a “genetic payoff” is. I assume the question is referring to evolutionary advantage in which case there are essentially two benefits.
Firstly, there is the process known as “inclusive fitness” (see #7).
Secondly there is the natural attraction we have towards self-sacrificial people. In real life of course, people are more complex than that. We tend to assume that self-sacrificial people are generally nice in other ways too. They may not be! Most of the time however, self-sacrifice does not require engagement in “dangerous acts to save others” so this example is limited to a tiny minority.
15 Our species evolved in a much more hostile environment than we seem to face at the moment, life expectancy was much shorter, and an altruistic person--unmotivated by anything other than genetics--would be at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage.
The first assumption is inaccurate. The natural environment our distant ancestors lived in was pretty much the same as ours is now (some would argue it’s more hostile now than it was in the past!) But it is true that mortality rates were higher in the past. Archaeology, history and anthropology this was due to living conditions and disease. Average human life expectancy has been about 30 to 40 years throughout millions of years of human history until incredibly recently - about the 1950s - when it began to increase to what we see today (67). There are several reasons for this increase, including a genetic component, but perhaps the most significant being those identified by anthropologists and biologists as "cultural adaptation".
The second assumption is what our intuition tells us, but the reality is counter-intuitive as explained in #7 – altruism and self-sacrifice provide a significant evolutionary advantage to a population that is trying to survive in “hostile environment.” A group of altruistic people is more likely to survive a hostile environment than a group of selfish people (assuming selfish in this context has a negative meaning... greedy, narcissistic, etc.) One could argue that self-sacrificial behaviour is less important now than it was in the distant past!
16 People who are "attractive" are also less likely to survive, so the "attractiveness" of the trait is irrelevant.
This point is inconsistent within itself. If people who were attractive were less likely to survive, then “attractiveness” would not be irrelevant, it would be very important. And it is, but not for the reason stated. It’s also unclear what “less likely to survive” means. Does it mean less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? That doesn’t fit the evidence of self-sacrificial human behaviour of, for example, how we nurture our children into adulthood. Does it mean “less likely to survive” into old age, beyond say 60 years of age? That may be true. There’s a moral, philosophical argument that increased life expectancy is not an advantage to the species, and that attempting to increase our life spans is selfish!
17 Are you saying that most of us are just basically "moral" people without subscribing to any specific moral perspective?
I’m not sure what “moral people” means. Every person has behaviour, and behaviour can be judged as moral or immoral. Our brains do what is perceived to be the right course of action at the time, given the information. Our brains are programmed by a mixture of nature and nurture. Perhaps the question is asking whether most of us are “morally good” and the answer is yes. It’s unclear what “subscribing to a moral perspective” means. I don’t consider a perspective as something that we “subscribe” to.
18 Are you asserting that we don't really have free will and our choices and responses are genetically programmed?
Free will is a different topic. But to answer the question, it seems to me free will is an illusion. However, our choices and responses are not “genetically programmed”. Our brains are “programmed” by a mixture of nature and nurture - a mixture of the brain’s biological “hardware” and “software” and a process of continual re-programming, second by second, which takes place from the moment we become self-aware until we die. Our responses are a consequence of the information available and the configuration of the brain. The Free will FAQ can be found here
19 What if a trait that is often perceived as "attractive" served a survival need in the past, but no longer does so in contemporary circumstances? For example, consider a female who is attracted to a "bad boy" persona. In times past, the "bad boy" individual might have been aggressive in seizing and defending resources as well as physically ousting and fighting off competitors, thus assuring a greater chance of successfully passing on his and his mate's genes, but in contemporary society such a person may be more likely to land in jail for assault or murder and make a less than ideal candidate for passing on his genes and those of his partner.
There are some false assumptions in this question, specifically an “aggressive bad boy” in times past was (a) successful and (b) attractive to females. There is no reason for those assumptions to be correct, so it’s a purely hypothetical scenario. The reality is that this person only represents a tiny minority of the population because such a position requires a lot of resources and hard work. So even if he was attractive, only a tiny minority of the population will inherit his genes, because his type (if it is a type) is greatly outnumbered. And who's to say his personality is genetic?
The situation in “contemporary society” is pretty much the same as it was in the past, except maybe in the past he would probably have been eliminated or overthrown by violent means rather than incarcerated. Having said that, we still see such people toppled by violence today so maybe nothing has changed!
20 A passive person lets others fight their battles for them or lets/makes others take risks necessary for the survival of others - or at least the survival of the one(s) not taking the risks
That’s a peculiar definition of “passive”. A passive person accepts what’s happening, whether it’s good or bad. So that argument seems to cancel itself out.
21 A self-sacrificial person puts him/herself into more danger than the non self-sacrificial person, hence has a lower survival rate
This is covered in questions 1 and 11 but in any case, there is no evidence that self-sacrificial people have a lower survival rate, and even if they did, no evidence that they are more likely to die before reproducing.
22 In your perspective, all that accounts for whether an individual passes on his/her genes is "survival of the best adapted to a given situation."
That is not my perspective! Natural selection obviously results in the dominance of traits that enable us to adapt to our environment, but that’s not all that accounts for passing on our genes. Natural selection is only one aspect of evolution. In the context of self-sacrificial behaviour and especially the evolution of groups as opposed to individuals, there is kin selection and group selection (see #11).
23 For most of human history, love and romance had very little to do with mate selection
Actually they had everything to do with mate selection!
24 There is no case for saying that the self-sacrificing risk taker is the best candidate for passing on their genes
There is for the self-sacrificing person (see #11) but “risk taker” is a different behaviour. The survival of risk takers depends on how good they are at calculating the odds.
25 How can you claim that the propensity for self-sacrifice isn't based in genetics?
I don’t! Our personalities (and most attributes) are not entirely the product of genetics. Inherited traits result from many processes, plus nature and nurture, and millions of years of evolution.
26 A self-sacrificial person might be admired--posthumously--but once the trait manifests itself s/he would have already put themselves in danger and to have been less likely to survive long enough for mate selection, much less for being involved in child-bearing and child-raising.
This makes the same mistake as in question 8 i.e. self-sacrifice leads is a significant cause of death. The mistake is further compounded here by assuming that self-sacrifice leads to an early death and self-sacrificial people are more likely to die before reproducing than other people. There is no evidence to support that assumption. It’s also a very one-sided argument which ignores all possible causes of death.
27 Nurture only influences pre-determined forces in ultimately pre-determined ways
Not quite sure what this means. Nurture influences our brains – it’s one means of “programming” the brain. The question implies that brains consist of “pre-determined forces.” The brain consists of electro-chemical reactions and so technically there are forces at play. But not “pre-determined.” The essential nature of matter ensures nothing can really be pre-determined (unless it can be described mathematically, and even then that’s not always true!
Research shows that our "Social Brain" may have a specific region hard-wired to be altruistic. Also, neuroscientists appear to have discovered the seat of human compassion. Read more about those discoveries here
28 You don't believe free will exists so you're not justifying your perspective
Evidence indicates that free will is an illusion. But that has nothing to do with how our behaviour is the result of millions of years of evolution and existence. (Billions even!)
29 You cannot justify how a genetic predisposition for self-sacrifice with a lower survival rate ultimately can be passed on and apply, in your opinion, to most people.
I can justify it, but people far more clever than me have already justified it (see #7 and #11) and also here
30 Why would anyone care about any challenges to act in the best interests of all but at a heavy personal price?
Such behaviour is human nature. If it feels like the right thing to do, we do it, even if in hindsight it was a mistake.
31 Where does moral integrity - only possible when referencing a fixed standard for such - play into the issue?
There are two problems with the question. First is the assumption thrown into the middle. Moral integrity does not require a fixed standard (whatever that is). Secondly is the term “moral integrity” which is an abstract term and has not been defined in this context. Let’s assume it means having moral principles and being honest and truthful regarding one’s actions. In other words it’s the opposite of hypocrisy. So moral integrity is simply an aspect of one’s nature and has nothing to do with religion. We all know religious people who lack moral integrity as well as non religious people.
32 How can selfishness be a part of "human nature" but at the same time, "lose out in the long term?"
Because "losing out" means they only dominate in minority of the population. And also remember that selfishness is not necessarily negative.
33 If we all have such negative proclivities today, in what sense are you implying that they are "losing out?"
They are losing out because they don't dominate. Think of any attribute that
applies to a minority, say colour blindness or infertility, and you will see
what I mean. Those traits will never disappear and even if they did, they would
eventually return.
34 You say a
population with no negative traits at all wouldn’t be human. Why not?
Because those negative traits are
part of human nature.
