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 wondered whether it is 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 to evidence of selfishness, rather than altruism. However, there are often phenomena in which people appear to act against their own advantage in favor of the benefit of others, despite all the evidence suggesting that they should not. These outliers serve as the basis for evidence of altruism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The argument against altruism is fundamentally based on biology, specifically the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest. This fitness is, of course, the reproductive fitness of an organism, which leads to a strange biological explanation of altruism. In biology, altruism tends to refer to any helping behavior that makes one organism less suitable for reproduction than another organism. This behavior can be something 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 contrary to an individual's absolute interest is a phenomenon, regardless of motivation. In humans this concept goes further, in the form of parental instinct. The parental instinct undoubtedly exists, particularly in mammals, but humans show a rare flexibility and range in this instinct. Human parents are willing to sacrifice much for their children, even those who would be considered a burden and abandoned by other species. The parental instinct has also been seen as flexible, sometimes applied to people other than the parents' children.[2] This behavior is inconsistent not only with the idea of ​​survival of the fittest, but also with the evolutionary purpose of the parental instinct: for an organism to care for offspring who will pass on its genes. Human parents blatantly contradict this purpose. This contradiction is also seen in the colloquialism "It takes a village to raise a child", which implies that a community of people provides children with care similar to that of their parents, even if that child's success has little or no effect on the members extra-familial. of the community. This biological contradiction serves to show that altruism exists even in the most basic aspects of life. Even from a psychological point of view, altruism is a highly debated and complicated topic. Psychology is the study of all human behaviors, including altruism and selfishness. This argument is strangely devoid of a middle ground, perhaps due to the harsh position of advocates of psychological egoism. William Clohesy explains: "The psychological egoist, despite our vaunted claims, points to this personal fulfillment as the real reason for helping another... No matter what our claims about the other's importance to us, the egoist psychological insists that we help out of our own interest; our statements merely emphasize the importance of that person's well-being to ourselves.”[3] The main opposition to altruism is that people seek to strengthen their own reputation, consciously or unconsciously.[4] Meanwhile, those who advocate psychological altruism seethe line between altruism and selfishness as blurred, rather than absolute. It is obvious that people often do things out of self-interest. However, people who are consistently altruistic are not consistently altruistic; they can act altruistically only in situations in which they have no predisposition to act selfishly or when they can afford the opportunity costs of altruistic actions.[5] Furthermore, the idea of ​​reputational gains only makes sense if people are actually seeking such gains. These gains are often only found in hindsight and are almost never the guaranteed result of altruistic behavior; therefore, an altruistic individual is unlikely to seek these rewards.[6] This circumstantiality does not disprove altruistic behavior; he simply recognizes that he has limitations. Similar limitations can be found on many other behaviors, keeping altruism within psychological possibilities. The source of altruism has been much more difficult to pinpoint than that of selfishness. Selfishness can clearly arise from a biological desire for personal success, which has become widespread in human behavior and culture. Altruism, on the other hand, still makes little sense from a biological point of view, so we need to look at something more specifically psychological. Martin Hoffman, among other psychologists, has suggested empathy, “an appropriate affective response to someone else's situation rather than one's own”[7] as an altruistic motivation. Hoffman proposed that empathy develops along with the development of a differentiation between oneself and others from an early age.[8] By extension, a person begins to imagine how it would feel in another's place and reacts accordingly. In such a situation, people act to help each other because they feel that they know what it is like to be in that person's dilemma and that they can solve that problem without personal loss or gain from their action.[9] Empathy seems to make sense in the context of altruism, since there is no personal loss or gain, literally or emotionally, required to act out of empathy, simply a feeling towards another individual, in which one is able to resolve, or help, that other person's dilemma. The most famous example of this might be the people who saved the Jews during the Holocaust. Studies and interviews have been conducted comparing those who did and did not save Jews under Nazi Germany. Those who were rescuers do not feel or appear to have gained anything by helping the Jews, but instead saved the Jews because they felt they should. Those who did not say they were unable to help or feared for themselves and their families, while rescuers actively endangered themselves and their families, seeing no reward or adulation. until long after the fact.[10] That feeling, mentioned above, is empathetic, where rescuers felt a level of understanding with the Jewish plight, whether or not they truly understood it. This empathy has led to some of the most profound rescues in history, with completely altruistic motivations. Even economics calls into question the existence of altruism. From an economic perspective, all people should be rational and selfish, however altruism inherently contradicts this. As these contradictions have been noted in real-world situations, simulations and studies have been performed trying to understand the phenomena. Michael J. Gill calls those who are consistently altruistic in economic situations “consistent contributors.”[11] He explains the behavior of these consistent contributors, saying: “…the.