Altruism: The price of nice

Peter Kropotkin, circa 1900
Public Domain

It seems that religion is trying to teach humans what many animals already practice.  There are numerous examples of four-legged heroes that greatly assist their fellow beings.

Prince Peter Kropotkin, famous challenger of the narrowness of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, published a book called Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution in 1902.  He offered this explanation for why mutual aid has been so prevalent within the animal world: The mutual protection which is obtained in this case... secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution.  The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.

Although altruism might indeed promote the progression of a species, it often comes at an enormous price to the individual.  The individual cost often increases in direct proportion to the amount of risk and sacrifice involved (think martyrdom).

A dog that rushes back into a burning building to save its master can succumb to the smoke.  Humans have fared no better in this regard.  Many a firefighting hero died on September 11, 2001 while attempting to save those who were trapped in the towering inferno.

Why then do most religions teach the virtues of altruism?  Is it because they wish to promote survival of the species at the cost of the individual?  Or can it be that their view of existence goes far beyond either Darwin's "survival" or Kropotkin's "progression"?

When ultimate treasures are perceived to be "not of this world," then the rules radically change.  "Survival of the fittest" becomes "salvation of the meekest."  The last becomes the first, and the omega becomes the alpha.  It's a revolution that goes far beyond that of either science or politics.

Resources

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism/