Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Wilson argues that “the impulse need not be ruled divine or otherwise
transcendental, and we are justified in seeking a more convenient
biological explanation.”
32
Though Wilson notes that specific forms of
altruism are culturally determined, he argues that the sociobiological
hypothesis “can explain why human beings differ from other mammals
and why, in one narrow aspect, they more closely resemble social
insects.”
33
Wilson further distinguishes two forms of cooperative behavior. First
is what he terms hard-core altruism: “the altruistic impulse can be irra-
tional and unilaterally directed at others; the bestower expresses no
desire for equal return and performs no unconscious actions leading to
the same end.” Here, the responses are unaffected by social reward and
punishment, and tend to serve the “altruist's closest relatives and to
decline steeply in frequency and intensity as relations become more
distant.”
34
Second is soft-core altruism: the altruist, in Wilson's words, “expects
reciprocation from society for himself or his closest relatives. His good
behavior is calculating.” Thus, soft-core altruism is essentially selfish
in a traditionally moral sense as well as being influenced by cultural
evolution. For Wilson, the psychological vehicles for this behavior are
“lying, pretense, and deceit, including self-deceit, because the actor is
most convincing who believes that his performance is real.”
35
In Wilson's perspective, soft-core altruism is crucial for human society
because it broke the constraints on the social contract imposed by kin
selection. Reciprocity is crucial for the formation of society. Hard-core
altruism, on the other hand, is the “enemy of civilization.” This favors
kin selection, the favoring of one's own relatives, and permits only
limited global cooperation. Hence Wilson says, “Our societies are based
on the mammalian plan: the individual strives for personal reproductive
success foremost and that of his immediate kin secondarily; further
grudging cooperation represents a compromise struck in order to enjoy
the benefits of group membership.”
36
This gives Wilson a basis for optimism, for he thinks humans are “suf-
ficiently selfish and calculating to be capable of indefinitely greater har-
mony and social homeostasis. This statement is not self-contradictory.
True selfishness, if obedient to the other constraints of mammalian
biology, is the key to a more nearly perfect social contract.” Moreover,
