Were People More Altruistic in the Past? (1/4)

August 21, 2026 · Prof. Dr. Ömer DEMİR

Among value judgments, altruism holds the most important position. This four-part series aims to bring evaluations based on the observation that altruism has decreased compared to the past to a more dispassionate ground. Those who cannot express their point in short sentences write long texts under the guise of explaining the subject well. Perhaps we will write about this topic one day, but for no

Memory is Limited, Biased, and Selective

The life experiences of those over fifty today are full of great contradictions, as they allow them to witness at least two vastly different, and sometimes diametrically opposed, worlds simultaneously. In its crudest form, *scarcity* and *abundance* often follow each other, and those who are now in abundance often describe their past experiences of relative scarcity. For this reason, their life stories, which they narrate with excitement, contain more memories from this period of scarcity.[1]

It can be said that behind the willingness to recount these periods of scarcity lies the anxiety that the effort, exertion, diligence, and sacrifice made to reach today might be overlooked by the new generation, and consequently, the fear that the appreciation required for bringing all these together in one's life will not be shown. In short, these memories are intended to convey the message, 'We did not reach these days so easily.' In these messages, the desire to make new generations aware of the difficulties encountered in the process of creating the comfortable environment they are in (whatever use it may be!) is dominant.

From this same group, conversely, we also frequently hear complaints within the scope of 'Oh, where have those old days gone,' referring to things that existed before but are now gone. Among these, the complaint, 'There used to be humanity; people would lend a hand to neighbors, relatives, those stranded, or the fallen, and inquire about their well-being without expecting anything in return. Neighborhood children would behave respectfully not only towards their own elders but towards all elders, never failing in their respect,' can be said to be one of the most shared prominent complaints.

Through memory research, we now know very well that people partially conceive of the past, present, and future in a "biased" way, in light of their current positions, tendencies, and expectations. Memory largely contributes to this bias. Because research suggests that memory is *limited* in terms of recording all that happens, therefore *selective*, but more importantly, *biased* in terms of assigning value to contribute to the continuation of human existence. That is, not everything that happens is remembered, some are recorded differently than they occurred, and higher value is attributed to those selected and remembered. Precisely for this reason, many scientific methods, including statistical techniques, and nowadays big data and artificial intelligence applications, have been developed to overcome this deficiency and bias in order to understand events "correctly.".

These are not our topic in this article. Our topic is to trace the thought that people were more altruistic in the past. We cannot fully understand the reason for the above complaints by saying that this generation might be biased regarding benevolence, assuming there are not enough reasons for generations after generations to be swayed in opposite directions in such value-laden areas. Since a generation does not err en masse on the same issue (although there is nothing to guarantee this), it is evident that there is a difference between the past and the present in this regard, and this creates a longing in favor of the past. Some might see this situation as a natural consequence of those with less time left in the world idealizing their past experiences. While this is not an interpretation to be easily dismissed, we cannot easily get out of it by taking refuge in it. We have previously written another article on the appeal of the widely accepted pessimistic approach that 'good people rode away on their white horses,' that the wicked are constantly multiplying, and that the world is now deteriorating (this deterioration was formerly centered on morality, but now it is more centered on ecological order).[2] Now, we will trace why the thought that people were more altruistic in the past has taken root, which we believe cannot be explained solely by the drive to praise pessimism.

Is Personal Experience Enough to Know That Previous Generations Were More Altruistic?

First of all, it should be stated that if a judgment is to be made on whether people in the past were more altruistic than those today, it must be based on objective data, not on estimations, personal observations, or feelings. We must state at least two main reasons why data is needed, without going into detail. Firstly, as expressed above, memory tends to remember more of what will contribute to the continuation of human life, meaning it is biased. Secondly, in the past, situations arising from the influence of many *hidden institutional structures*[3] that were as natural as air in the normal flow of life might not have become conscious knowledge in a way that would form cause-and-effect relationships in humans. Institutional structures materialized as kinship, friendship, blood brotherhood, *neighborliness*, citizenship, *godparenthood*, tradition, honor, or being a man, like *tacit knowledge*[4], their effects on the flow of life are not realized, and therefore, they cannot easily be reported through individual observations.

In the context of our topic, it would certainly not be accurate to make a judgment in favor of the past or present without clearly establishing who helped those in need in the past, through what means, and how they are helped now, and comparing whether there is a difference, and if so, which period is more favorable. However, here we will focus not on the data-based comparison of the event but on another aspect, the changing nature of help. For this reason, let's elaborate on the concept of help to fully understand the subject.

How Does a Person "Help" Others?

To analyze the judgment that people who were "very" altruistic in the past are now "less" altruistic, it would be beneficial to first reflect a little on the origin of altruism. The reason we write "very" and "less" in quotation marks is to indicate, as we have previously stated, that this is a judgment that needs to be proven.

Help, in its broadest definition, means using one's own *power* and resources for the benefit of "others."[5] There are countless types of help. Supporting, facilitating, providing opportunities, showing the way, and donating are all forms of help. To understand the reason for help's existence, let's first dwell a little on the question, "Why do we help others?" Naturally, this question assumes that help is a positive *attitude* and helping is a positive *behavior*. We maintain this assumption.

As a first step, let's look at what we need to possess to be able to help others. From this statement, we immediately understand that being able to help is a matter of "possession." Whether it is guidance, advice, *property*, or encouragement, the helper must have something to give to others. My late father used to say, 'If you are healthy, you hold someone's hand; if you have a horse or a car, you carry someone's load; if you have a house, you host someone; if you have something to cultivate and harvest, you give from it; every possession creates an opportunity to do good.' It seems that having something and using it for others is a prerequisite for goodness to emerge. Why would a person use what they have only for themselves instead of for others! This is the most critical *question*. General, vague answers like 'to be human' can be given to this question. But we still need to think about why being human and doing good are so intertwined.

Here we will address the issue from three perspectives. First, we will look at the role of help in preserving what is owned today, second, in transferring it to the future, and third, in the balanced distribution of existing opportunities and abilities within the *community*. We hope that the explanations on these three topics will provide an *explanation* regarding whether we were more altruistic in the past. Let's start with the first:

The Role of Help in Preserving What is Owned

There is a proverb that says, 'One eats, one watches; the apocalypse starts from that.' This *saying* expresses that if a few people benefit from what everyone wants to benefit from, and others are excluded, serious *conflict* will arise. The mutual respect of people living in the same environment for each other's possessions, that is, legitimizing this ownership, is closely related to the *actual* or *perceived* contribution of ownership to their own situation. Things people possess, influenced by many factors such as social, economic, political, and intellectual heritage, as well as diligence, perseverance, luck, etc., differentiate over time. As this difference increases, jealousies and questioning arise due to the legitimacy problem (you have it, why don't I). The lowest-cost *method* that makes the difference acceptable is the value judgments that ensure the difference is seen as legitimate by the parties. Ultimately, accepting the difference occurs with both parties accepting each other's situation. This acceptance is dependent on many preconditions. Among these conditions, the most prominent dimension is undoubtedly the state of future relationships between individuals. Proximity or distance in space, direct or indirect relationships, and the probability of living together for a longer time differentiate the perception of *legitimacy*. Same environment or long-term and stable relationships require long-term *investment*. We will touch upon this later.

If the person who has something gives a portion of it to the one who does not have it, i.e., the deprived person, then their ownership becomes more legitimate in the eyes of that person. Due to the *principle of reciprocity* at the root of relationships, which largely ensures legitimacy, the recipient of help fulfills their part by legitimizing the helper's ownership. Legitimizing difference and the ownership of others is essentially a relationship of *reciprocity*. For this reason, the more the one who has helps the one who does not, the more they increase the legitimacy of possessing what they have. As the number of those who do not covet what one has increases, it becomes easier to protect what exists, thus greatly reducing the cost of protecting it by reducing the number of those who see ownership as illegitimate or the intensity of that perception. Because possessions that are not seen as legitimate become more open to confiscation, looting, or theft. To protect them, it becomes necessary to create physical barriers (building warehouses, walls, borders, and guarding borders, etc.) or to use physical *force* (having guards, *private* security, police, soldiers, etc.). All forms of *force* usage have a cost. Moreover, protection cannot often be achieved alone. Therefore, it will be necessary to cooperate with someone for the use of *force*.

In short, there is an implicit or explicit *reciprocity* in helping processes. We defined help as using one's own *power* and resources for the benefit of others. It is quite difficult to justify help when what is for the benefit of others is to your detriment. For example, you do not help someone who is about to kill you by giving them a bullet when they run out of ammunition, but you can help someone who wants to kill you by giving them food so they don't starve when they run out of bullets, or by treating them and ensuring their survival. While in the first case (giving bullets) the harm to you is clear, in the second case (giving food or ensuring survival by treatment), whether they will harm you or not is at least uncertain at that moment. The low probability of them secretly harming you while you give them food or treat them (especially after the help), or even the high expectation that the gratitude they develop as a result of this action will positively reflect on you, can be decisive. Perhaps help is a good strategy precisely to achieve this.

Our first conclusion is that the person to be helped is expected to have a low capacity to harm the helper. Second, the recipient of help will show a decrease in their tendency to harm the helper, simply because of this help. Because help weakens the claim of the one who does not have to demand a *right* from the one who has in their favor. To the extent that what is given to the one who does not have prevents them from coveting what the one who has possesses, the costs of protecting what one has decrease. Cost-reducing options are always preferable.

Therefore, help provides great "benefit" not only to the recipient but also to the giver, now or in the future. That is, *'a little charity repels much trouble.'* For this reason, throughout *history*, it has been an appreciated and widely accepted practice for wealthy people to give generously to the less fortunate. Because direct help in this way benefits both parties, ultimately facilitating coexistence and yielding immediate results.

To be Continued Next Week: The Function of Help in Transferring What is Owned to the Future.

[1] Naturally, it cannot be said that there is a single perspective on the perception of the past in all people. The perception of past, good, and bad can differ for someone living in apartments in megacities, in small towns or villages, in shantytowns, during the feudal period, during the industrialization period, or during the digital revolution. Furthermore, the social class of the person during their lifetime (slave/poor/cleric/soldier/administrator/commander/private/rich/aristocrat/dynasty member, etc.) can lead to differences in their perception of good and bad regarding the past. For this reason, the *analysis* here may be valid for those who lived alongside the previous generation and evaluated the comparison of the two periods in their own lives in favor of the past, as stated.

[2] https://www.sosyalbilimlervakfi.org/tr/2021/11/batsin-bu-dunya-kasvetli-olmak-nicin-bu-kadar-havali/

[3] By hidden institutional structure, we mean regular understandings, beliefs, and values that do not require consciousness for their effects to emerge, not hidden organizations that conceal themselves.

[4] Tacit knowledge is knowledge that a person uses but cannot easily express verbally or in writing, and sometimes is not even aware they possess, gained mostly through *experience* (walking, talking, swimming, understanding, writing poetry, articulating a musical note, playing a musical instrument, using machines and tools, etc.).

[5] 'Where do the boundaries of oneself and others begin and end' is a very complex situation, so we are not entering into it at all.

Türkçe