Are We Wired for Selfishness? 

Is what you believe about Altruism the result of very recent (popular) psychology and philosophy? 

Or do you believe we are truly self-motivated and selfish?   

I am just part way through “Altruism” by Matthieu Ricard and I think my education, common discourse, and reading of authors like John Stuart Mills landed me in a fish bowl I am glad to be leaving.    

So imagine for a second that everything you think about ‘people being fundamentally selfish or not’ and human nature is probably less than a couple hundred years old.  That perhaps it has evolved and strengthened because it conveniently supports some other economic, political and social structures we have in western countries. That perhaps our beliefs about self-interest colour most of our interactions.  And that perhaps starting with each of us, each day we could try to stay open to an alternative view… so let’s begin. 

The Enduring Question of Human Nature 

We see it daily: a stranger holds a door, a friend offers comfort, a volunteer dedicates hours to a cause. And we also witness acts driven by apparent self-interest, competition, and indifference (in business). This contrast fuels an age-old question about the core of human nature: Are we fundamentally selfish creatures, always looking out for number one, even when our actions appear generous? Or are we capable of genuine kindness, acting out of true concern for the well-being of others? 

Up until my teens I was confident people were fundamentally good and interested in the wellbeing of others as much as their own.  Once I started working and then studying people and management in my early twenties I remember quite clearly shifting to believe people are ultimately driven by what they need to be happy; and that this can translate to altruistic acts, since ultimately the reward and positive feeling makes people happy and valuable. 

If people are fundamentally selfish, or altruistic pits two opposing views against each other. On one there are various theories used to argue a selfish orientation – like ‘psychological egoism’, a philosophical doctrine asserting that all human actions, no matter how noble they seem, are ultimately motivated by self-interest. It suggests that even acts of charity or sacrifice are merely disguised ways of achieving personal gain, perhaps through social approval, the avoidance of guilt, or the simple pleasure of feeling good about oneself.  

On the other side is the concept of altruism, the belief that humans can possess genuinely other-regarding motivations, acting with the primary goal of benefiting someone else, even at a cost to themselves. 

While the tension between self-interest and other-concern has always been part of the human story, the idea that inherent selfishness is the sole driver of human behaviour gained significant philosophical traction in Western thought, particularly starting in the 17th century. This perspective has deeply influenced fields from economics to evolutionary biology.   For me personally, I see and hear it everywhere; the level of disconnection we have from each other walking down the street in big cities, my kids telling me not to engage with people I don’t know.  We seem conditioned for defence and protection verse wanting the best for others and believing they may want it for you. 

Sure, I think it is more complex in some ways, and has more influences than just beliefs – like lived experience.   I also understand I speak from a fortunate position as a white cis male, however we also have cultures still demonstrating what we in western society have mostly sight of.  I think mindset makes up for a lot, and we are far less likely to see or be open to good when we are predisposed to expect the worst. 

Perhaps it is time to shift our perspective. 

“All for Oneself”: The Philosophical Rise of Psychological Egoism 

Defining the Doctrine 

This theory that ‘everyone is fundamentally selfish’ (psychological egoism) suggests that the ultimate aim of every voluntary human action is a person’s own welfare or perceived self-interest.  The emphasis on “ultimate” is crucial. Psychological egoists do not deny that people sometimes say they are acting for others’ benefit, or even that people desire things like the happiness of others. However, they maintain that such desires are merely instrumental – they are desired only as a means to achieving the ultimate goal of one’s own good.  The true, underlying motive, whether conscious or subconscious, is always self-serving.  

