Altruism

Altruism is the

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty or concern for the common good. The latter are predicated upon social relationships, whilst altruism does not consider relationships. Whether "true" altruism is possible in human psychology is a subject of debate. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping, or sacrificing can be truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether such intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits".

The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is usually contrasted with egoism, which claims individuals are morally obligated to serve themselves first.

Effective altruism is the use of evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others.

The notion of altruism

The concept of altruism has a history in

. Whilst ideas about altruism from one field can affect the other fields, the different methods and focuses of these fields always lead to different perspectives on altruism. In simple terms, altruism is caring about the welfare of other people and acting to help them, above oneself.

Scientific viewpoints

Anthropology

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2023)

Marcel Mauss's essay The Gift contains a passage called "Note on alms". This note describes the evolution of the notion of alms (and by extension of altruism) from the notion of sacrifice. In it, he writes:

Alms are the fruits of a moral notion of the gift and of fortune on the one hand, and of a notion of sacrifice, on the other. Generosity is an obligation, because Nemesis avenges the poor and the gods for the superabundance of happiness and wealth of certain people who should rid themselves of it. This is the ancient morality of the gift, which has become a principle of justice. The gods and the spirits accept that the share of wealth and happiness that has been offered to them and had been hitherto destroyed in useless sacrifices should serve the poor and children.

Evolutionary explanations

In the Science of

Theories of apparently altruistic behavior were accelerated^[clarification needed] by the need to produce ideas compatible with evolutionary origins. Two related strands of research on altruism have emerged from traditional evolutionary analyses and evolutionary game theory: a mathematical model and analysis of behavioral strategies.

Some of the proposed mechanisms are:

• Kin selection.^[5] That animals and humans are more altruistic towards close kin than to distant kin and non-kin has been confirmed in numerous studies across many different cultures. Even subtle cues indicating kinship may unconsciously increase altruistic behavior. One kinship cue is facial resemblance. One study found that slightly altering photographs to resemble the faces of study participants more closely increased the trust the participants expressed regarding depicted persons. Another cue is having the same family name, especially if rare, which has been found to increase helpful behavior. Another study found more cooperative behavior, the greater the number of perceived kin in a group. Using kinship terms in political speeches increased audience agreement with the speaker in one study. This effect was powerful for firstborns, who are typically close to their families.^[4]
• Vested interests. People are likely to suffer if their friends, allies and those from similar social
  outgroup threatens the entire ingroup.^[4]
• Reciprocal altruism.^[6] See also Reciprocity (evolution).
  • Direct reciprocity.^[7] Research shows that it can be beneficial to help others if there is a chance that they will reciprocate the help. The effective tit for tat strategy is one game theoretic example. Many people seem to be following a similar strategy by cooperating if and only if others cooperate in return.^[4]

    One consequence is that people are more cooperative with one another if they are more likely to interact again in the future. People tend to be less cooperative if they perceive that the frequency of helpers in the population is lower. They tend to help less if they see non-cooperativeness by others, and this effect tends to be stronger than the opposite effect of seeing cooperative behaviors. Simply changing the cooperative framing of a proposal may increase cooperativeness, such as calling it a "Community Game" instead of a "Wall Street Game".^[4]

    A tendency towards reciprocity implies that people feel obligated to respond if someone helps them. This has been used by charities that give small gifts to potential donors hoping to induce reciprocity. Another method is to announce publicly that someone has given a large donation. The tendency to reciprocate can even generalize, so people become more helpful toward others after being helped. On the other hand, people will avoid or even retaliate against those perceived not to be cooperating. People sometimes mistakenly fail to help when they intended to, or their helping may not be noticed, which may cause unintended conflicts. As such, it may be an optimal strategy to be slightly forgiving of and have a slightly generous interpretation of non-cooperation.^[4]

