Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ways of Altruism

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Evolutionary Psychological Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We argue that some organisms are altruistically motivated and such altruistic motivation is adaptive. We lay out the helper’s decision problem—determining whether to help another organism. We point out that there are more ways of solving this problem than most people recognize. Specifically, we distinguish two kinds of altruistic motivations, depending on whether a desire to help is produced for one’s own sake or for others’ sake. We identify circumstances in which either kind of psychological altruism provides the most adaptive solution to the helper’s decision problem. As a result, we show that both kinds of psychological altruism are likely to be instantiated and selected for.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Analogous points can also be made within other theoretical frameworks, such as involving neighborhood-modulated fitness or multi-level selection theory.

  2. We will remain neutral on the vexed issues of what counts as a representation and how it gets its content. Any reasonable account will do. For an opinionated defense of representational explanation within cognitive neuroscience that doubles as a defense of the notion of neurocognitive mechanism we adopt here, see Boone and Piccinini (2016) and Thomson and Piccinini (2018).

  3. As noted earlier, an organism’s direct fitness is the expected number of offspring it has just by itself. The organism’s personal fitness is simply its expected number of offspring (this will be greater than its direct fitness if some of its offspring result at least partly from the actions of other organisms). Finally, an organism’s inclusive fitness is the relatedness-weighted sum of the organism’s own direct fitness and those of the other organisms it is related to (see also Birch 2017). Note also that the points in the text could be made in terms of other notions of fitness as well (such as neighborhood-modulated fitness or various multi-level notions of fitness—Wilson 2015, 28; Okasha 2006; Sober and Wilson 1998, Gardner et al. 2011).

  4. In cases where the relevant organisms are cultural learners, what determines whether a behavior will spread through the population—i.e., whether it is adaptive in the broadest sense—can depend on more than its biological adaptiveness. Gächter et al. (2010) find that culture influences cooperation. For more on this, see e.g., Boyd and Richerson (2005), Richerson et al. (2016), Stich (2016). See also below.

  5. The notion of innateness is controversial. For an account that suits our purposes, see Northcott and Piccinini (in press).

  6. Put differently, egoistically produced desires are desires produced by mechanisms whose evolution is driven just by the fact that they increase the direct reproductive fitness (i.e., the number of offspring) of the organism in question, while not increasing its indirect fitness (so that the second component of the inclusive fitness calculation here is zero).

  7. This internalization mechanism could also be seen as a form of reward-based learning. However, this would not alter the main point in the text: namely, that desires can be egoistically produced.

  8. We may distinguish further between two kinds of altruistically produced desires. Strictly altruistically produced desires are produced by mechanisms solely selected for increasing others’ direct fitness—they increase the expected reproductive success of that other organism and do not affect or even decrease the bearer’s expected reproductive success. Broadly altruistically produced desires are produced by mechanisms selected for increasing others’ direct fitness along with their bearer’s (what West et al. 2007, call “mutual benefit”). This distinction will not play a role in this paper.

  9. De Waal (2008) argues that empathy can play such a role; Klimecki et al. (2016) provide additional supporting evidence. Someone might object that empathy-driven altruistic behavior is selfishly motivated, because it improves the agent’s emotional state. This objection is confused. It is well established that empathy can lead to either altruistic or selfish desires and, consequently, to either altruistic or selfish behaviors (Schulz 2017). Here we are considering cases in which empathy leads to ultimate altruistic desires. In such cases, empathy deserves to be considered a component in an altruistic source of desires. Any improvement in the agent’s emotional state, which may or may not follow the desire’s satisfaction, is not the agent’s motive—it’s just a by-product.

  10. Böckler et al. (2016), Clavien and Chapuisat (2013), and Ramsey (2016) also distinguish different types of altruisms, but they are addressing different questions so their taxonomies are different from ours.

  11. Classical psychological altruism admits of two variants: a pure variant, where the ultimate desires with altruistic content are all produced altruistically (whether strictly or broadly), and an impure variant, where the ultimate desires with altruistic content are produced either altruistically or neutrally. We will not consider this subdivision further.

  12. As noted earlier, they may have a second source in the form of desires formed by habit. As also noted earlier, we will not consider this further here.

  13. Schulz (2016, 2018) and Garson (2016) also point out that there are more than two options—though they do not expand the space of helping motivations in the way that we do here.

  14. Psychological egoists decide whether to help by assessing whether helping increases their own wellbeing. If the psychological variables egoists use as a proxy for wellbeing correlate with personal or direct fitness (as opposed to inclusive fitness), egoists will not choose to help when helping increases their inclusive fitness without increasing their direct or personal fitness. Therefore, psychological egoism will fail to lead to helping behaviors in cases of selected-for evolutionary biological altruism. This further strengthens the conclusion established in the main text. This could be avoided if an egoist’s proxy for personal wellbeing correlates with its inclusive fitness, but the biological plausibility of this is low—for reasons related to the ones laid out in the text.

