This blog post takes an in-depth look at whether the ‘Selfish Gene’ theory can explain altruistic behavior in humans.
In our daily lives, we live by helping one another, from our immediate neighbors to people far away. We share delicious food we’ve prepared with neighbors, and when natural disasters strike, we collect donations to deliver aid to those affected. While these acts take diverse forms and manifest in various ways, they share a profound significance: they all stem from a heart that cares for others. These are actions born not from a selfish desire to prioritize one’s own interests, but from an altruistic desire to help others.
Yet, there are those who argue that even these altruistic acts are ultimately for self-interest. Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, is one such person. He claims that even the actions we perceive as being for others are, in reality, for the survival and preservation of genes—that is, they contain a ‘self-interest’ on a larger scale. In other words, his argument is that even actions that appear altruistic ultimately stem from a selfish instinct to preserve genes.
However, I do not entirely agree with Dawkins’ argument. I firmly believe that within our altruistic actions, there clearly exists a pure heart that genuinely cares for and seeks to help others. I would now like to explain why I think this way.
According to Dawkins’ perspective, our actions to help others are thoroughly calculated outcomes. For example, helping a neighbor facing hardship stems from the expectation that we too might receive help when we encounter difficulties someday. This is also explained by the theory known as the ‘reciprocal altruism hypothesis’. In other words, it is a choice considering long-term gains over short-term losses.
However, if we reflect on our actual feelings when helping someone, we don’t start with the calculation, ‘If I help now, I’ll be repaid later.’ Rather, it usually begins with genuine empathy for their situation, a desire to help even a little, and a heartfelt wish to alleviate their hardship. Having experienced difficulties ourselves makes it easier to empathize and extend a helping hand.
Of course, if someone we helped doesn’t reciprocate later, we might feel betrayed. We might think, ‘I helped them when they were struggling, so why are they ignoring me now?’ However, this feeling stems less from acting with an expectation of gain and more from a psychological disconnect: ‘I understood their situation, but they don’t understand mine.’ In other words, it proves that our reason for helping wasn’t based on pure calculation.
If altruistic actions were purely motivated by self-interest, they would only be directed toward those who could offer future rewards. Yet, reality often doesn’t align with this. For instance, when helping a beggar or donating to the less fortunate, the likelihood of them repaying us in any form is extremely low. We know this, yet we help them as fellow citizens of the same country, as members of the same community, or simply because their situation moves us. This is the true expression of altruism.
A similar example is the tipping culture in restaurants abroad. There is no guarantee that the waiter receiving the tip will remember the customer and provide better service on their next visit. They might not even return to that restaurant. Moreover, since tipping is not mandatory, if one considers only self-interest, not tipping might be more rational. Yet many people tip to express gratitude to the server who worked hard for them. This too is an act born not from calculation, but from empathy and consideration.
We also feel positive emotions like satisfaction or fulfillment when performing altruistic acts. This point might invite the counterargument: ‘So isn’t it ultimately for self-satisfaction?’ Yet it’s also extremely rare for us to think ‘I should help to gain satisfaction’ before acting. The satisfaction or joy felt after actually helping is merely a secondary outcome; it’s insufficient to be the cause of the action.
Following Dawkins’ argument, altruistic behavior must contribute to the survival and preservation of genes. Yet feelings like pride or fulfillment have no direct connection to gene preservation. Since this psychological satisfaction doesn’t impact gene survival, it’s difficult to view such feelings as the primary motivation for altruistic actions. Ultimately, the desire to help others is a uniquely human psychological and social trait that cannot be explained solely by instinctive selfishness or gene-level calculations.
Dawkins asserts that even human altruistic behavior is ultimately self-serving. However, countless altruistic acts we perform daily without expecting any reward—like helping a beggar or tipping a waiter—refute his claim. Thus, we live practicing actions that arise purely from understanding and respecting others, without any vested interest.
I believe these altruistic acts are one of the key characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals. While Dawkins views humans as merely following the design of their genes, I believe the ability to think from another’s perspective, empathize, and act accordingly demonstrates that humans are beings who live rationally, transcending the dominance of their genes.