    People are more likely to cooperate on a task if they can communicate with one another first. This may be due to better cooperativeness assessments or promises exchange. They are more cooperative if they can gradually build trust instead of being asked to give extensive help immediately. Direct reciprocity and cooperation in a group can be increased by changing the focus and incentives from intra-group competition to larger-scale competitions, such as between groups or against the general population. Thus, giving grades and promotions based only on an individual's performance relative to a small local group, as is common, may reduce cooperative behaviors in the group.^[4]

  • Indirect reciprocity.^[8] Because people avoid poor reciprocators and cheaters, a person's reputation is important. A person esteemed for their reciprocity is more likely to receive assistance, even from individuals they have not directly interacted with before.^[4]
  • Strong reciprocity.^[9] This form of reciprocity is expressed by people who invest more resources in cooperation and punishment than what is deemed optimal based on established theories of altruism.
  • Pseudo-reciprocity.^[10] An organism behaves altruistically and the recipient does not reciprocate but has an increased chance of acting in a way that is selfish but also as a byproduct benefits the altruist.
• Costly signaling and the handicap principle.^[11] Altruism, by diverting resources from the altruist, can act as an "honest signal" of available resources and the skills to acquire them. This may signal to others that the altruist is a valuable potential partner. It may also signal interactive and cooperative intentions, since someone who does not expect to interact further in the future gains nothing from such costly signaling. While it's uncertain if costly signaling can predict long-term cooperative traits, people tend to trust helpers more. Costly signaling loses its value when everyone shares identical traits, resources, and cooperative intentions, but it gains significance as population variability in these aspects increases.^[4]

Hunters who share meat display a costly signal of ability. The research found that good hunters have higher reproductive success and more adulterous relations even if they receive no more of the hunted meat than anyone else. Similarly, holding large feasts and giving large donations are ways of demonstrating one's resources. Heroic risk-taking has also been interpreted as a costly signal of ability.^[4]

Both indirect reciprocity and costly signaling depend on reputation value and tend to make similar predictions. One is that people will be more helpful when they know that their helping behavior will be communicated to people they will interact with later, publicly announced, discussed, or observed by someone else. This has been documented in many studies. The effect is sensitive to subtle cues, such as people being more helpful when there were stylized eyespots instead of a logo on a computer screen. ^{[dubious – discuss]} Weak reputational cues such as eyespots may become unimportant if there are stronger cues present and may lose their effect with continued exposure unless reinforced with real reputational effects.^[4] Public displays such as public weeping for dead celebrities and participation in demonstrations may be influenced by a desire to be seen as generous. People who know that they are publicly monitored sometimes even wastefully donate the money they know is not needed by the recipient because of reputational concerns.^[12]

Typically, women find altruistic men to be attractive partners. When women look for a long-term partner, altruism may be a trait they prefer as it may indicate that the prospective partner is also willing to share resources with her and her children. Men perform charitable acts in the early stages of a romantic relationship or simply when in the presence of an attractive woman. While both sexes state that kindness is the most preferable trait in a partner, there is some evidence that men place less value on this than women and that women may not be more altruistic in the presence of an attractive man. Men may even avoid altruistic women in short-term relationships, which may be because they expect less success.^[4][12]

People may compete for the social benefit of a burnished reputation, which may cause competitive altruism. On the other hand, in some experiments, a proportion of people do not seem to care about reputation and do not help more, even if this is conspicuous. This may be due to reasons such as psychopathy or that they are so attractive that they need not be seen as altruistic. The reputational benefits of altruism occur in the future compared to the immediate costs of altruism. While humans and other organisms generally place less value on future costs/benefits as compared to those in the present, some have shorter time horizons than others, and these people tend to be less cooperative.^[4]

Explicit

extrinsic rewards and punishments have sometimes been found to have a counterintuitively inverse effect on behaviors when compared to intrinsic rewards. This may be because such extrinsic incentives may replace (partially or in whole) intrinsic and reputational incentives, motivating the person to focus on obtaining the extrinsic rewards, which may make the thus-incentivized behaviors less desirable. People prefer altruism in others when it appears to be due to a personality characteristic rather than overt reputational concerns; simply pointing out that there are reputational benefits of action may reduce them. This may be used as a derogatory tactic against altruists ("you're just virtue signalling"), especially by those who are non-cooperators. A counterargument is that doing good due to reputational concerns is better than doing no good.^[4]

• Group selection. It has controversially been argued by some evolutionary scientists such as David Sloan Wilson that natural selection can act at the level of non-kin groups to produce adaptations that benefit a non-kin group, even if these adaptations are detrimental at the individual level. Thus, while altruistic persons may under some circumstances be outcompeted by less altruistic persons at the individual level, according to group selection theory, the opposite may occur at the group level where groups consisting of the more altruistic persons may outcompete groups consisting of the less altruistic persons. Such altruism may only extend to ingroup members while directing prejudice and antagonism against outgroup members (see also in-group favoritism). Many other evolutionary scientists have criticized group selection theory.^[13]

Such explanations do not imply that humans consciously calculate how to increase their inclusive fitness when doing altruistic acts. Instead, evolution has shaped psychological mechanisms, such as emotions, that promote certain altruistic behaviors.^[4]

The benefits for the altruist may be increased, and the costs reduced by being more altruistic towards certain groups. Research has found that people are more altruistic to kin than to no-kin, to friends than strangers, to those attractive than to those unattractive, to non-competitors than competitors, and to members in-groups than to members of out-groups.^[4]

The study of altruism was the initial impetus behind

Selective investment theory proposes that close social bonds, and associated emotional, cognitive, and neurohormonal mechanisms, evolved to facilitate long-term, high-cost altruism between those closely depending on one another for survival and reproductive success.[15]

Such cooperative behaviors have sometimes been seen as arguments for left-wing politics, for example, by the Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution and Moral Philosopher Peter Singer in his book A Darwinian Left.

Neurobiology

Jorge Moll and

Bill Harbaugh, a University of Oregon economist, in an fMRI scanner test conducted with his psychologist colleague Dr. Ulrich Mayr, reached the same conclusions as Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman about giving to charity, although they were able to divide the study group into two groups: "egoists" and "altruists". One of their discoveries was that, though rarely, even some of the considered "egoists" sometimes gave more than expected because that would help others, leading to the conclusion that there are other factors in charity, such as a person's environment and values.^[19]

A recent meta-analysis of fMRI studies conducted by Shawn Rhoads, Jo Cutler, and Abigail Marsh analyzed the results of prior studies of generosity in which participants could freely choose to give or not give resources to someone else.^[20] The results of this study confirmed that altruism is supported by distinct mechanisms from giving motivated by reciprocity or by fairness. This study also confirmed that the right ventral striatum is recruited during altruistic giving, as well as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, and bilateral anterior insula, which are regions previously implicated in empathy.

Abigail Marsh has conducted studies of real-world altruists that have also identified an important role for the amygdala in human altruism. In real-world altruists, such as people who have donated kidneys to strangers, the amygdala is larger than in typical adults. Altruists' amygdalas are also more responsive than those of typical adults to the sight of others' distress, which is thought to reflect an empathic response to distress.^[21][22] This structure may also be involved in altruistic choices due to its role in encoding the value of outcomes for others.^[23] This is consistent with the findings of research in non-human animals, which has identified neurons within the amygdala that specifically encode the value of others' outcomes, activity in which appears to drive altruistic choices in monkeys.^[24][25]

Psychology

The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences defines psychological altruism as "a motivational state to increase another's welfare". Psychological altruism is contrasted with psychological egoism, which refers to the motivation to increase one's welfare.^[26] In keeping with this, research in real-world altruists, including altruistic kidney donors, bone marrow donors, humanitarian aid workers, and heroic rescuers findings that these altruists are primarily distinguished from other adults by unselfish traits and decision-making patterns. This suggests that human altruism reflects genuinely high valuation of others' outcomes.^[27]

