Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social

Thought

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wrsp20

Reflection of the phenomenon of altruism in the

interdisciplinary context of social work

Hana Donéeová & Jakub Luksch

To cite this article: Hana Donéeová & Jakub Luksch (2025) Reflection of the phenomenon of
altruism in the interdisciplinary context of social work, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social
Work: Social Thought, 44:1, 27-43, DOI: 10.1080/15426432.2025.2451876

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15426432.2025.2451876

© 2025 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 23 Jan 2025.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 312

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wrsp20
JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT
2025, VOL. 44, NO. 1, 27–43
https://doi.org/10.1080/15426432.2025.2451876

Reflection of the phenomenon of altruism in the

interdisciplinary context of social work
a b
Hana Donéeová MA and Jakub Luksch MA
a
Department of Social Work and Caritas Studies, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech
Republic; bDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of South Bohemia, České
Budějovice, Czech Republic

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This theoretical study provides a multidisciplinary perspective Received 7 December 2023
on the phenomenon of altruism with the aim of reflecting on its Accepted 6 January 2025
significance in the social work profession. Considering its origins KEYWORDS
in religious traditions, the authors point to its significance within Altruism; social work;
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Subsequently, the importance Christianity; Judaism; Islam;
of altruism within philosophical concepts, developmental psy­ personality psychology;
chology and, last but not least, personality psychology is pre­ philosophy
sented. As social work adopts insights from other disciplines, the
authors do not neglect to emphasize altruistic concepts in the
context of maintaining professional ethics related to profes­
sional boundaries in the social worker-client relationship. The
aim is also to highlight the reflection of altruism in an interdis­
ciplinary context that can contribute to the strengthening of the
relationship between social workers and clients, which can con­
tribute to good social work practice.

Introduction
The presented theoretical study deals with the altruistic concept of personality.
At the outset, we consider it important to mention the difference between
prosocial behavior and altruism. Although the two terms are often considered
synonymous, “prosocial behavior per se is voluntary, intentional behavior that
benefits another person. Such behavior is considered altruistic if it is motivated
by a genuine desire to benefit another person without expecting to benefit
oneself” (Pachana, 2017, pp. 1–9). According to Comte, altruism is a type of
social behavior characterized by a selfless desire to live for others (Batson,
2016, p. 5).
Altruism, as a selfless concern for the welfare of others, has been the
subject of philosophical, religious, and psychological inquiry for many
centuries. This multidisciplinary inquiry draws on a variety of sources,
including religious texts such as the Bible (e.g., the Gospels of St. Luke,

CONTACT Hana Donéeová [email protected] Department of Social Work and Caritas Studies, University of
South Bohemia, Kněžská 8, České Budějovice 370 01, Czech Republic
© 2025 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
28 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

St. Matthew, and others) and the Qur’an, philosophical works by thinkers
such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, and psychological perspec­
tives on prosocial behavior. The concept of altruism is presented here as
a core principle of the social work profession, emphasizing its role in
building empathic bonds and motivating social workers to serve clients
effectively. In addition, the paper discusses the ethical implications of
altruism as outlined in the National Association of Social Workers Code
of Ethics. The importance of altruism in social workers’ career choices is
also highlighted, shedding light on the motivational force that drives
individuals to pursue social work. This comprehensive examination pro­
vides a nuanced understanding of the profound impact of altruism on
individuals, society, and professional practice, positioning it as
a fundamental element in promoting empathy, compassion, and ethical
behavior in a variety of settings.

Altruism in the tradition of Judaism and Christianity and Islam

If we mean by the phenomenon of altruism either a specific selfless action
of an individual that is directed toward the good of another, or a specific
motivational state leading to such an action (Blum, 2010, pp. 8–9), we
find a similar motive at the very core of the Judeo-Christian tradition,
which has fundamentally shaped the thinking of the entire Western
culture. In this tradition, the motif of altruism in question is particularly
associated with concepts such as neighbor, love, responsibility, and rela­
tionship. We will try to show what links it to these concepts in the
following lines.
Judaism can be viewed from two different but inextricably linked perspectives –
as a culture (uniting the Jewish people within a literary history) and as a religion
(uniting the Jewish people within a sacred history tied to a covenantal relationship
of promise to God). In this context, the evolving Jewish tradition has been under­
pinned over the centuries by several pillars from which the three basic principles of
Judaism emerge. By the pillars of Judaism, we mean the sacred texts of the Torah
(Pentateuch), the Tanakh (Bible), the Talmud with its numerous midrashim
(interpretations and interpretations of various texts, laws, rabbinic discussions,
etc.), the body of Jewish religious law called Halakhah, and the complex mystical
teachings called Kabbalah, which are based mainly on the texts of the books of Sefer
Yetzirah and the Zohar. Three formative principles then play a role in this written
and oral tradition. The first is the fundamental emphasis not only on belief but also
on action. All faith must be affirmed by the action associated with it. For example, it
is not enough to believe in mercy as a supreme principle: one must do mercy. At
the center of the second pillar is spiritual intimacy with the other person, the
neighbor. This can be achieved by imitating God’s attributes (especially through
the commandments). The third pillar is the spiritual potential of the Hebrew
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 29