When it started to emerge in modern thought (17th-18th C) 

While self-interest has always been acknowledged as a powerful motivator, the 17th and 18th centuries saw the rise of influential philosophical systems attempting to ground human nature and social order primarily, or even exclusively, in this drive.   Some key thinkers you could explore or may already know: 

• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes laid groundwork often interpreted as psychological egoism. He famously stated, “…of the voluntary acts of every man the object is some good to himself” and “For no man giveth but with intention of good to himself…”.  For Hobbes, voluntary acts stem from the will, which follows deliberation about one’s desires.  These statements strongly suggest that self-interest is the universal object of human desire and action. This view underpinned his political philosophy, which argued that life in a “state of nature” without government would be a “war of all against all,” driven by conflicting self-interests, necessitating a powerful sovereign (the Leviathan) to maintain order. 

• Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733): Following Hobbes, Mandeville offered a provocative defense of egoism in his satirical poem and prose work, The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (first published as a poem in 1705, expanded later). He argued that society’s prosperity does not stem from human virtue or selflessness but paradoxically arises from individual vices like greed, vanity, luxury, and pride.  He depicted a thriving beehive where every bee pursued its own selfish interests, leading to innovation, industry, and wealth. When the bees miraculously become virtuous and content with simplicity, the hive’s economy collapses into stagnation and poverty. 
  Mandeville’s mechanism centered on pride or “self-liking.” He argued that the desire for social approval leads individuals to counterfeit virtues like honesty and politeness. This pursuit of self-interest, channelled by pride, unintentionally fuels economic activity and social complexity.  His argument moved beyond a simple statement of psychological egoism to a socio-economic theory. 

• François de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680): A French nobleman, La Rochefoucauld expressed a cynical view of human motivation through his Maximes (published in various editions starting 1665). Using sharp, memorable aphorisms, he practiced a form of psychological reductionism, aiming to unmask the self-love (amour-propre – a complex term encompassing self-interest, vanity, and pride) hidden beneath the surface of apparently virtuous actions.  He famously defined friendship as “nothing but a society, a reciprocal management of interests, and an exchange of good offices; in short, it is only a commerce in which amour-propre always proposes to gain something”. 
  La Rochefoucauld systematically targeted the ethic of generosity and self-sacrifice, suggesting these were illusions or elaborate forms of self-interest. His work implies that self-love might be the fundamental “atom” of human psychology, the sole real motivator, making genuine altruism a deceptive facade.  This perspective emphasizes the pervasive potential for self-deception regarding our own motives and casts deep skepticism on the possibility of truly disinterested actions. 

A Different View: Early Arguments Against Inherent Selfishness 

Despite the influence of Hobbes, Mandeville, and La Rochefoucauld, the doctrine of psychological egoism did not go unchallenged. From its inception, it faced significant philosophical criticism from thinkers who argued for the reality of benevolent or other-regarding motivations. 

• Joseph Butler (1692-1752):  Argued that human nature is complex and includes not only self-love but also inherent principles of benevolence (goodwill towards others) and conscience (an internal moral guide). For Butler, benevolence is just as natural and fundamental a part of our constitution as self-love. He famously employed what Elliott Sober later called the “stone argument”.  Butler observed that to derive pleasure from something (like eating food), one must first have a desire for that thing itself, distinct from the pleasure it brings. One cannot get pleasure from eating food unless one first desires the food; one gets no pleasure from swallowing stones precisely because one has no appetite for them. This suggests that not all desires are ultimately desires for pleasure (hedonism, a common form of egoism), but that we have “particular appetites and passions” directed towards external objects themselves. This undermines the egoist claim that all ultimate motivation is self-directed pleasure or welfare. 

• David Hume (1711-1776): The influential Scottish philosopher, while known for his skepticism in other areas, argued strongly against what he termed the “selfish hypothesis” in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) and A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40). Hume presented several arguments pointing to the existence of non-selfish motivations:
  • Moral Sentiments: Humans possess feelings like love, friendship, compassion, and gratitude, which often directly oppose pure self-interest and motivate concern for others. 
  • Motivational Complexity: Reducing all human motivation to a single cause (self-interest) is an oversimplification, a “fruitless task” driven by a false “love of simplicity” that ignores the intricate reality of human psychology. 
  • Animal Benevolence: Animals exhibit benevolent behavior towards each other (e.g., parental care, cooperation). If animals can act altruistically, Hume questioned how we could deny this capacity in humans. 
  • Meaningful Concepts: The very existence and widespread use of concepts describing benevolent behavior (kindness, generosity, public spirit) imply these concepts are not meaningless; we genuinely wish others well, even when we have no personal stake. 
  • Self-Destructive Desires: Some desires clearly conflict with self-interest. Addictions (like Hume’s own example of desiring unhealthy foods or drinks) or passions like vengeance can lead people to act in ways detrimental to their own well-being, showing that desire satisfaction does not always equate to promoting self-interest. 