There has been some debate on whether humans are capable of psychological altruism.^[28] Some definitions specify a self-sacrificial nature to altruism and a lack of external rewards for altruistic behaviors.^[29] However, because altruism ultimately benefits the self in many cases, the selflessness of altruistic acts is difficult to prove. The social exchange theory postulates that altruism only exists when the benefits outweigh the costs to the self.^[30]

Daniel Batson, a psychologist, examined this question and argued against the social exchange theory. He identified four significant motives: to ultimately benefit the self (egoism), to ultimately benefit the other person (altruism), to benefit a group (collectivism), or to uphold a moral principle (principlism). Altruism that ultimately serves selfish gains is thus differentiated from selfless altruism, but the general conclusion has been that empathy-induced altruism can be genuinely selfless.^[31] The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that psychological altruism exists and is evoked by the empathic desire to help someone suffering. Feelings of empathic concern are contrasted with personal distress, which compels people to reduce their unpleasant emotions and increase their positive ones by helping someone in need. Empathy is thus not selfless since altruism works either as a way to avoid those negative, unpleasant feelings and have positive, pleasant feelings when triggered by others' need for help or as a way to gain social reward or avoid social punishment by helping. People with empathic concern help others in distress even when exposure to the situation could be easily avoided, whereas those lacking in empathic concern avoid allowing it unless it is difficult or impossible to avoid exposure to another's suffering.^[26]

Helping behavior is seen in humans from about two years old when a toddler can understand subtle emotional cues.^[32]

In psychological research on altruism, studies often observe altruism as demonstrated through prosocial behaviors such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperation, philanthropy, and community service.^[29] People are most likely to help if they recognize that a person is in need and feel personal responsibility for reducing the person's distress. The number of bystanders witnessing pain or suffering affects the likelihood of helping (the Bystander effect). More significant numbers of bystanders decrease individual feelings of responsibility.^[26][33] However, a witness with a high level of empathic concern is likely to assume personal responsibility entirely regardless of the number of bystanders.^[26]

Many studies have observed the effects of

While research supports the idea that altruistic acts bring about happiness, it has also been found to work in the opposite direction—that happier people are also kinder. The relationship between altruistic behavior and happiness is bidirectional. Studies found that generosity increases linearly from sad to happy affective states.^[42]

Feeling over-taxed by the needs of others has negative effects on health and happiness.^[38] For example, one study on volunteerism found that feeling overwhelmed by others' demands had an even stronger negative effect on mental health than helping had a positive one (although positive effects were still significant).^[43]

Pathological altruism

Pathological altruism is altruism taken to an unhealthy extreme, such that it either harms the altruistic person or the person's well-intentioned actions cause more harm than good.

The term "pathological altruism" was popularised by the book Pathological Altruism.

Examples include depression and burnout seen in healthcare professionals, an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs, hoarding of animals, and ineffective philanthropic and social programs that ultimately worsen the situations they are meant to aid.^[44]

Sociology

"Sociologists have long been concerned with how to build the good society".^[45] The structure of our societies and how individuals come to exhibit charitable, philanthropic, and other pro-social, altruistic actions for the common good is a commonly researched topic within the field. The American Sociology Association (ASA) acknowledges public sociology saying, "The intrinsic scientific, policy, and public relevance of this field of investigation in helping to construct 'good societies' is unquestionable".^[45] This type of sociology seeks contributions that aid popular and theoretical understandings of what motivates altruism and how it is organized, and promotes an altruistic focus in order to benefit the world and people it studies.

How altruism is framed, organized, carried out, and what motivates it at the group level is an area of focus that sociologists investigate in order to contribute back to the groups it studies and "build the good society". The motivation of altruism is also the focus of study; for example, one study links the occurrence of moral outrage to altruistic compensation of victims.^[46] Studies show that generosity in laboratory and in online experiments is contagious – people imitate the generosity they observe in others.^[47]

Religious viewpoints

Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote altruism as a very important moral value. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, and Sikhism, etc., place particular emphasis on altruistic morality.