language, which is closely linked precisely to mystical teaching. The last principle
then circles back to the first, namely through the fact that in Hebrew the roots of
words are primarily located in verbs, that is, in active forms (Lancaster & Rek, 2000,
pp. 10, 18–25, 34–62, 182–184). Although, as already mentioned, these principles
are inextricably linked and closely interrelated, in the context of this paper we will
be particularly interested in the second principle, which is precisely the main
source of altruism in the Jewish tradition.
The motive of merciful closeness to another human being has several
origins in Judaism. In this context, Lancaster and Rek (2000, pp. 144–145)
speaks of the Exodus as the most significant episode in the entire sacred
history of Judaism. It is then the awareness of the ancestral suffering of
slavery at the hands of the Egyptians that arouses in believers compassion
for their fellow human beings and the responsibility to deal justly with
them. This compassion, however, extends not only to “fellow-tribesmen”
but also to people who are strangers and immigrants whose complex and
difficult role the Jewish people experienced firsthand (5 M, 10:18,19, 2022).
Similar motifs of doing good in relation to another can be found in several
places in the Torah, perhaps the most significant example of which is found
in Leviticus 3 in the form of the commandment to love the other, for he is
my equal (3 M, 19:15–18, 2022). In a given situation, then, we are to act
toward the other as if it were our own. Part of this passage is subsequently
adopted in the Gospel of Matthew in verse 22:39, which will be discussed
later (Albright et al., 1971, p. 274).
“Near” is referred to in the original Hebrew text by the word re’a (Hebrew ‫ע‬ ַ ‫) ֵר‬,
which according to Buber can be translated as “Near” or “one near.” The term
points primarily to a relationship conditioned by spatial proximity based on
shared living conditions (collectives of work, friendship, war, local, social, etc.),
which then transfers to the other person in general. The given statements are then
interpreted in our (Greek-influenced) language by Buber as being kindly disposed
toward people with whom we constantly come into contact in our life journeys
(Buber, 2021, pp. 66–68). A parallel motif can be found in the Hebrew word acher
(Hebrew ‫חר‬ ֵ ‫א‬
ַ ), which can be translated as “other” or “different.” However, the
root of the word ach (Hebrew ‫אח‬ ָ ), which is translated as “brother,” is found not
only already in the fraternal story of Cain and Abel, but also in another word,
namely achrayut (Hebrew ‫ח ָרי ּות‬ ְ ‫א‬
ַ ), traditionally translated as “responsibility.”
The triad of these words (brother, other, responsibility) shows a deep linguistic
and ideological interconnectedness, with the other being like my brother, to
whom I bear some form of responsibility. The one to whom we have responsi­
bility, however, is not only the other meant as man, but also the other meant as
God, in whose “image” man was created (Chalier, 1993, p. 17; also Sacks &
Divecký, 2013, pp. 20–21).
Hence, proximate responsibility, mercy toward the other, and love for those
“near us” are essentially transcendent motifs running through the entire
30 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

tradition of Judaism, whether we are talking about Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, or

Kabbalah (Buber, 2021; also, pp. 84–85, 152; Lancaster & Rek, 2000, pp. 121,
141, 176; also Langer, 1993, pp. 24–31).
In the Christian tradition, we also find the phenomenon of altruism in the
New Testament, in the Gospels of Matthew or Luke. Subsequently, we can
encounter this phenomenon in both letters to the Corinthians or Galatians.
As for the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 22:39), it says: “The second is like unto
it: Love your neighbor as yourself,” which is taken as the second greatest com­
mandment that Jesus preached to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem. The
first commandment is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, and with all your mind.” This commandment responds to God’s selfless love
toward people. The follow-up, second commandment, then, implies that we
should love our neighbors with the same love with which we love God, because
it is the same love with which God loves us (Flek et al., 2009, pp. 492–493). “These
two commandments of love of God and neighbor are so important because in
them ‘rests,’ depends on them (v. 40 – so again only in Matthew) the whole Law,
Torah and Prophets!” (Limbeck, 1996, p. 225)
Subsequently, in the Gospel according to Luke (6:31) we find the so-called
Golden Rule, which to this day is taken as an ethical principle emphasizing
mutual justice and love between people. This is also the essence of social work,
as will be discussed below. This “golden rule,” according to the above verse
from the Gospel of Luke, is: “And as you would have men do to you, so do you
also to them.” However, there are two types of wording for this rule. The above
formulation is the so-called positive formulation. The second formulation is
the negative formulation, which can be found, for example, in Judaism,
specifically in a passage in the Babylonian Talmud. Here, the famous scholar
Rabbi Hillel summarizes the essence of the Torah’s teachings in one sentence,
which corresponds to the Golden Rule in its negative formulation: “What is
displeasing to you, do not do to another; this is the entire Law. . .” (Shabbat
31a:6, n.d.).
In the Gospel of St. Luke, we find not only the “Golden Rule” as such, but also
a practical example of charitable action, specifically in the Parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The main idea of this text is that by performing acts
of charity, the individual becomes a neighbor to specific people suffering in
unpredictable and challenging situations (Müller, 1998, p. 104).
In First Corinthians (13:4–7), the apostle Paul describes the attributes of
love according to the biblical perspective:

Love is patient, love is kind, love does not envy, love does not boast or vaunt itself; it is
not rude, it does not seek its own advantage, it is not quick-tempered, it does not count
injustice, it does not gloat, but rejoices in the truth; it bears all things, believes all things,
always hopes, endures all things.
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 31

Hence love has the following attributes: patience, kindness, unselfishness,

modesty, non-inflammability, and absence of anger. I often refer to this
verse as the “Hymn of Love.” In the sense of Christian social ethics, we can
consider the relativization and demands of Christian love as the internal logic
of seeking to change and shape social conditions in the sense of this perspec­
tive (Anzenbacher, 2004, p. 23).
The passage in Galatians (5:13) speaks of a freedom in Christ that is not
abused for its own sake, but is linked to a responsibility toward the other. “But
you, brethren, are called to liberty, that your liberty may be to the use of the
flesh; but through love obey one another.” The entire Epistle to the Galatians is
a so-called manifesto of Christian liberty, containing an explanation for
St. Paul’s teaching that a person is justified only because he believes in
Christ (Mackerle, 2014, p. 79).
In the Christian conception of the relationship with one’s neighbor, it can
therefore be stated that the emphasis is on love, service to others, and concern
for the welfare of others, all of which are values associated with altruism.
If we talk about altruism in Islam, we will be following to some extent the
previous two religions. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic
religion and a religion of the book. Based on the sermons of the Prophet
Muhammad, as a tradition, a cult and a discipline of life, it can be described as
a complex project of living in society. The three main sources of Islamic
teachings, then, are the holy book of the Qur’an (Arabic ‫)القرآن‬, the oral
tradition of the Hadith (Arabic ‫)حديث‬, and the formulations of the legal
writings of the Sharia (Arabic ‫)شريعة‬. The five basic prescribed principles
by which a Muslim follows in practicing the faith are prayer performed five
times a day, almsgiving (alms), fasting during the month of Ramadan, the holy
pilgrimage to Mecca, and the repetition of the testimony of faith in the oneness
of God and the prophetic mission of Muhammad (Reeber, 2006). According to
Matoušek (2012), good treatment of elderly parents and slaves, justice and
friendliness toward relatives and all people who are strangers, not touching the
property of orphans, and not killing children for fear of impoverishment are
also important parts of the principles of an orthodox Muslim.
Shaltout (2003) analyses the phenomenon of altruism in the Qur’an and
points out its universality. Altruistic behavior should not only be applied to the
benefit of fellow human beings but to all human beings as well as to nature and
the living sphere of the cosmos in general. A Muslim should act in a friendly
and pro-social manner irrespective of the gender, nationality, religion, lan­
guage, color, social class, and culture of the other. The essence of Islam,
according to the author, lies in the preservation of peace as the natural order
of things. The teachings of the Qur’an call for kindness and reconciliation
between Muslims and others, as well as among themselves, and for living in
harmony with nature. It sees wars and fighting as a disruption of this harmo­
nious order. Among other things, it also supports religious diversity and
32 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

freedom, as evidenced, for example, in the conclusion, by the positive relation­

ship and respect of the two previous religions mentioned.
So, in the Christian conception of the relationship with one’s neighbor, it
can be stated that the emphasis is on love, service to others, and concern for
the welfare of others, all of which are values associated with altruism.

Altruism in philosophy
A number of philosophers (especially those who have dealt to some extent with
the field of theology, for example) have tried to describe or analyze the phenom­
enon of prosocial behavior and human charity. To illustrate this, we will
consider two authors representing two fundamental ethical modes of thought,
teleology, and deontology (due to the limited scope of this text, we omit here
other complex but also influential and vibrant ethical movements such as virtue
ethics, authenticity ethics, and natural law ethics), and one author breaking out
of traditional systematic philosophy with his conception of ethics.
John Stuart Mill, for example, in his Utilitarian Ethics, postulates a so-called
utilitarian norm that must be followed if one wants to act ethically (i.e., well).
It consists in the principle that one must not act only for the greatest happiness
of oneself, but for the greatest happiness of the whole, even if this happiness
would mean unhappiness for oneself. Thus, the happiness and utility of others
would be superior in magnitude to the happiness and utility of the individual
acting in a given situation (Mill et al., 2011, pp. 51–52). Furthermore,
Immanuel Kant speaks of charity and argues that there is a duty to be
charitable where one can be charitable. However, this charity, in order to be
spoken of as morally relevant, must not come from self-serving motives and
inclinations, but from that duty to do good for others themselves. He illus­
trates the form of charity that carries moral value by the example of a person
whose mind “was clouded by his own grief.” Such a person, who would have to
deal with his own distress and would not be touched by the distress of others,
who would be by nature devoid of sympathy for others, cold and indifferent;
such a person if, in spite of the fact that no affection now stimulates him, he
were to break out of this state and only by virtue of duty begin to perform acts
of charity, then only such an act of charity by such a person would, according
to Kant, have moral value (Kant et al., 2014, pp. 17–18).
No matter which of the philosophers we examine, or how they view
a person’s prosocial actions or settings, we can see a fundamental emphasis
on the non-egoistic motivation of moral action. Blum (2010, pp. 3–4) later
points out that in order to speak of a morally pure motive for altruistic action,
then this motive must be non-egoistic, that is, based on a morality that is
capable of self-control. This theme is then analyzed in the work of Emmanuel
Lévinas, who discusses the origin of ethics, or the origin of doing good for the
other.
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 33

