Current
Issue
UNIToday
Archives
Submit
Class Notes
Alumni
Home
|
||||
Current |
UNIToday |
Submit |
Alumni |
|
 |
Why do we do what we do?Put ourselves through the rigors of academic life, that is. For one, we all want a job that pays well. But there is something else. We have an idea that exposure to higher ideals will help us be more humane. We become educated, in part, to make things better for others. It is as if our altruistic gene gets turned on. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines altruism as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” Altruists International, an organization that claims to “pioneer altruism as a viable social norm,” offers three definitions of the trait: 1) loving others as oneself; 2) behavior that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to one’s own; and 3) self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Is the very concept of altruism too naive and idealistic to be viable? In a March 2005 article, ‘Charity begins at Homo sapiens,’ NewScientist.com, writer Mark Buchanan notes that for decades researchers explained away human acts of ostensible selflessness as a tricky way of promoting our own individual self-interests—that what we’re doing is angling for an eventual reward. But newer research by anthropologists, economists and biologists at the University of Zurich, University of Massachusetts and Rutgers University favors the idea that humans have a tendency toward “strong reciprocity.” That is, we will cooperate and do nice things (or even punish people who don’t) even when it is clear we have nothing to gain. Buchanan summarizes, “A capacity for true altruism seems to be a part of human nature.” At the societal level, when we ‘do good,’ we all win. Studies by UCLA anthropologist Robert Boyd have reportedly shown that while individual cheaters can come out ahead in the short term, groups in competition that have more cooperators fare much better over the long haul than those that are not so endowed. There is even a mathematical theory, based on the ideas of Edward O. Wilson in his book, Sociobiology, that demonstrates how altruism has evolutionary implications. As explained in tortuous mathematical detail in New York Times on the Web: ‘The Evolution of Altruism,’ by Eric Strong, altruism evolves under the process of group selection. In a statistical exercise, groups with relatively disproportionate numbers of altruistic individuals (like we might find in real life) were plugged into the formula, and… “…although the proportion of altruistic individuals declines in each group when taken separately, if both groups are examined together, their overall proportion actually increases. This counterintuitive result arises from the condition that the group with the greater number of altruists is also the most productive. Thus, as long as a population contains multiple groups with differing proportions of altruistic and selfish individuals, and the groups occasionally mixed for reproductive purposes, the total proportion of altruists could increase indefinitely.” If nothing else, it gives fresh meaning to the expression ‘go figure.’ Still, humankind can use the good news, and it’s nice to have scientific confirmation that the noble attribute evident in lives dedicated to serving others is reproducible. So maybe the inclination is innate. Could it be that education serves its highest purpose in activating the behavior? William Clohesy, UNI assistant professor of philosophy and religion and an expert on altruism in society, says, “One of the deepest aims of a liberal arts education is to open students’ minds to the worlds of other people so they can learn to leave their own perspectives and attitudes and take up those of others….This is not a dichotomy between a public attitude that is good and a private one that is bad. Both are good, but an educated and self-aware person should be able to move easily from one perspective to the other as the context requires.” We think the people in this issue personify that ability. Whether its Mattingly’s and Blockson’s research into the social and ethical implications of business, Aossey’s profoundly helpful International Medical Corps, Chancey’s vision of undergraduate scholarship, or Abram’s intense desire to make a difference in the world, the overall prospects for humanity are improved by the effort. Call it altruism, magnanimity or, to borrow a plank from President Robert Koob’s platform, effective citizenship. All of the above definitions apply. —Denton Ketels |
|
|