Hume concluded that attempting to find an imaginary self-interest behind every action was futile. These early philosophical critiques laid the groundwork for later arguments and kept the possibility of genuine altruism alive in philosophical discourse. They highlighted the complexity of human motivation and appealed to common experience and observation, suggesting that the purely egoistic picture was incomplete. This ongoing debate set the stage for modern investigations incorporating insights from biology, psychology, and neuroscience – fields central to Matthieu Ricard’s contemporary defence of altruism. 

Matthieu Ricard’s Perspective: Altruism as a Cultivable Force 

Ricard directly confronts the notion that humans are fundamentally selfish. He argues that while egotistic tendencies certainly exist, they can obscure or stifle our natural capacity for empathy and altruism. He claims altruism is woven into our very nature and notes a distinction between two types of altruism: 

1. Natural/Innate Altruism: This is a limited, biologically rooted form of care, often directed towards kin or those in our immediate circle, such as a mother’s instinctive love and protection for her child. 

2. Cultivated/Extended Altruism: This form is broader, impartial, and extends concern beyond the immediate circle to encompass strangers, other species, and future generations. This type, Ricard argues, is not automatic but must be intentionally developed and nurtured throughout life. 

This distinction is vital because it suggests that while our innate altruistic impulses might be limited, our capacity for broader, more impactful altruism can be expanded through conscious effort and training. 

Compassion and Empathy 

Central to Ricard’s approach is the cultivation of compassion. He carefully distinguishes compassion from empathy, drawing on both contemplative insights and neuroscientific research, particularly studies conducted with neuroscientist Tania Singer. 

• Empathy: Defined as resonating with another’s feelings, particularly their suffering. While empathy can be a crucial trigger for altruistic action, Ricard notes that purely empathic resonance with suffering can lead to personal distress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion – what is often mislabeled “compassion fatigue”. 

• Compassion: Defined as a warm, caring concern for the suffering other, coupled with a strong motivation to alleviate that suffering. Unlike empathy alone, compassion is associated with positive emotions, resilience, and a sense of empowerment. 

Ricard’s participation in fMRI studies provided empirical support for this distinction. When asked to generate pure empathy for suffering, brain networks associated with pain and distress were activated, and the experience became overwhelming relatively quickly. However, when meditating on compassion (imbued with altruistic love and kindness), different neural networks were activated – areas associated with positive affect, maternal love, and reward. This state was subjectively positive and could be sustained for long periods. This suggests that compassion, rather than empathy alone, provides the sustainable emotional foundation for altruistic action. It reframes the problem of burnout in helping professions not as an excess of compassion, but potentially as an excess of unmanaged empathic distress, for which compassion training can be an antidote. 

Ricard presents meditation and mind-training, particularly practices focused on loving-kindness and compassion, as practical, evidence-based methods for cultivating this extended altruism. These practices leverage neuroplasticity – the brain’s remarkable ability to change its structure and function in response to experience and training – suggesting that altruism is a skill that can be learned and strengthened, much like learning a musical instrument. 

The Science Behind Kindness: Evidence Supporting Altruism 

Matthieu Ricard’s argument for altruism is not solely based on philosophical reasoning or spiritual conviction; it is deeply informed by and interwoven with scientific evidence that challenges the dominance of psychological egoism.⁴ Several converging lines of research provide empirical support for the existence and biological underpinnings of altruistic motivations and behaviors. 