Buddhism

Altruism figures prominently in Buddhism. Love and compassion are components of all forms of Buddhism, and are focused on all beings equally: love is the wish that all beings be happy, and compassion is the wish that all beings be free from suffering. "Many illnesses can be cured by the one medicine of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human happiness, and the need for them lies at the very core of our being" (Dalai Lama).^[48][49]

The notion of altruism is modified in such a world-view, since the belief is that such a practice promotes the practitioner's own happiness: "The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes" (Dalai Lama).^[48]

In the context of larger ethical discussions on moral action and judgment, Buddhism is characterized by the belief that negative (unhappy) consequences of our actions derive not from punishment or correction based on moral judgment, but from the law of karma, which functions like a natural law of cause and effect. A simple illustration of such cause and effect is the case of experiencing the effects of what one causes: if one causes suffering, then as a natural consequence one would experience suffering; if one causes happiness, then as a natural consequence one would experience happiness.^{[citation needed]}

Jainism

The fundamental principles of

Thomas Aquinas interprets "You should love your neighbour as yourself"^[50] as meaning that love for ourselves is the exemplar of love for others.^[51] Considering that "the love with which a man loves himself is the form and root of friendship" he quotes Aristotle that "the origin of friendly relations with others lies in our relations to ourselves",.^[52] Aquinas concluded that though we are not bound to love others more than ourselves, we naturally seek the common good, the good of the whole, more than any private good, the good of a part. However, he thought we should love God more than ourselves and our neighbours, and more than our bodily life—since the ultimate purpose of loving our neighbour is to share in eternal beatitude: a more desirable thing than bodily well-being. In coining the word "altruism", as stated above, Comte was probably opposing this Thomistic doctrine, which is present in some theological schools within Catholicism. The aim and focus of Christian life is a life that glorifies God, with obeying christ's command to treat others equally, caring for them and understanding eternity in heaven is what Jesus Resurrection at calvary was all about.

Many biblical authors draw a strong connection between love of others and love of God. 1 John 4 states that for one to love God one must love his fellowman, and that hatred of one's fellowman is the same as hatred of God. Thomas Jay Oord has argued in several books that altruism is but one possible form of love. An altruistic action is not always a loving action. Oord defines altruism as acting for the other's good, and he agrees with feminists who note that sometimes love requires acting for one's own good when the other's demands undermine overall well-being.

German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two ways in which the strong can help the weak. One way is a sincere expression of Christian love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security, strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one's own life and existence".^{[53]: 88–89} Another way is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love,... nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people's business".^{[53]: 95–96} At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth, strength, power, largesse."^{[53]: 96–97}

Islam

In the

On the topic of donating blood to non-Muslims (a controversial topic within the faith), the Shia religious professor, Fadhil al-Milani has provided theological evidence that makes it positively justifiable. In fact, he considers it a form of religious sacrifice and ithar (altruism).^[55]

For Sufis, 'iythar means devotion to others through complete forgetfulness of one's own concerns, where concern for others is deemed as a demand made by God on the human body, considered to be property of God alone. The importance of 'iythar (aka īthār) lies in sacrifice for the sake of the greater good; Islam considers those practicing īthār as abiding by the highest degree of nobility.^[56] This is similar to the notion of

Judaism defines altruism as the desired goal of creation. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook stated that love is the most important attribute in humanity.^[58] Love is defined as bestowal, or giving, which is the intention of altruism. This can be altruism towards humanity that leads to altruism towards the creator or God. Kabbalah defines God as the force of giving in existence. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto focused on the "purpose of creation" and how the will of God was to bring creation into perfection and adhesion with this force of giving.^[59]

Modern

In the late seventeenth century, Guru Gobind Singh (the tenth Guru in Sikhism), was at war with the Mughal rulers to protect the people of different faiths when a fellow Sikh, Bhai Kanhaiya, attended the troops of the enemy.^[62] He gave water to both friends and foes who were wounded on the battlefield. Some of the enemy began to fight again and some Sikh warriors were annoyed by Bhai Kanhaiya as he was helping their enemy. Sikh soldiers brought Bhai Kanhaiya before Guru Gobind Singh, and complained of his action that they considered counterproductive to their struggle on the battlefield. "What were you doing, and why?" asked the Guru. "I was giving water to the wounded because I saw your face in all of them", replied Bhai Kanhaiya. The Guru responded, "Then you should also give them ointment to heal their wounds. You were practicing what you were coached in the house of the Guru."

