Question

    In 1851, Auguste Comte, the French philosopher and father of sociology, coined the new word altruism as part of a drive to create a non-religious religion based on scientific principles. He defined it as “intentional action for the welfare of others that involves at least the possibility of either no benefit or a loss to the actor”. At that time, studies of animal behavior and phrenology(颅相学) led him to locate egotistical(自我本位的) instincts at the back of the brain, altruistic ones at the front.

Today, we have a far more sophisticated knowledge of the neurological(神经学的) and biochemical factors that underpin kind behavior. And this science forms the bases of two books aimed at general readers—but also at those who, despite the research, still doubt the existence of altruism.

However, the books may end up providing more information for those who are doubtful. Take The Altruistic Brain by neuroscientist Donald Pfaff. On solid scientific ground, he builds a five-step theory of how altruism occurs, which depends on an idea that is unconvincing and may achieve the opposite result. Pfaff argues that to act altruistically you should first visualize the receiver of your good will, then mentally transform their image into your own, “from angle to angle and curve to curve”. Does it really work?

At the core of evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson’s Does Altruism Exist? is another contentious(有争议的) idea: altruism has evolved as the result of group selection. But Wilson argues his corner masterfully, providing a clever reply to the belief that natural selection occurs only at the level of the selfish gene: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups,” he says.

In other words, we cooperate when doing so gives our team the advantage. That doesn’t sound very selfless either.

Wilson acknowledges this, but argues that thoughts and feelings are less important than actions. According to evolutionary theory, pure altruists do exist, but it doesn’t matter why people choose to help others—their reasons may be difficult even for themselves to understand. What matters is that humans can coordinate their activities in just the right way to achieve common goals. Other animals do this too, but we are masters. “Teamwork is the signature adaptation of our species,” he says.

Pfaff goes further, insisting that our brain biology “urges us to be kind”. He believes this knowledge alone will inspire individuals to be more altruistic. His desire to create a better world is admirable and some of his ideas are interesting, but Wilson’s analysis is clearer.

While it is in our nature to be altruistic, Wilson says, we also have a healthy regard for self-interest and a resistance to being pushed around. Which one comes to the fore depends on the environment in which we find ourselves. Ethics, he says, cannot be taught at individual level, but are “a property of the whole system”.

1.Which of the following can be considered an altruistic behaviour according to Comte’s definition?

A.A person offers to donate his liver to another who needs one.

B.A clerk returns the umbrella to his colleague which he has kept for a long time.

C.A student volunteers to wok in the orphanage to collect data for his research.

D.A police officer spots a car parking in the no-parking area, finding a child in the trunk.

2.What does Donald Pfaff think people should do in order to behave altruistically?

A.Draw a picture of the person they are going to help.

B.Transform the receiver into a kind person.

C.Visualize what they are going to do in mind first.

D.Imagine they themselves are to be helped.

3.Which of the following statements is David Sloan most likely to agree with in his book?

A.Being kind is not something people are born with.

B.People in groups are less likely to be selfish.

C.People may well act selflessly because of where they are.

D.Most people know clearly why they are ready to help others.

4.What can be concluded from the passage?

A.Figuring out what makes us behave selflessly is a tricky business.

B.Unlike Donald Pfaff’s book, David Sloan’s book aims at professional readers.

C.Comte’s definition of altruism proves to be impractical in modern times.

D.Both Donald Pfaff and David Sloan lay emphasis on team work.

Answer

1.B

2.D

3.C

4.A

【解析】

本文是一篇说明文，以唐纳德·普法夫和大卫·斯隆的两部关于利他主义的著作为例介绍了人们对法国社会学之父奥古斯特·孔特提出的利他主义的不同看法。

1.推理判断题。根据第一段中的“He defined it as “intentional action for the welfare of others that involves at least the possibility of either no benefit or a loss to the actor”.”可知，奥古斯特·孔特将利他主义定义为为他人的福利而采取的故意行为，这种行为至少可能不会给行为人带来利益或损失，“一个职员把他保管了很长时间的雨伞还给了他的同事”符合这个定义，故B项正确。

2.细节理解题。根据第三段中的“Pfaff argues that to act altruistically you should first visualize the receiver of your good will, then mentally transform their image into your own”可知，唐纳德·普法夫认为人们应该想象他们自己会得到帮助才能表现出利他主义，故D项正确。

3.推理判断题。根据最后一段中的“While it is in our nature to be altruistic, Wilson says, we also have a healthy regard for self-interest and a resistance to being pushed around. Which one comes to the fore depends on the environment in which we find ourselves.”可知，大卫·斯隆说虽然利他主义是我们的天性，但我们也有一种健康的自利观，哪一个最重要取决于我们所处的环境，由此可知，大卫·斯隆在书中最有可能同意人们可能会因为他们所处的位置而做出无私的行为，故C项正确。

4.推理判断题。根据文章内容可知，以唐纳德·普法夫和大卫·斯隆的两部关于利他主义的著作为例介绍了人们对法国社会学之父奥古斯特·孔特提出的利他主义的不同看法，利他主义一直是一个有争议的话题，专家学者对利他主义的看法不一，至今对是什么让我们表现得无私都没有一个明确的说法，有的研究者甚至还怀疑利他主义的存在，由此可知，弄清楚是什么让我们表现得无私是一件棘手的事情，故A项正确。