Converging Lines of Evidence 

• Evolutionary Biology: While often associated with “selfish gene” theories, evolutionary biology also provides frameworks for understanding how altruistic behaviors could evolve.
  • Kin Selection: Proposed by W.D. Hamilton, this theory explains altruism towards relatives.²⁴ By helping genetic relatives survive and reproduce, an individual indirectly promotes the propagation of shared genes. This explains behaviors like parental care and greater cooperation among kin observed across cultures and species.²⁴ 
  • Reciprocal Altruism: Introduced by Robert Trivers, this concept explains altruism between unrelated individuals.²⁸ An organism might perform a costly helping act with the expectation (not necessarily conscious) that the favor will be returned later. This requires conditions like repeated interactions, individual recognition, and memory. Classic examples include cleaning symbiosis between fish, food sharing in vampire bats, and potentially warning calls in birds.²⁸ 
  • Distinguishing Behavior from Motivation: It is crucial to understand that evolutionary explanations focus on the ultimate fitness consequences that allow a behavior to spread over generations. This does not automatically equate to psychological egoism at the proximate level of individual motivation.² The subjective feeling of genuine empathy or compassion (psychological altruism) could very well be the proximate mechanism favored by evolution because it reliably produces behaviors that are ultimately advantageous (e.g., fostering cooperation through reciprocity or ensuring kin survival). Therefore, demonstrating an evolutionary advantage for altruistic behavior does not negate the possibility of genuine altruistic motivation. 
• Social Psychology: Experimental social psychology provides direct evidence challenging purely egoistic interpretations of helping.
  • Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis: Developed and tested extensively by Daniel Batson, this hypothesis posits that feeling empathic concern (sympathy, compassion) for a person in need evokes an altruistic motivation to help that person for their own sake.³⁰ Batson designed clever experiments to disentangle altruistic motives from egoistic ones (like reducing personal distress, avoiding guilt, or seeking social rewards). For instance, participants induced to feel high empathy for someone needing help were significantly more likely to help even when they could easily escape the situation without helping (and thus easily escape any negative feelings associated with not helping).³⁰ This suggests their motivation was genuinely other-oriented, aimed at relieving the victim’s suffering, not just their own discomfort.³² 
• Neuroscience: Brain imaging studies offer tangible biological correlates of empathy, compassion, and altruistic behavior.
  • Neural Basis of Empathy and Compassion: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies reveal distinct, though partially overlapping, neural networks associated with empathy and compassion. Empathy often activates brain regions involved in experiencing the observed state, such as the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which are also involved in processing one’s own pain or emotion.³³ Compassion, particularly when cultivated through training, additionally recruits areas linked to positive emotions, affiliation, reward (like the medial orbitofrontal cortex, ventral tegmental area involved in dopamine pathways), and executive control (prefrontal cortex), suggesting a shift from distress resonance to a more positive, action-oriented state.¹⁹ 
  • Neuroplasticity and Training: Studies involving compassion meditation (like those Ricard participated in) demonstrate that training can induce measurable changes in both brain function (activity patterns) and structure, highlighting the brain’s capacity to be reshaped by mental training aimed at fostering altruistic qualities.²⁰ 
  • Extraordinary Altruists: Research on individuals who perform acts of extreme altruism, such as donating a kidney to a stranger, reveals intriguing neural differences. These altruists tend to show increased volume in the right amygdala (a region crucial for emotional processing) and heightened amygdala responsiveness to fearful facial expressions (a cue often eliciting empathy) compared to control groups.³⁶ This pattern is notably the inverse of findings in psychopathic individuals, who exhibit reduced amygdala volume and responsiveness, suggesting extraordinary altruism and psychopathy might represent opposite ends of a “caring continuum” rooted in neural mechanisms.³⁶ This provides compelling biological evidence supporting the idea that a capacity for high levels of altruism is part of the spectrum of human variation.