Under the tutelage of the Guru, Bhai Kanhaiya subsequently founded a volunteer corps for altruism, which is still engaged today in doing good to others and in training new recruits for this service.^[63]

Hinduism

In Hinduism Selflessness (Atmatyag), Love (Prema), Kindness (Daya), and Forgiveness (Kshama) are considered as the highest acts of humanity or "Manushyattva". Giving alms to the beggars or poor people is considered as a divine act or "Punya" and Hindus believe it will free their souls from guilt or "Paapa" and will led them to heaven or "Swarga" in afterlife. Altruism is also the central act of various Hindu mythology and religious poems and songs. Mass donation of clothes to poor people (Vastraseva), or blood donation camp or mass food donation (Annaseva) for poor people is common in various Hindu religious ceremonies.^{[citation needed]}

The

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

There is a wide range of philosophical views on humans' obligations or motivations to act altruistically. Proponents of ethical altruism maintain that individuals are morally obligated to act altruistically.^[65] The opposing view is ethical egoism, which maintains that moral agents should always act in their own self-interest. Both ethical altruism and ethical egoism contrast with utilitarianism, which maintains that each agent should act in order to maximise the efficacy of their function and the benefit to both themselves and their co-inhabitants.

A related concept in descriptive ethics is psychological egoism, the thesis that humans always act in their own self-interest and that true altruism is impossible. Rational egoism is the view that rationality consists in acting in one's self-interest (without specifying how this affects one's moral obligations).

Effective altruism

While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the

Extreme altruism also known as costly altruism, extraordinary altruism, or heroic behaviours (shall be distinguished from heroism), refers to selfless acts directed to a stranger which significantly exceed the normal altruistic behaviours, often involving risks or great cost to the altruists themselves.^[21] Since acts of extreme altruism are often directed towards strangers, many commonly accepted models of simple altruism appear inadequate in explaining this phenomenon.^[76]

One of the initial concepts was introduced by Wilson in 1976, which he referred to as “hard-core” altruism.^[77] This form is characterised by impulsive actions directed towards others, typically a stranger and lacking incentives for reward. Since then, several papers have mentioned the possibility of such altruism.^[78][79]

The current^[when?] slow progress in the field is due to general ethical guidelines that restrict exposing research participants to costly or risky decisions.^{[citation needed]} Consequently, much research has based their studies on living organ donations and the actions of Carnegie Hero medal Recipients, actions which involve high risk, high cost, and are of infrequent occurrences.^{[citation needed]} A typical example of extreme altruism would be non-directed kidney donation - a living person donating one of their kidneys to a stranger without any benefits or knowing the recipient.

However, current research can only be carried out on a small population that meets the requirements of extreme altruism. Most of the time the research is also via the form of self-report which could lead to self-report biases.^{[citation needed]} Due to the limitations, the current gap between high stakes and normal altruism remains unknown.^[80]

Characteristics of Extreme Altruists

• Norms

In 1970, Schwartz hypothesised that extreme altruism is positively related to a person’s moral norms and is not influenced by the cost associated with the action.^[80] This hypothesis was supported in the same study examining bone marrow donors. Schwartz discovered that individuals with strong personal norms and those who attribute more responsibility to themselves are more inclined to participate in bone marrow donation.^[80] Similar findings were observed in a 1986 study by Piliavin and Libby focusing on blood donors.^[81] These studies suggest that personal norms lead to the activation of moral norms, leading individuals to feel compelled to help others.^[80]

• Enhanced Fear Recognition

Abigail Marsh has described psychopaths as the “opposite” group of people to extreme altruists^[81] and has conducted a few research, comparing these two groups of individuals. Utilising techniques such as brain imaging and behavioural experiments, Marsh’s team observed that kidney donors tend to have larger amygdala sizes and exhibit better abilities in recognizing fearful expressions compared to psychopathic individuals.^[21] Furthermore, an improved ability to recognize fear has been associated with an increase in prosocial behaviours, including greater charity contribution.^[82]

• Fast Decisions when Perform Acts of Extreme Altruism.