As a philosopher influenced by the phenomenological tradition and

Judaism, he is often included in the stream of philosophy of dialogue/dialogi­
cal personalism, from which his thought stands out to a large extent (Sikora &
Sirovátka, 2019, p. 79). According to Lévinas, the deepest essence of a person is
found in the space of the ethical, which is related to the fact that he attempted
to expose ethics as the first philosophy. Thus, the autonomy of the individual
plays a role in this ethics, but it has a heteronomous origin (Sirovátka, 2023,
p. 126). The central event in Lévinas’ philosophy is the face-to-face encounter
with the Other (French vis-à-vis). In this encounter, the full egoity of the
individual is disturbed to the extent that it is now confronted with the
subjectivity of the Other. But this subjectivity in the presence of the Other
operates in two ways – on the one hand, it brings the individual to the
realization that the Other is in many ways the same, but on the other hand
there is an essential Otherness within him or her that cannot be grasped. Thus,
in a face-to-face encounter, an asymmetrical relationship arises in which the
Other acts on the individual from above – as someone who gives the command
“Thou shalt not kill!” emanating from that irreducible Otherness implying the
trace of the Infinite, but also from below – as someone who is similar to him in
his mortality and who evokes in him the unconditional responsibility for the
life of that mortal. The face of the Other, which looks at me from two
perspectives, evokes in me, as the individual who encounters it, responsibility
for the life of its bearer, for his or her good, but also for his or her responsibility
itself (Lévinas, 1998; also, pp. 203–241; Lévinas, 1994; also, pp. 179, 181–184;
Lévinas, 1990, pp. 22–25).
Lévinas describes the origin of the emergence of prosocial action as an event
of encounter with the Other, in which as a human being I prefer the good of
the Other to my own. This “capping” of one’s own good for the good of the
Other carries within it the essentially metaphysical element of that trace of the
Infinite in the Other, that irreducible Otherness that can be interpreted as the
trace of God.

Altruism in psychology
According to R. J. Corsini (2002, p. 18), altruism is “unselfish behavior that
positively affects the survival, comfort, and state of mind of others;” it can take
different forms and vary in intensity from simple helping to sacrificing one’s
life for someone else. However, this behavior is not exclusive to humans, but
can also be observed in animals, indicating that it has an evolutionary func­
tion, that is, it helps those who are its object to free themselves from life’s
hardships to survive life’s serious hardships. In the animal kingdom, altruistic
behavior is crucial in promoting cooperation, social bonds, and overall survi­
val. Gauliya and Shukla (2019) emphasize that altruism involves the interac­
tion of two or more animals, and can be either within or between species. This
34 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

leads to the division of altruism into three types: interspecies, intraspecies, or

reciprocal altruism. Dr. Franciscus Bernardus Maria (2021) points to the
cooperation and social structure of primates that live in groups for mutual
support and survival, including foraging for food and protection from pre­
dators. He also talks about long-term friendships and mutual service based on
gratitude, suggesting the existence of an emotional mechanism in their society.
Altruistic behavior in animals is observable not only in primates but also in
other species. Among these species, reciprocal altruism can be cited in vampire
bats, which share blood with others when they have missed a meal.
Relationships between the two have been likened to friendship, not
a business transaction, and bats have long-term memory to balance sharing
over time (Yeoman, 2021). The phenomenon of altruism, grasped in just this
way, also manifests itself in humans.
Of the concept of personality and type, in simplified terms, personality in
psychology is understood as a set of internal psychological characteristics
(traits), which are divided into descriptive and explanatory; the former
describe the external manifestations of personality in behavior, while the latter
explain them, albeit such a concept is also criticized. However, factor models
of personality are widely accepted and applied in psychodiagnostics (currently,
in particular, the so-called “five strong factors” model), which are used to
explain human behavior; each of these factors, for example, extraversion,
correlating with a number of specific traits (e.g. extraversion with sociability,
openness and others), are seen as “facets” of the factors. Thus, the concept of
personality represents, in an overdetermined way, the internal arrangement of
factors and their “facets” as relatively stable dispositions of the psychological
subject toward his or her external manifestations (behavior). The concept of
type is understood inconsistently in psychology: it is generally understood as
a set of personality traits, analogous to the concept of syndrome, that is, as a set
of symptoms, for example, in medicine. There are different psychological
theories of personality and types and their different systems (typologies). In
this note, however, we will understand the concept of personality as an
internal set of dispositions and the concept of type as a set of intercorrelated
personality traits or characteristics, which has the nature of a factor determin­
ing the manifestations of personality.
We adopt a clear definition of the altruistic personality type according
to the prominent German social psychologist Gűnterä Wiswede (2004,
p. 20), who understands the concept of altruistic personality as
a ‘dispositional co-opponent of altruistic behaviour,‘ adding to this defi­
nition that ’altruistic behavior is often restricted to few and certain
interaction partners to whom there are close, especially also kinship
relations,‘ and that there is a ’situation-interfering personal disposition
to take care of other people’s well-being as well.‘ Wiswede (2004) then
adds the following list of Penner and Finkelstein’s ’central components of
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 35

altruism‘ – (a) pursuing a norm of social responsibility, (b) a high degree

of empathy and compassion, and (c) strong controlling beliefs with at the
same time little Machiavellianism. Of these listed concepts, only the third,
coupled in the following discussion (Wiswede, p. 576ff.) with a tendency
to control (Wiswede, p. 331ff.), requires more explanation. At this point
Wiswede again (his cited work is a ’lexicon,‘ so his references to other
authors in the entries in question are natural) resorts to introducing
a foreign concept, this time that of the very eminent American social
psychologist Rotter. According to him, ’control beliefs
(‘Kontrollűberzeugung’) are ‘generalized expectations of internal vs. exter­
nal control reinforcement (.) Especially in situations in which persons
have no situation-specific expectations.’ The internal control instance
consists of the control function of the self (to prevent the subject from
getting into unpleasant conflicts with the social environment and the
‘conscience,’ that is, the level of development of his personal morality.
The external sources of social control are then positive and negative
sanctions, which function as feedback, or in learning terms, internal and
external rewards and punishments. If we ask how these ‘control mechan­
isms’ are related to altruism, or what function they play in altruistic
attitudes and ways of acting, it is the above view that explains it, that it
is essentially a more or less developed personal morality. In the psycho­
analytic view, it was an instance of the superego, controlling psychic
imperatives from interiorized moral values, and an instance of the ego,
controlling, according to the reality principle, the observance of rules of
decent behavior (personal morality and personal decency are not the same
thing). If we restrict ourselves to internal and external forms of social
control, according to Wiswede (p. 329) then (1) internal control means
‘the ability of the individual to control and sanction himself on the basis
of internalized values and norms’ and (2) external control ”is the area
where, on the basis of deficient internalization and/or because of high
reward values, deviant behavior has required social control.” In a broader
and more comprehensible formulation, internal control of behavior
means self-control based on self-reward and self-punishment (e.g., feel­
ings of pride for an act performed or shame for something done in
violation of moral sensibilities), and external control of behavior means
gaining external rewards (praise, respect, etc.) or external punishments
(condemnation, disgust, punishment). The two forms in the individual,
however, function in more or less balanced unity.

How is altruism expressed in social work?

Last but not least, the question arises as to how altruism manifests itself in
social work and in the ethics of social work that is associated with it. Altruism
36 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

is a fundamental concept for within the social work profession as it helps social
service clients, that is, people in difficult life situations, to make social changes.
Altruistic behavior in social work can be observed not only with
individuals but also with different groups, families, or communities. It is
the elements of altruism that bring with them the expressions of empathy
and belonging that are necessary to build a trusting relationship between
social worker and client. The degree of altruism also plays a significant
role in the choice of social work as a life career. Altuna and Peterson
(2024) point out in their study regarding adverse childhood experiences
and altruism and its influence on the choice of social work profession that
altruism plays a significant role in the choice of profession. Thus, it is
a kind of driving force that helps social workers in pursuing the profes­
sion. As far as childhood traumas are concerned, no association with the
choice of profession was found. Therefore, we can conclude that the value
of altruism is already related to the choice of profession and it is therefore
a value that motivates social workers to pursue this profession with
purpose.
From a psychological point of view, an important aspect of altruism in
social work is the stages of altruistic behavior, the classification of which is
given here according to J. W. Vander Zanden (1987, p, 311); the scheme
expresses the perception and action steps of the subject: Figure 1.

Direct

intervention

Decision that the entity is

the only person responsible

Interpreting an event as

an emergency

Perception of
Indirect intervention
the situation Decision that the entity (reporting of others)
is not the only person

Interpretation of the event as

not an emergency, not

requiring assistance

Figure 1. The scheme of altruistic behavior according to J. W. Vander Zanden (edited).

 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 37

The scheme can be described as follows.

(1) The subject perceives a certain event related to a social situation in

which he or she is present.
(2) He or she interprets it as either a state of emergency of a certain
individual, thus requiring his or her help, or a situation that does not
require the help of another person.
(3) If more than one person is present in a given situation of an individual’s
distress, our subject may decide that he or she is responsible, for
example, that as a physician he or she can provide help to an individual
affected by some accident, or that he or she is not competent to provide
help and there are others who can provide help, or that he or she is not
competent to provide help and there are others who could provide
help – typically, for example, the exclamation: “It’s a doctor.”
(4) If he or she perceives the situation of an individual as an emergency,
that is, requiring help, and considers himself or herself responsible,
competent, he or she decides to intervene either directly or indirectly;
direct intervention means direct help – if we take, for example, indirect
intervention means that he or she alerts another person to the fact that
something has happened, that there is a person lying in the street, or
calls for an ambulance or police.

The scheme is incomplete, however, because the subject observing the other
may remain in the position of a mere observer or withdraw from the
situation in order not to suffer any loss, for example, to avoid having to
drive an individual who is bleeding and injured to the hospital in his or her
car, because he or she is egoistic rather than altruistic, when he or she is
applying the almost universal principle of social psychology applicable to
social interactions, the cost-benefit calculus, according to which people are
concerned about their expenditures (that is, rewards in the psychological
sense, from gaining material rewards, starting with money, gaining admira­
tion for sacrifice and bravery, to various honors and other symbolic
rewards). Quite a few people avoid the potential losses in such situations
by justifying their avoidance. This is the rationalization of avoiding help,
especially direct help that involves some losses (punishment in the psycho­
logical sense). The phenomenon of the “bystander,” that is, the mere
spectator, is quite common in the circumstances of perceiving another
person’s distress. The fear of “expenditure” is accompanied by an increase
in the level of excitement, arousal reduces unpleasant excitement, and the
awareness of possible social rejection is reduced by rationalization (that
remarkable ability of many people to “rationalize” almost everything they
do contrary to “good manners”). The above is expressed by the arousal
cost-reward-model. Evolutionists who understand prosocial behavior in
38 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

general as a socio-biologically expedient factor promoting survival and the

prospect of reproducing the genetic makeup. This refers to two supposedly
innate factors of altruism, namely the so-called reciprocal and kin altruism.
In the first case, reciprocal rewarding is on the basis of the “once I to you,
twice you to me” activity observed in naturally living peoples, where the
spoils obtained by hunting together are equally shared, but there are not
a few social parasites living together, living programmatically at the expense
of others. In the second case is the tendency to express altruism in relatives,
that is, persons who share a certain level of genetic equipment with the
subject of altruism, a prominent case being the relationship between par­
ents and children. However, in a culture as developed as that of the West,
this is also generally not the case.
Finally, it should be noted that the consequences of giving help are
related both to the degree of effectiveness or success of that help, and
also that help may sometimes be refused by those to whom it is offered
(these are cases of suicide, except for those “attempted” suicides that are
only feigned).
The social worker should also provide help and support to the client in
difficult life situations, which is related to the diversity of target groups of
clients with whom the social worker may come into contact (seniors,
people with mental illness, people who are socially disadvantaged, people
who are without a home, people who are substance users, people who are
gender non-conforming, and others). A social worker should help every­
one, regardless of ethnicity, religion or political affiliation, just like the
Samaritan (an ethno-religious group with a different view of religion and
culture) who helped a man who was elderly and being mugged by robbers.
He gave him first aid, cared for him, and took him to an inn where he
paid the innkeeper to treat him (Luke 10:25–37). The parable of the Good
Samaritan is not only an example of love for another person, but also
a model of charity as it describes a sequence of actions that characterize
effective help (Matoušek, 2012, pp. 36–37). This is also related to the fact
that the social worker works with different target groups, including people
who are the most marginalized.
The phenomenon of altruism, which has its roots in the 19th century when
Auguste Comte referred to the ethical doctrine of self-sacrifice (F. G. Reamer,
2017) and has its foundations in religion, is part of ethics in social work. It is
altruism that is a fundamental element of ethical decision making, emphasiz­
ing unbridled concern for the welfare and support of others. Already in the
definition of social work we can find that

social work is a practice-based profession and academic discipline that promotes social
change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people.
The principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 39

diversity are central to the profession. Drawing on theories of social work, social science,
the humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to
solve life’s problems and enhance well-being. The above definition can be expanded at the
national and/or regional level. (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014)

“This definition implies that social work leads from knowledge of reality to
action that is guided by values.” (Opatrný & Lehner, 2010, p. 36). The National
Association of Social Workers (National Association of Social Workers NASW,
2021), Code of Ethics focuses on the value of service and altruism in social work.
It emphasizes that one of the primary principles of social work is to help people
in need and thus solve social problems. This very principle, or value, is based on
social workers’ altruism, where social workers elevate helping others above their
own interests and use their knowledge, values and skills to solve social problems.
F. G. Reamer (2024) points out that the application of altruism in the social work
profession requires what is called effective altruism, which emphasizes the fair
and sensible allocation of scarce resources in helping people. Effective altruism
also requires empirical evidence of effectiveness, which coincides with social
work’s emphasis on evidence-based decision making and outcome measure­
ment. In addition, effective altruism’s focus on distributive justice and the
promotion of equity and fairness in resource allocation is consistent with social
work’s mission to address historical patterns of inequality, discrimination, and
affirmative action. Overall, then, effective altruism is a compelling conceptual
and practical framework that aims to enhance the contribution of the social
work profession and is consistent with its values.
Since altruism plays a large role in the ethical basis of social work, various
ethical dilemmas are related to it. In the context of effective altruism,
F. G. Reamer (2024) points out that it can undermine the productive outcomes
of capitalism, promote a politically or socially motivated agenda in an unten­
able way, and ignore the systemic causes of serious social problems such as
poverty. Among other dilemmas within social work ethics, we can mention the
unclear boundaries in the social worker – client relationship. This problem is
not only an ethical problem, but also a professional one, as it can have
a detrimental effect on further cooperation with the client. F. C. Reamer
(2006) distinguishes five categories of dilemma situations (intimate relation­
ships, personal gain, altruistic expressions, seeking answers to one’s own
emotional needs and a defense mechanism to unforeseen situations) that can
occur if boundaries in the social worker – client relationship are not clearly
established. As mentioned above, the value of altruism in the context of social
work is understood as self-denial and self-sacrifice that leads to actions that
benefit other people (social service clients), often without expectation of
return. However, altruistic acts can be a source of dilemmas, especially when
they touch on the personal boundaries of the social worker or when they can
be perceived as crossing professional boundaries. An example of this may be
a social worker’s strong impulse to help a client outside the scope of his or her
40 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

job responsibilities. These manifestations are typical of the so-called com­

mitted social worker, who often compensates for something through their
work, such as feelings of loneliness, self-esteem. . . These workers may not
infrequently have excessive control over their clients or a strong tendency to
sacrifice themselves for their clients, which can undermine trust and the
integrity of the relationship (Kopřiva & Šiklová, 2016). To prevent these
dilemmas, it is essential that social workers are able to clearly define and
maintain professional boundaries, including the boundaries between personal
and professional life. Clear communication with clients and regular reflection
on their own practice in regular supervision can help them to do this. Equally
important, according to F. G. Reamer (2006), is the knowledge of ethical rules
(the organization’s code of ethics) that should be followed in social work to
avoid ethical dilemmas related to altruism and other categories of dilemma
situations. This framework should include clear guidelines on the relationship
between social workers and clients, including the boundaries that should be
respected and the procedures that should be followed when these boundaries
are crossed.
As discussed, altruism within the social work profession is not merely a
value, but also a way of life or a driving force for social workers that is not
only manifested in their profession. It is therefore the foundation on which
they build their relationships with social service clients and which guides
them in their constant efforts to improve the living conditions of those who
find themselves in adverse life situations. Despite the risks associated with
excessive altruism (altruistic acts) as mentioned above, it remains the basis
for the profession and contributes to its effectiveness.

Conclusion
In the conclusion it is important to summarize how different perspec­
tives on altruism and prosocial behavior contribute to the understanding
and application of these concepts within social work. As we have shown,
altruism is a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in religious traditions.
In Judaism, this phenomenon is not only found in the core sacred texts,
but is also woven into the very language system of that culture.
Christianity draws to some extent on the tradition of Judaism, but it
emphasizes in particular the element of love of neighbor, which, as the
parable of the Good Samaritan points out, is every human being,
regardless of differences in identity, religious affiliation or ethnic origin.
Islam, in turn, builds to some extent on the previous two religions, also
emphasizing universal pro-social action through the sacred text (the
Qur’an) and oral tradition. Within the philosophical traditions, the
concept of altruism is specific in its difficulty in capturing the diversity
and multiplicity of the various approaches, which often differ only in
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 41

subtle nuances but often in fundamental differences. In the text, the

conceptions of John Stuart Mill, representative of utilitarianism, and
Immanuel Kant, representative of deontology, were introduced. Then
the non-normative philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas was pointed out,
which sees the origin of altruistic action in the insight of the mortality
of the Other and the trace of the Infinite in him. In the context of
developmental psychology, on the other hand, it is a cardinal disposition
to prosocial behavior that is the basis of every person’s morality. At the
same time, personality psychology views altruism in terms of altruistic
behavior, where the individual acts in the interests of others by prior­
itizing his or her own interests. It is therefore an altruistic pattern of
behavior.
Within social work, it is essential that social workers not only have
a theoretical understanding of altruism, but also the practical skills and
personal dispositions that enable them to apply these principles success­
fully in their work. This includes the capacity for empathy, an under­
standing of clients’ needs, and a willingness to go above and beyond the
call of duty for the good of others. At the same time, however, it is
important that social workers are strong personalities who can maintain
healthy professional boundaries to ensure that they not only effectively
assist clients but also protect their own emotional and physical well-
being.
In the interdisciplinary context of social work, altruism is much more than
a mere concept. As has been pointed out, it is a set of practices that have their
roots in religion, philosophy, psychology, and other disciplines from which
they are continually developed and refined. Social workers who are aware of
this complexity may be able to effectively integrate altruism into their practice
and contribute to the development of good social work practice that can bring
about positive change in society.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This article was funded by Project GAJU 120/2022/H Humanities in the context of the post-
secular turn and it was also funded by Project GAJU 015/2023/H Conceptualizing psycholo­
gical bonding between social workers and their clients in homes for the elderly and in shelters.
Jihočeská Univerzita v Českých Budějovicích.
42 H. DONÉEOVÁ AND J. LUKSCH

