The existence of altruistic or altruistic people has been a hotly debated topic throughout human history. From ancient Greek philosophers to modern psychologists, people have asked the so-called altruism question, in which they questioned whether it was even possible for a person to be motivated by something other than self-interest. Today, altruism is debated in terms of psychology, sociology, biology, and economics, often with much of the evidence pointing toward evidence of selfishness rather than altruism. Yet there are often phenomena in which people appear to act against their own benefit in favor of the benefit of others, despite all evidence suggesting that they should not do so. These outliers serve as the basis for evidence of altruism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The argument against altruism is fundamentally based in biology, particularly the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest. This fitness is, of course, an organism's reproductive capacity, which leads to a strange biological explanation for altruism. In biology, altruism tends to refer to any helping behavior that makes one organism less capable of reproduction than another organism. This behavior can be as simple as a chimpanzee or wolf sharing food with the rest of its group. However, this includes actual altruism, as well as sacrifices with ulterior motives.[1] This shows that, biologically speaking, any action that goes against an individual's absolute best interest is a phenomenon, regardless of their motivation. In humans, this concept goes even further, in the form of the parental instinct. The parental instinct undoubtedly exists, especially in mammals, but humans demonstrate a rare flexibility and breadth in this instinct. Human parents will sacrifice much for their children, even those who would be considered burdens and abandoned by other species. The parental instinct has also been seen as flexible, sometimes applying to people other than the parent's children.[2] This behavior is incompatible, not only with the idea of ​​survival of the fittest, but also with the evolutionary purpose of parental instinct: that an organism takes care of the offspring who will pass on its genes to it. Human parents openly contradict this goal. This contradiction is also found in the colloquial expression "It takes a village to raise a child", which implies that a community of people provides parents-like care for children, even if that child's success has little or no effect on members outside the family. of the community. This biological contradiction serves to show that altruism exists even in the most basic aspects of life. Psychologically, altruism is also a highly debated and complex topic. Psychology is the study of all human behavior, including altruism or selfishness. This topic strangely lacks common ground, perhaps due to the harsh stance of proponents of psychological egoism. William Clohesy explains: "The psychological egoist, despite our vaunted assertions, points to this personal fulfillment as the true motive for helping others... Whatever our assertions about the importance of the other to us, the psychological egoist insists on that we help ourselves. interest; our statements only emphasize how important that person's well-being is to us. »[3] The main opposition to altruism is that people seek to enhance their reputation, consciously orunconsciously.[4] Meanwhile, those who support psychological altruism view the line between altruism and selfishness as fuzzy rather than absolute. It is obvious that people often act out of self-interest. However, people who are consistently altruistic are not consistently altruistic; they can only act altruistically in situations where they have no predisposition to act selfishly or when they can afford the opportunity costs of altruistic actions.[5] Furthermore, the idea of ​​reputation gains only makes sense if people actually seek these gains. These gains are often only noticed after the fact and are almost never the guaranteed result of altruistic behavior; therefore, an altruistic individual is unlikely to seek these rewards.[6] This circumstance does not refute altruistic behavior; he simply recognizes that he has limits. Similar limitations can be found on many other behaviors, keeping altruism within the realm of psychological possibility. The source of altruism has been much more difficult to identify than that of selfishness. Selfishness can clearly arise from a biological desire for personal success, which has carried over into human behavior and culture. Altruism, on the other hand, still has little biological meaning, so we must look at something more specifically psychological. Martin Hoffman, among other psychologists, has suggested empathy, "an appropriate emotional response to someone else's situation rather than one's own,"[7] as an altruistic motive. Hoffman proposed that one develops empathy while developing differentiation between self and others as a child.[8] By extension, a person begins to imagine how he or she would feel in someone else's shoes and reacts accordingly. In such a situation, people act to help each other because they feel that they know what it means to be faced with this person's dilemma and that they can solve this problem without personal loss or gain from their action .[9] Empathy seems to make sense in the context of altruism, because there is no personal loss or gain, literally or emotionally, required to act out of empathy, simply a feeling toward another individual, in which one is capable to solve or help. the dilemma of this other. Perhaps the most famous example is the people who saved Jews during the Holocaust. There have been studies and interviews comparing those who saved and those who did not save Jews under Nazi Germany. Those who were saviors do not feel or appear to have gained anything by helping the Jews, but on the contrary, they saved Jews because they felt they should. Those who did not say they were unable to help or were afraid for themselves and their families, while rescuers actively put themselves and their families in danger, seeing no reward or adulation much afterwards.[10] This feeling, mentioned above, is a feeling of empathy, in which the rescuers felt some level of understanding towards the plight of the Jews, whether they truly understood it or not. This empathy has led to some of the most profound rescues in history, with entirely altruistic motivations. Economics also questions the existence of altruism. From an economic perspective, everyone should be rational and self-interested, but altruism inherently contradicts this. Because these contradictions have been observed in real situations, simulations and studies have been carried out to try to understand the phenomena. Michael J. Gill calls those who are consistently altruistic in economic situations “.