Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:32:12.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying the Explanatory Weakness of Strong Altruism: The Needle in the ‘Haystack Model’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Stephen G. Morris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary theorists have encountered difficulty in explaining how altruistic behavior can evolve. I argue that these theorists have made this task more difficult than it needs to be by focusing their efforts on explaining how nature could select for a strong type of altruism that has powerful selection forces working against it. I argue that switching the focus to a weaker type of altruism renders the project of explaining how altruism can evolve significantly less difficult. I offer a model of weak altruism that can avoid many of the difficulties that evolutionary accounts of altruism have traditionally faced.

Type
Natural Selection and Evolution
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1124 - 1134
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I am thankful to Zachary Ernst and Michael Ruse for providing guidance and helpful commentary during the process of writing this paper.

References

Batson, C. D. (1990), “Affect and Altruism”, in Moore, B. S. and Isen, Alice M. (eds.), Affect and Social Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 89–125.Google Scholar
Boorman, S. A., and Levitt, P. R. (1973), “Group Selection at the Boundary of a Stable Population”, Group Selection at the Boundary of a Stable Population 4:85–128.Google Scholar
Crandall, James E. (1978), “Effects of Threat and Failure on Concern for Others”, Effects of Threat and Failure on Concern for Others 12:350–360.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray Press.Google Scholar
Isen, Alice M., Horn, N., and Rosenhan, D. L. (1973), “Effects of Success and Failure on Children’s Generosity”, Effects of Success and Failure on Children’s Generosity 27:239–247.Google Scholar
Isen, Alice M., and Levin, Paula F. (1972), “Effect of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness”, Effect of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness 21:384–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Levin, B. R., and Kilmer, W. C. (1974), “Interdemic Selection and the Evolution of Altruism: A Computer Simulation Study”, Interdemic Selection and the Evolution of Altruism: A Computer Simulation Study 28:527–545.Google ScholarPubMed
Levins, Richard (1970), “Extinction”, in Gerstenbaher, M. (ed.), Some Mathematical Questions in Biology. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 77–107.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1964), “Group Selection and Kin Selection”, Group Selection and Kin Selection 201:1445–1447.Google Scholar
Midlarsky, E. (1971), “Aiding under Stress: The Effects of Competence, Dependence, Visibility, and Fatalism”, Aiding under Stress: The Effects of Competence, Dependence, Visibility, and Fatalism 39:132–149.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan (1998), Unto Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan (2000), “Summary of: ‘Unto Others’”, Summary of: ‘Unto Others’ 7:185–206.Google Scholar
Weyant, James M. (1978), “Effects of Mood States, Costs, and Benefits on Helping”, Effects of Mood States, Costs, and Benefits on Helping 36:1169–1176.Google Scholar
Williams, George C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar