Skip to main content
Log in

Group Selection and the Limits to Altruism

  • Published:
Journal of Bioeconomics

Abstract

Several evolutionary mechanisms have been identified in the literature that would generate altruism in humans. The most powerful (except for kin selection) and most controversial is group selection, as recently analyzed by Sober & D.S. Wilson. I do not take a stand on the issue of the existence of group selection. Instead, I examine the level of human altruism that could exist if group selection were an engine of human evolution. For the Sober & Wilson mechanism to work, groups practicing altruism must grow faster than other groups. I call altruistic behavior that would lead to faster growth ‘efficient altruism’. This often consists of cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma. ltruistic acts such as helping a temporarily hungry or injured person would qualify as efficient altruism. Efficient altruism would also require monitoring recipients to avoid shirking. Utilitarianism would be an ethical system consistent with efficient altruism, but Marxism or the Rawlsian system would not. Discussions of efficient altruism also help understand intuitions about fairness. We perceive those behaviors as ‘fair’ that are consistent with efficient altruism. It is important to understand that, even if humans are selected to be altruistic, the forms of altruism that might exist must be carefully considered and ircumscribed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References cited

  • Alexander, Richard D. 1987. The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Chapter 3: Promoting Norms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Martin J. 1992. Approximate optimality of aboriginal property rights. Journal of Law and Economics. 35: 183-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (ed.). 1992. The adapted mind. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, Jeremy (1781/1988), The principles of morals and legislation. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, Laura L. 1986. Despotism and differential reproduction: a Darwinian view of history. Hawthorne. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, Ken. 1994. Game theory and the social contract II: just playing. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, Christopher. 1993. Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology. 14: 227-254 (including comments and reply).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, Christopher. 1997. Impact of the human egalitarian syndrome on darwinian selection mechanics. American Naturalist, 150 (Supplement):S100-S121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm Christopher. 1999a. The natural selection of altruistic traits. Human Nature. 10: 205-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, Christopher. 1999b. Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Robert & Peter J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Robert & Peter J. Richerson. 1992. Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizeable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology. 13: 171-195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human universals. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, James & Gordon Tullock. 1965. The calculus of consent. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  • Carroll, Joseph. 1999. The deep structure of literary representations. Evolution and Human Behavior. 20: 159-173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, Leda & John Tooby. 1992. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. Pp. in J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (ed.) 1992. The adapted mind. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. 1871/1981. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, Jack. 1977. Economics from a biological viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics. 20: 1-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, Jack. 1999. There are many evolutionary pathways to cooperation. Journal of Bioeconomics. 1: 73-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, Jack & J. Martinez-Coll. 1988. What strategies can support the evolutionary emergence of cooperation? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32: 367-398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Victor S. 1999. Why we feel: the science of human emotions. Perseus Books, Reading, MA.

  • Kelly, Robert L. 1995. The foraging spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauft, Bruce. 1991. Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropology. 32: 391-428 (including comments and reply).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral politics: what conservatives know that liberals don't. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1888. Manifesto of the Communist party (web edition: Project Guttenberg).

  • Maynard Smith, John. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, Michael. 1992. Moralistic aggression, processing mechanisms, and the brain, in R.D. Masters & M. Gruter (ed.). The sense of justice: biological foundations of law. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipes, Richard. 1999. Property and freedom. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1999. The problematics of legal and moral theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Paul H. 1982. Evolved ethics and efficient ethics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3: 161-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Paul H. 2000a. The state of nature and the evolution of political preferences. American Law and Economics Review. (In press).

  • Rubin, Paul H. 2000b. Hierarchy. Human Nature (In press).

  • Ruse, Michael & Edward O. Wilson. 1986. Moral philosophy as applied science. Philosophy. 61: 173-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, Elliott & David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, Robert L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology. 46: 35-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, Edward. 1912. The origin and development of the moral idea, (2 Volumes, Second Edition). Macmillan and Co. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, Edward. 1932. Ethical relativity. Harcourt Brace and Co. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, Polly 1996. Leveling the hunter: constraints on the status quest in foraging societies, in P. Wiessner & W. SchiefenhoÈ vel (ed.). Food and the status quest: an interdisciplinary perspective. Berghan Books Providence, RI.

  • Williams, George C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James Q. 1993. The moral sense. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne-Edwards, Vero Copner. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rubin, P.H. Group Selection and the Limits to Altruism. Journal of Bioeconomics 2, 9–23 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010079208727

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010079208727

Navigation