Altruistic
behavior (eusociality) gave Darwin reason to tug at his beard when penning his
survival of the fittest concept as the there didn’t seem to be much benefit to
altruistic behavior as a common occurrence. When we look across species, it is
pretty common.
The
cost/benefit analysis was put into nice a nice mathematical expression by
Hamilton as
rb-c
> 0 where c = cost, b = benefit and r is
relatedness.
So this means for a
sibling r = ½, for a cousin r = ⅛. The consequence is that
your altruism grows with closeness of kinship. This seems to work with computer
simulations with hungry robots and some insect colonies. Many students
diligently take note of this and include it in their term papers.
However, all is not quiet and cozy
in the recent literature. Nowak et al
are strong proponents of using group formation and benefit rather than familial
ties as the basis (1). Our armies for example work hard to establish a strong esprit de corps from unrelated people rather than trying to recruit extended families.
A staunch defense of the original
Hamiltonian has been launched by Bourke who defends family ties to the last man
standing (2). Again, insects, ants in particular, feature strongly.
As
we stand on the sidelines while this ding-dong worthy of Tweedledum and
Tweedledee is raging, a curve ball has been tossed into the mix. Kurzban et al have pushed Kant forward to face
off with Hamilton (3). So how does nepotistic altruism stack up against Kant’s concept of moral rules derived from common sense ideas of maximizing welfare?
This of course, had to be tested and Kurzban et al set 1290 people the problem of
killing one person to save five others. (Note: other options such as
waterboarding weren’t a choice.) The relationship of the sacrificial lamb to
the test person was varied and their willingness to save the five was recorded.
The
results? Are you sure you want them? The researchers found that the participants were more
willing to ice a brother or a friend than a stranger to save the five. Clearly,
the moral cognition of the 1290 isn’t explained by family ties, or reciprocity,
so where does that leave us?
Carrying
a big stick, perhaps? I am left with one question: what would a Bonobo do?
- M.A. Nowak, C.E. Tarnita & E.O. Wilson, Nature, 1057, 466, (20210).
- A.F.G. Bourke, Proc. Roy. Soc. B, (2011) doi: 10.1098/rspb2011.1465
- R. Kurzban, P. DeScioli & D. Fein, J. Evolution & Human Behavior http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(11)00117-6/abstract
