Is It True That Humans Care More About Themselves Than Their Colleagues?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Description and Evaluation: Altruism and Human Beings
Discussions: Journal Articles
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Human relationship is something that has evolved for many centuries. Scholars and theories in the field of psychology have affirmed that human beings tend to care more about themselves. This means that the expectations, obstacles, and challenges facing others are secondary to them. The concept of altruism has also emerged whereby individuals help others without expecting to be rewarded. Using different theoretical concepts, this integrative essay examines the extent to which altruism exists. The analysis answers this question: is it true that humans care more about themselves than their colleagues?

Description and Evaluation: Altruism and Human Beings

Defining Altruism

Telle and Pfister (2015) define altruism as the desire to take good care of others without expecting any form of benefit. The ultimate objective is to ensure that the beneficiary escapes harm or achieves his or her potential. More often than not, this practice occurs when people sacrifice their belongings and resources to meet the desires of their counterparts. Wilkinson et al. (2017) indicate that some people might go a step further to take care of strangers without expecting to be compensated. In fields such as psychology and nursing, professionals are guided to embrace this concept. Consequently, they remain selfless and on the frontline to address the challenges facing their clients/patients.

For very many years, human beings have been observed to do things that are aimed at addressing the needs of others. This means that such individuals do so without expecting to be recognized (Open University 2015). Furnham et al. (2016) also acknowledge that altruistic acts tend to come to mankind naturally. Some studies have linked this behavior to certain brain parts that produce hormones and chemicals (Farrelly et al. (2015). This means that emotions can trigger chemicals changes in the brain and encourage individuals to offer desirable support to those in need. This analysis, therefore, shows that altruism is a common practice in different parts of the world.

To What Extent Does Human Altruism Exist?

According to Farrelly et al. (2015), altruistic behavior is something that is associated with empathy. This is the case because human beings monitor the challenges facing other individuals and put themselves in their circumstances. However, not all people will be willing to show signs of empathy. Several theories and notions have been presented to describe why individuals are capable of engaging in pure altruistic deeds.

For example, evolutionary models assert that creatures tend to empathize with close members of their respective species (Open University Course Team 2015). Similarly, humans tend to exhibit similar actions whenever focusing on the problems facing their immediate family members. This observation by evolutionary theorists asserts that people tend to live in groups, offer protection to each other, and come up with evidence-based practices to support one another.

This means that individuals living in a certain community have increased chances of empathizing with those who are close to them. Nook et al. (2016) apply this evolutionary argument to explain why human beings support the needs of those who appear similar to them. More often than not, people from the same cultural background will have increased chances of treating one another positively.

The social-developmental theory also presents numerous notions and ideas to explain why altruism is common among human beings. Telle and Pfister (2015) believe that the surrounding environment exposes people to social factors such as norms, traditions, and cultural practices. This is also the same case when individuals in a particular community adhere to the same religious beliefs and teachings (Adida 2014).

Social development is a broad area that encompasses several forces such as family upbringing, social influences, moral values, and religious teachings. People who grow up in a specific environment will be exposed to unique value systems, ideas, and ideologies that appear to promote desirable actions (Wilkinson et al., 2017). If empathy and sympathy common values embraced in such a society, most of its members will be willing to help one another.

On the other, the existence of inappropriate social norms will result in negative social development. The outcome is that some individuals might be opposed to the welfare of those from a different culture or religion. This happens to be the case when a particular neighborhood is comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds. As a result, inappropriate behaviors against other citizens might become common (Open University Course Team 2015). The case of the Holocaust can be used to explain why negative social values can result in intolerance, thereby minimizing the chances of altruistic acts.

Personality theory is another model utilized by researchers and psychologists to describe the nature of altruism. According to this theory, human beings inherit specific genetic materials and innate values that dictate how they associate with others. Depending on such biological constitutions, some people would help others unconditionally while others might not (Arnocky et al., 2017). This is the reason why human beings tend to display diverse personalities. Those who have the innate moral understanding or sense will be ready to help those in need without receiving any reward.

This argument is informed by the nativism vs empiricism debate (Goodman, Nagatsu & Salmela 2014). Nativism, as described in this framework, indicates that humans can be born with specific traits and aspects that make it easier for them to act in a specific manner. The other side of this notion is empiricism and asserts that some people will learn specific knowledge that can empower them to behave in a particular manner (Arnocky et al., 2017). From this understanding, it is clear that some people will engage in pure altruistic acts (Fry & Runyan 2017). This happens to be the case because they will have learned specific values or possess innate attributes.

Similarly, humans have the potential to learn or acquire moral conventions from society. Such values will be informed by the ideals and concepts embraced in the targeted community. For instance, parents can introduce their children to positive ideologies such as sympathy and empathy. These persons will grow up to become responsible and capable of engaging in altruistic acts (Machluf, Liddle & Bjorklund 2014). This analysis, therefore, indicates that the surrounding society is critical whenever analyzing the nature of altruism in mankind.

The moral development perspective asserts that human beings in a specific community can be introduced to desirable norms and principles (Hawley 2014). The use of powerful theories such as operant conditioning is something that has been observed to deliver positive rewards. Throughout their childhood, individuals can be rewarded for engaging in enviable actions such as helping others. Religious and academic teaching models can also be designed in such a way that they promote the idea of moral development (Arnocky et al. 2017). Such strategies will guide more individuals to develop superior personalities and eventually engage in altruistic acts.

Discussions: Journal Articles

The construct of empathy has attracted the attention of many scholars, psychologists, and researchers (Telle & Pfister 2015). This has been the case because a small percentage of human beings portray empathic behaviors. This situation explains why the altruism debate continues to be studied by many analysts. Mironova and Whitt (2016) acknowledge that some people can be motivated to support others for purely altruistic motives.

This means that they will address the problems facing others without expecting anything in return. Additionally, notions such as evolutionary and personality theories can be used to describe why some individuals will help others in an attempt to serve their gains or needs (Furnham, Hyde & Trickey 2014). For example, a person might feel happy and comfortable after helping. Another one might decide to help in an attempt to be rewarded for his or her heroic act.

From this discussion, it is evident that people can be motivated to help for purely altruistic reasons. The most important thing is to ensure that the right social actions, norms, and values are supported by the greatest majority (Wilkinson et al., 2017).

This is something that borrows a lot from the idea of prosocial behavior whereby individuals act by the norms or values that are supported by their societies or communities (Wilkinson et al., 2017). However, the argument does not mean that there are no individuals who will mainly help to serve their interests and demands. From this theoretical analysis, it is quite clear that not all human beings care more about themselves than their colleagues. This means that many people will be empowered by different values and principles to exhibit altruistic behaviors.

Conclusion

The above discussion has revealed that the altruism debate might not end any time soon. Most of the existing theories and concepts show that human beings will act differently depending on numerous forces acting on them such as genetic makeup, social-development opportunities, and religious values. Although some individuals might be pushed by different factors, what comes out is that majority of them can be motivated to display desirable values.

Reference List

Adida, CL 2014, Immigrant exclusion and insecurity in Africa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arnocky, S, Piche, T, Albert, G, Ouellette, D & Barclay, P 2017, ‘Altruism predicts mating success in humans’, British Journal of Psychology, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 416-435.

Farrelly, D, Moan, E, White, K & Young, S 2015, ‘Evidence of an alternative currency for altruism in laboratory-based experiments’, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-14.

Fry, BN & Runyan, JD 2017, ‘Teaching empathic concern and altruism in the smartphone age’, Journal of Moral Education, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-16.

Furnham, A, Hyde, G & Trickey, G 2014, ‘The dark side of career preference: dark side traits, motives and values’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 106-114.

Furnham, A, Treglown, L, Hyde, G & Trickey, G 2016, ‘The bright and dark side of altruism: demographic, personality traits, and disorders associated with altruism’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 359-368.

Goodman, M, Nagatsu, M & Salmela, M 2014, ‘The social motivation hypothesis for prosocial behaviour’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 563-587.

Hawley, PH 2014, ‘Ontogeny and social dominance: A developmental view of human power patterns’, Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 318-342.

Machluf, K, Liddle, JR & Bjorklund, DF 2014, ‘An introduction to evolutionary developmental psychology’, Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 264-272.

Mironova, V & Whitt, S 2016, ‘The evolution of prosociality and Parochialism after violence’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 648-664.

Nook, EC, Ong, DC, Morelli, AA, Mitchell, JP & Zaki, J 2016, ‘Prosocial conformity: prosocial norms generalise across behaviour and empathy’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1-13.

Open University 2015, Investigating psychology 2 book 1, Business Development Unit, London.

Open University Course Team 2015, From cognitive to biological: investigating psychology book 2, Business Development Unit, London.

Telle, N & Pfister, H 2015, ‘Positive empathy and prosocial behaviour: a neglected link’, Emotion Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 154-163.

Wilkinson, H, Whittington, R, Perry, L & Eames, C 2017, ‘Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review’, Burnout Review, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 18-29.

Click Here To Order Now!