I'm not certain that Eduardo's understanding of the posted question is that which was intended. I don't think Nicolaou was discussing altruism in only the biological sense. It seems his question itself was asking whether it was biological or not. From Wikipedia...
Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, country etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.
I've given thought to this subject before. Before having done so, I'd have described myself as altruistic. But if true altruism means "giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition," I'm probably not. My reasons for wanting to help others, to giving of myself are because (1) I like how it feels to do so in the moment and, honestly, (2) I like it that others may respect, appreciate and/or love me for doing so. It's true that I have performed unnecessarily kind acts that no one has ever found out about, but I can confess to an almost romantic desire that someone would find out. I would also point out that this "desire" lessens the older I get, yet the instinct I feel to keep giving freely continues. (Auto pilot? Biology?)
Zagor: Many people are in fact not altruistic at all precisely because of not seeing any benefit to themselves. Other on the other hand chose to use those innate abilities to go step further in human evolution and be there for their fellow man.
I've made mention before of my interest in "typewatching," an extension of Myers-Briggs temperament studies. I know that over the years refinements have been made to this field, but some basic elements remain: (1)concrete vs. abstract thinking & communicating, and (2) cooperation vs. utilitarianism. In this discussion I'm focusing on the latter. It's true that there is a sliding scale for each of these elements. Some are extremely cooperative, while others show more of a balance, but it's very rare to find someone who does not demonstrate a definite preference for one over the other. A person is either a utilitarian (they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible,) or a cooperator (they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct.)
Aren't both qualities (therefore both types of people) needed in order for a group to survive and flourish? Some roles in a family, organization or society require cooperators to make sure duties are carried out and provisions are made, while other roles require utilitarians to make sure those provisions are still coming in and the group is protected, for example. Militaries utilize both cooperative (logistical and diplomatic) as well as utilitarian (strategic and tactical) people.
So if people are every day born with these two qualities, and if they are both needed to survive and flourish, isn't it possible that it is biological--that nature produces both types of people?
