Although, as Eric Hoffer wrote in the True Believer, some people feel a need to identify with something larger and more powerful then themselves. This motivation could reflect itself in both positive altruism as well as acts that are seen by many as negative. Either through normative influence or individual psychological need, or both, this motivation and identification could result in what Durkheim titled altruistic suicide, where individuals are too cohesively integrated into their social group.  Altruistic suicide can then arise out of a sense of duty to the group or as the reciprocal payment of  status and honor provided by the group (Portes, 1998, p. 9).  Such altruistic suicides can be seen with Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers.  This would be a strong form of group selection or even genetic identity altruism in which an individual sacrifices their life for the group.

Outgroup threats can also facilitate group selection and genetic group identify. Where there is a threat to the group, ingroup cohesion makes sense to support inclusive fitness.  If there is no threat, individual selfishness would be the best strategy. (who).  Sumner linked ingroup cohesion with outgroup hostility, although Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one's in groups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups (Brewer, 1999). Still, Sherif demonstrated that arbitrarily dividing individuals in groups can foster ingroup bias and outgroup hostility (Alexander, 1998).  Brewer (1999) believes that segmentation and primary categorization, as sometimes found in religion, would result in very strong ingroup favoritism and outgroup antagonism.  Religious symbols and behaviors then serve to increase distinctiveness and serve as a form of boundary maintenance so that ingroup benefits will not be indiscriminately extended to outgroup members (Brewer, 1999). 

Indiscriminate altruism is not feasible as it is not realistic to expect that anyone you meet will reciprocate (Hartman, 1998, p. 179-85).  Game theory … add birds. The most evolutionary stable strategy is what could be termed "calculated reciprocity" vice indiscriminate altruism or just free riding (Grant, 2000, p. 5). In calculated reciprocity, altruistic acts are performed but when not reciprocated, they are not provided again. Game theory.  In a mixture of altruistic and nonaltruistic individuals, altruists should diminish over time. "This is because nonaltruists benefit from the altruists without paying the cost of reduced fitness of altruism. The group might prosper, but each generation would have fewer altruists until they disappeared completely from the group (Kunz, 2000, p. 46). The boundary of limiting aid to ingroup members is a form of contingent altruism that limits the cost and risk of nonreciprocation.  Therefore, ingroups become boundary communities (Brewer, 1999), and boundary maintenance serves to define and limit the ingroup.   Sharply drawn boundaries between ingroups and outgroups facilitate and justify unequal treatment.  (Tilly, 1998,  p. 88).

Kin altruism, group identity, and categorization results in humans having a tendency to be both naturally xenophobic and ethnocentric - that is we are both fearful of strangers and believe that our nation, culture, or race is superior to others. Our circle of concern starts with ourselves, then our families, then our tribe, then our race, then our city-state, then finally, to others.

The Jewish Scriptures, the Law and Prophets, and for the Christians, the Old Testament, proclaims that God cares for widows, orphans, and aliens (Deut. 10: 18; Ps. 146: 9) as well as other nations (Isa. 19:20-25), some of whom at the time where historic enemies of Israel (Egypt and Assyria). Or, in another way to look at it, the hated and despised outgroups are still recipients of the God of Israel's care. One passage even sets forth a clear altruistic vision of assistance "When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings. When you beat your olive trees, do not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow." (Deut. 24: 19-21).

Classical Christian theology would agree with sociobiologists who insist the selfish gene trumps all. Yet, the teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon of the Mount, would reject kin, reciprocal, and group altruism in favor for what could be called a pure altruism. Christians are enjoined to not reciprocate evil for evil, but return good for evil (Matthew 5:38 -42); to pray and donate funds privately, not publicly.  Jesus even expands kin selection by proclaiming God as the father of all.  The best example of faith based altruism can be found in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. In response to the question of who is my neighbor, Jesus tells the story of a man robbed and left for dead who is not assisted by his ingroup or kin or even by those ought to help, but by a Samaritan, literally a half breed, despised for being impure. The point of Jesus' message is that our neighbor is not just those close to us, but the stranger.  Our neighbor is the one what we naturally are not drawn to help. When we help our neighbor, we do so not out of a calculated reciprocity or even out of a sense that we feel good when we do so.  To do good is not to do good, but to follow the moral imperative that Jesus showed us, demonstrated for us, and taught us.  We follow Jesus' actions not because it feels good, not because if we do good, God will do good by us, but we follow Jesus' actions because God has called us to transcend our biology as spiritual beings.

Fill out If we just do good to those that do good to us, what virtue is that as even the ungodly do that.  These verse repudiate the naturalistic view that all behavior is essential selfish and in fact call us to transcend nature to operate with a spiritual nature that does more than reciprocate actions tit for tat.

Human freedom allows us to transcend biology through the exercise of individual free will and though cultural learning.  Understanding human nature and the causative factors underling human behaviors allows us to develop a vision or goal, for both society and as individuals.  As George C. Williams wrote, "An unremitting effort is required to expand the circle of sympathy for others. This effort is in opposition to much of human nature" (Rolston 1999, p. 264). And Dawkins writes, "Let us teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (1976, p. 3). Sociobiology would agree with some theological formulations that believe we are naturally inclined towards selfishness.  However, as creatures shaped and formed by culture as well as possessing religious sentiments, we can transcend our biology. In this sense, culture allows for the development of moral claims that transcend human biology (Pope, 1998, p. 545).