  15. Of course, for some organisms, helping their kin can be done automatically: see e.g. Strassmann et al. (2011); Kuzdzal-Fick et al. (2011).

  16. Note, though, that this may require complex decisions as to which kin to help (in case there are several options)—including potential future kin. See also Hausfater and Hrdy (1984) and Trivers (1974).

  17. Donaldson and Young (2008) review evidence that oxytocin and vasopressin modulate complex social behavior. De Dreu (2012) reviews evidence that oxytocin release enables categorization of others into in-group versus out-group members, promotes trust towards in-group members, and motivates cooperation with in-group members and aggression towards out-group members. Frost (2016) provides a formal argument that ritual bonding can promote helping behavior in a way that is consistent with nonclassical psychological altruism. For two types of cooperation that would benefit from this type of mechanism, see Brosnan and de Waal (2002) on symmetry-based reciprocity and attitudinal reciprocity. See also Soares et al. 2010.

  18. An example of inappropriate internal change is instrumental reasoning aimed at avoiding punishment and reaping rewards. Organisms that respond thus are (maladaptive) psychological egoists. We are not considering that sort of response here, although it is certainly a possible one.

  19. There is an asymmetry here, in that we do not need to take this diachronic perspective when it comes to psychological egoism and impersonal agency: as noted above, these are defined just by the contents of the relevant conative states. Still, the cognitive neuroscience of helping behavior cannot ignore the diachronic perspective, on pain of missing the distinction between classical and nonclassical altruism.

References

  • Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2013). Homo Moralis; preference evolution under incomplete information and assortative matching. Econometrica, 81(6), 2269–2302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H. C. (2015). The shape of thought: How mental adaptations evolve. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L., Dunbar, R., & Lycett, J. (2002). Human evolutionary psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1824). The book of fallacies. London: Hunt.

  • Birch, J. (2017). The philosophy of social evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Birch, J., & Okasha, S. (2014). Kin selection and its critics. Bioscience, 65(1), 22–32.

  • Böckler, A., Tusche, A., & Singer, T. (2016). The structure of human Prosociality: Differentiating altruistically motivated, norm motivated, strategically motivated, and self-reported prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 530–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, W., & Piccinini, G. (2016). The cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese, 193(5), 1509–1534.

  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & Bshary, R. (2010). Cooperation and deception: From evolution to mechanisms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 365, 2593–2598.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). A Proximate Perspective on Reciprocal Altruism. Human Nature, 13(1), 129–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un)fairness. Science, 346, 1251776.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bshary, R., & Raihani, N. J. (2017). Helping in humans and other animals: A fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284, 20170929. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2014). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chudek, M., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2013). Culture-gene coevolution, large scale cooperation, and the shaping of human social psychology. In K. Sterelny, R. Joyce, B. Calcott, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Cooperation and its evolution (pp. 425–457). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clavien, C. (2011). “Altruistic Emotional Motivation: An Argument in Favour of Psychological Altruism.” in K. Plaisance & T. Reydon (eds.), Philosophy of Behavioral Biology. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume 282. Springer, 275–296.

  • Clavien, C., & Chapuisat, M. (2013). Altruism across disciplines: One word, multiple meanings. Biology and Philosophy, 28(1), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavien, C., & Chapuisat, M. (2016). The evolution of utility functions and psychological altruism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. (2012). Oxytocin modulates cooperation within and competition between groups: An integrative review and research agenda. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 419–428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. Science, 322, 900–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (2014). Maximization, learning, and economic behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(10), 818–10 825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry, 41(1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: The neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 419–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.

  • Fehr, E., & Gaechter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 818–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, S. A. (1998). Foundations of social evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, K. (2016). “Coevolutionary Dynamics of Costly Bonding Ritual and Altruism.” doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/060624.

  • Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., & Thöni, C. (2010). Culture and cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 2651–2661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A., & West, S. A. (2010). Greenbeards. Evolution, 64(1), 25–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A., West, S. A., & Wild, G. (2011). The genetical theory of kin selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24(5), 1020–1043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garson, J. (2014). The biological mind: A philosophical introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garson, J. (2016). Two types of psychological hedonism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 7–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2003). The Hitchhiker’s guide to altruism: Genes, culture, and the internalization of norms. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 220, 407–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P. W., Dorris, M. C., & Bayer, H. M. (2005). Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games Econ Behav, 52(2), 213–256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gluth, S., & Fontanesi, L. (2016). Wiring the altruistic brain. Science, 351(6277), 1028–1029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (2006). Optimization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 238, 541–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D., Morrison, I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Positive Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.

  • Hausfater, G., & Hrdy, S. B. (Eds.). (1984). Infanticide: Comparative and evolutionary perspectives. Chicago: Aldine Transactions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, G., Morishima, Y., Leiberg, S., Sul, S., & Fehr, E. (2016). The Brain’s functional network architecture reveals human motives. Science, 351(6277), 1074–1078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2007). Dual-inheritance theory: The evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 555–570). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1969). Leviathan, 1651. Menston: Scolar P.

  • Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M. (1999). Models of adaptive behaviour: An approach based on state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2005). Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioral Processes, 69, 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K. (2012). Who cares? Other-regarding concerns—Decisions with feeling. In P. Hammerstein & J. R. Stevens (Eds.), Evolution and the mechanisms of decision making (pp. 299–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalenscher, T., & van Wingerden, M. (2011). Why we should use animals to study economic decision making – A perspective. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E. (2001). The molecular biology of memory storage: A dialogue between genes and synapses. Science, 294(5544), 1030–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klimecki, O. M. (2015). The plasticity of social emotions. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 466–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klimecki, O. M., Mayer, S. V., Jusyte, A., Scheeff, J., & Schönenberg, M. (2016). Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Scientific Reports, 6, 31961. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31961.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzdzal-Fick, J. A., Fox, S. A., Strassmann, J. E., & Queller, D. C. (2011). High relatedness is necessary and sufficient to maintain multicellularity in Dictyostelium. Science, 334, 1548–1551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • La Rochefoucauld, F. d. (1691). Moral maxims and reflections, in four parts. London: Gillyflower, Sare, & Everingham.

  • Morillo, C. (1990). The reward event and motivation. Journal of Philosophy, 87, 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche, F. (1881). The dawn of day. New York: Macmillan.

  • Northcott, R. & Piccinini, G. (in press). Conceived this way: Innateness defended. Philosophers’ Imprint.

  • Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, C., & Ruttan, L. (1988). The evolution of cooperative hunting. American Naturalist, 132, 159–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queller, D. C. (1985). Kinship, reciprocity and synergism in the evolution of social behavior. Nature, 318(28), 366–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queller, D. C. (1992). Quantitative genetics, inclusive fitness and group selection. American Naturalist, 139, 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. (2000). Naturalism. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to ethical theory (pp. 74–91). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. (2002). Altruism and selfishness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 239–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raihani, N. J., Pinto, A. I., Grutter, A. S., Wismer, S., & Bshary, R. (2012). Male cleaner wrasses adjust punishment of female partners according to the stakes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 365–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, G. (2016). Can altruism be unified? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, D. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1192–1206.

  • Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., Mathew, S., Newton, E. K., Naar, N., Newson, L., Ross, C., Smaldino, P. E., Waring, T. M., & Zefferman, M. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences., 39, e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400106X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. (2018). The debate over inclusive fitness as a debate over methodologies. Philosophy of Science, 85(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroder, W. (2000). Continental ethics. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to ethical theory (pp. 375–399). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, T. (2004). Three faces of desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. (2011). Sober & Wilson’s evolutionary arguments for psychological altruism: A reassessment. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. (2013). The benefits of rule following: A new account of the evolution of desires. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4, part a), 595–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. (2016). Altruism, egoism, or neither: A cognitive-efficiency-based evolutionary biological perspective on helping behavior. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. (2017). The evolution of empathy. In H. Maibom (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the philosophy of empathy (pp. 64–73). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. (2018). Efficient cognition: The evolution of representational decision making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution and the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares, M. C., Bshary, R., Fusani, L., Goymann, W., Hau, M., Hirschenhauser, K., & Oliveira, R. F. (2010). Hormonal mechanisms of cooperative behavior. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 365, 2737–2750.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1999). Psychological egoism. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to ethical theory (pp. 129–148). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Stevens, J. R., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 60–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S. (2016). Why there might not be an evolutionary explanation for psychological altruism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S., Doris, J., & Roedder, E. (2010). Altruism. In J. Doris and the moral psychology research group (Ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook (pp. 147–205). Oxford: Oxford University press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann, J. E., & Queller, D. C. (2011). Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe. PNAS, 108, 10855–10862.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann, J. E., Gilbert, O. M., & Queller, D. C. (2011). Kin discrimination and cooperation in microbes. Annual Review of Microbiology, 65, 349–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. D., & Frank, S. A. (1996). How to make a kin selection model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 180, 27–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., & Piccinini, G. (2018). Neural representations observed. Minds and Machines, 28(1), 191–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Veelen, M. (2009). Group selection, kin selection, altruism, and cooperation: When inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 259, 589–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., & Gardner, A. (2007). Social semantics: Altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20(2), 415–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. A., El Mouden, C., & Gardner, A. (2011). Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(4), 231–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and the welfare of others. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 1 University Blvd, St. Louis, MO, 63121, USA

    Gualtiero Piccinini

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas, 3101 Wescoe Hall, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

    Armin W. Schulz

Authors
  1. Gualtiero Piccinini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin W. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gualtiero Piccinini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piccinini, G., Schulz, A.W. The Ways of Altruism. Evolutionary Psychological Science 5, 58–70 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0167-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0167-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation