The Evolution of Altruism: A Brief Comment on Stern's "Why Do People Sacrifice for Their Nations?"

Abstract

Why is altruism such an important test case for individualist theories of human behavior? The main reason is that we find difficult to imagine what persuade the individualist maximizer of self-interest to sacrifice when, though there is a benefit to the group, there is a personal loss. Obviously, the maximizer must be bamboozled into sacrificing, or must make a mistake in the calculations. The often suggested solutions are that the are too difficult or that emotional appeals of one sort or another overcome the creature's rationality. The appeals of nationalists are one such. This is the line that Stern takes in his prototheory of sacrifice. He tells us that emotional bonds to primary groups and socially transmitted norms and rules are successful in preempting self-interest because it is easier to follow rules than to make utility calculations (this journal, Vol. 16(2), pp. 217-235). This does go some way toward a solution, but preserves individualism, though of a faulty and reduced kind. The extraordinary thing is that individualist approaches to human behavior still survive in spite of the evidence that people everywhere identify with schools, companies, families, nations, ethnic groups, political parties, or religious movements (Wilson & Sober, 1994). You name and we'll join it. It's assumed that these are somehow aberrations. Why? What is the metatheory lying behind our theoretical preference for individualism? In the background is one version of an evolutionary theory which goes as follows: Individuals must calculate and if possible maximize their own interests in order to survive. Therefore, any deviation from self-interested calculation can only