Philosophy and Theory in Biology 2 (20130604) (2010)
Altruism is a central concept in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists still disagree about its meaning (E.O. Wilson 2005; Fletcher et al. 2006; D.S. Wilson 2008; Foster et al. 2006a, b; West et al. 2007a, 2008). Semantic disagreement appears to be quite robust and not easily overcome by attempts at clarification, suggesting that substantive conceptual issues lurk in the background. Briefly, group selection theorists define altruism as any trait that makes altruists losers to selfish traits within groups, and makes groups of altruists fitter than groups of non-altruists. Inclusive fitness theorists reject a definition based on within- and between-group fitness. Traits are altruistic only if they cause a direct and absolute fitness loss to the donor. The latter definition is more restrictive and rejects as cases of altruism behaviors that are accepted by the former. Fletcher and Doebeli (2009) recently proposed a simple, direct and individually based fitness approach, which they claim returns to first principles: carriers of the genotype of interest “must, on average, end up with more net direct fitness benefits than average population members.” This seductively simple proposal uses the concept of assortment to explain how diverse kinds of altruists end up on average with more net fitness than their non-altruistic rivals. In this paper I shall argue that their approach implies a new concept of altruism that contrasts with and improves on the concept of the inclusive fitness approach
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Distinguishing Natural Selection From Other Evolutionary Processes in the Evolution of Altruism.Pierrick Bourrat - 2015 - Biological Theory 10 (4):311-321.
Social Niche Construction and Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality.P. A. Ryan, S. T. Powers & R. A. Watson - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (1):59-79.
Disentangling Social Preferences From Group Selection.Alejandro Rosas - 2011 - Biological Theory 6 (2):169-175.
Similar books and articles
Why Reciprocal Altruism is Not a Kind of Group Selection.Grant Ramsey & Robert Brandon - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):385-400.
Multilevel Selection and Human Altruism.Alejandro Rosas - 2008 - Biology and Philosophy 23 (2):205-215.
The Paradox of Sexual Reproduction and the Levels of Selection: Can Sociobiology Shed a Light?Joachim Dagg - 2012 - Philosophy and Theory in Biology 4 (20130604).
Fitness “Kinematics”: Biological Function, Altruism, and Organism–Environment Development.Marshall Abrams - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):487-504.
Fitness and Evolutionary Explanation. [REVIEW]Henry C. Byerly & Richard E. Michod - 1991 - Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):45-53.
On the Relationship Between Evolutionary and Psychological Definitions of Altruism and Selfishness.David Sloan Wilson - 1992 - Biology and Philosophy 7 (1):61-68.
Individuals, Groups, Fitness and Utility: Multi-Level Selection Meets Social Choice Theory.Samir Okasha - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):561-584.
The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Evolutionary Ethics and Biologically Supportable Morality.Michael Byron - 1999 - Proceedings of Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, PAIDEIA: Philosophy Educating Humanity.
Collective Action in the Fraternal Transitions.Jonathan Birch - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (3):363-380.
Added to index2010-12-29
Total downloads32 ( #160,368 of 2,168,936 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,364 of 2,168,936 )
How can I increase my downloads?