Rand and Epstein explored the behaviours of 51 Carnegie Hero Medal Recipients, demonstrating how extreme altruistic behaviours often stem from system I of the Dual Process Theory, which leads to rapid and intuitive behaviours.^[83] Additionally, a separate by Carlson et al. indicated that such prosocial behaviours are prevalent in emergencies where immediate actions are required.^[84]

This discovery has led to ethical debates, particularly in the context of living organ donation, where laws regarding this issue differ by country.^[85] As observed in extreme altruists, these decisions are made intuitively, which may reflect insufficient consideration. Critics are concerned about whether this rapid decision encompasses a thorough cost-benefit analysis and question the appropriateness of exposing donors to such risk.^[86]

• Social Discounting

One finding suggests how extreme altruists exhibit lower levels of social discounting as compared to others. With that meaning extreme altruists place a higher value on the welfare of strangers than a typical person does.^[27][87]

• Low Social-Economic Status

Analysis of 676 Carnegie Hero Award Recipients^[88] and another study on 243 rescuing acts^[89] reveal that a significant proportion of rescuers come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Johnson attributes the distribution to the high-risk occupations that are more prevalent between lower socioeconomic groups.^[88] Another hypothesis proposed by Lyons is that individuals from these groups may perceive they have less to lose when engaging in high-risk extreme altruistic behaviours.^[89]

Possible Explanations

Evolutionary theories such as the kin-selection, reciprocity, vested interest and punishment either contradict or do not fully explain the concept of extreme altruism.^[90] As a result, considerable research has attempted for a separate explanation for this behaviour.  

• Costly Signalling Theory for Extreme Behaviours

Research suggests that males are more likely to engage in heroic and risk-taking behaviours due to a preference among females for such traits.^[91] These extreme altruistic behaviours could serve to act as an unconscious “signal” to showcase superior power and ability compared to ordinary individuals.^[90] When an extreme altruist survives a high-risk situation, they send an “honest signal” of quality.^[90] Three qualities hypothesized to be exhibited by extreme altruists, which could be interpreted as "signals," are: (1) traits that are difficult to fake, (2) a willingness to help, and (3) generous behaviours.^[90]

• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

The empathy altruism hypothesis appears to align with the concept of extreme altruism without contradiction. The hypothesis was supported with further brain scanning research, which indicates how this group of people demonstrate a higher level of empathy concern. The level of empathy concern then triggers activation in specific brain regions, urging the individual to engage in heroic behaviours.^[92]

• Mistakes and Outliers

While most altruistic behaviours offer some form of benefit, extreme altruism may sometimes result from a mistake where the victim does not reciprocate.^[90] Considering the impulsive characteristic of extreme altruists, some researchers suggest that these individuals have made a wrong judgement during the cost-benefit analysis.^[83] Furthermore, extreme altruism might be a rare variation of altruism where they lie towards to ends of a normal distribution.^[90] In the US, the annual prevalence rate per capita is less than 0.00005%, this shows the rarity of such behaviours.^[27]

Genetics

Digital altruism is the notion that some are willing to freely share information based on the principle of reciprocity and in the belief that in the end, everyone benefits from sharing information via the Internet.^[94]

There are three types of digital altruism: (1) "everyday digital altruism", involving expedience, ease, moral engagement, and conformity; (2) "creative digital altruism", involving creativity, heightened moral engagement, and cooperation; and (3) "co-creative digital altruism" involving creativity, moral engagement, and meta cooperative efforts.^[94]

See also

Notes