ORCID
Hana Donéeová MA http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8657-2429
Jakub Luksch MA http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5570-3887

References
Albright, W. F., Freedman, D. N., & Mann, C. S. (1971). The anchor bible (Vol. 26). Matthew.
Altuna, B., Peterson, N. S. (2024, May). Adverse childhood experiences and altruism: The Impact
on social work as a career choice [Unpublished manuscript]. California State University-San
Bernardino.
Anzenbacher, A. (2004). Křesťanská sociální etika: Úvod a principy (1st ed.). Centrum pro
studium demokracie a kultury (CDK).
Batson, C. D. (2016). ALTRUISM QUESTION: Toward a social-psychological answer.
PSYCHOLOGY Press.
Blum, L. A. (2010). Friendship, altruism and morality. Routledge revivals: 2010: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Buber, M. (2021). Dvojí způsob víry (1st ed.). Malvern.
Chalier C. (1993). Židovská jedinečnost a filosofie (3rd ed.). Filosofický ústav AV ČR.
Chamiša chumšej Tora: Im ha-haftarot = Pět knih Mojžíšových: včetně haftarot (2nd ed.).
(2022). Sefer.
Corsini, R. J. (2002). The dictionary of psychology. Brunner/Mazel.
Flek, A., Hedánek, J., & Sýkora, Z. (Eds.). (2009). Bible: Překlad 21.století (1st ed.). Biblion.
Franciscus, B. M. D. W. (2021, July 13). Animal altruism: Nature isn’t as cruel as the discovery
channel says Big Think. https://bigthink.com/life/animal-altruism/
Gauliya, K., & Shukla, A. (2019). Altruism in animals and classification: A view. Anusandhan
Vatika, III, 5–7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330506597_Altruism_in_
Animals_and_Classification_A_view
International Federation of Social Workers. (2014). Global definition of social work. https://
www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/
Kant, I., Menzel, L., Barabas, M., & Kouba, P. (2014). Základy metafyziky mravů.
OIKOYMENH.
Kopřiva, K., & Šiklová, J. (2016). Lidský vztah jako součást profese. Portál.
Lancaster, B., & Rek, J. (2000). Judaismus. Ikar.
Langer, J. (1993). Talmud - ukázky a dějiny. Práh.
Levinas, E. (1998). Totalité et infini: Essai sur l’extériorité. Le livre de poche: 4120. Biblio Essais.
Kluwer Academic.
Lévinas, E. (1990). Autrement qu’etre ou au-delas de l’essence Le livre de poche: 4121. Biblio:
essais. Librairie Generale Francaise.
Lévinas, E. (1994). Etika a nekonečno. OIKOYMENH.
Limbeck, M. (1996). Evangelium sv. Matouše. Karmelitánské nakladatelství.
Mackerle, A. (2014). Bible - mnoho hlasů, jedno slovo. Jihočeská univerzita, Teologická fakulta.
Matoušek, O. (2012). Základy sociální práce (3rd ed.). Portál.
Mill, J. S., Šprunk, K., & Sousedík, S. (2011). Utilitarismus (1st ed.). Vyšehrad.
Müller, P.-G. (1998). Evangelium sv. Lukáše. Karmelitánské nakladatelství.
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). National association of social workers code of
ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Opatrný, M., & Lehner, M. (2010). Teorie a praxe charitativní práce: uvedení do problematiky :
praktická reflexe a aplikace =. Theorie und Praxis der karitativen Arbeit : Einführung in die
 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY IN SOCIAL WORK: SOCIAL THOUGHT 43

Problematik : praktische Reflexion und Anwendung. Jihočeská univerzita. http://toc.nkp.cz/

NKC/201006/contents/nkc20102105234_1.pdf
Pachana N. A. (2017). Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Springer.
Reamer, F. C. (2006). Social work values and ethics (3rd ed.) Columbia University Press.
Reamer, F. G. (2006). Social work values and ethics. In Foundations of social work knowledge
(3rd ed.) Columbia University Press.
Reamer, F. G. (2017). Eye on ethics: The joys and challenges of altruism. Social Work Today, 17
(2), 8. https://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/032117p08.shtml
Reamer, F. G. (2024). Effective altruism: Implications for the social Work profession: Part II.
The International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 21(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.
55521/10-021-107
Reeber, M. (2006). Velká světová náboženství. Levné knihy KMa.
Sacks, J., & Divecký, J. (2013). O svobodě a náboženství: Třicet šest zamyšlení rabína Sackse nad
věčně živými tématy biblických příběhů (2nd ed.). P3K.
Sefaria. (n.d.). Shabbat 31a: 6. https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.31a.6?lang=bi
Shaltout, M. (2003, March 23–24). Altruism in Islam and holy quran [conference presentation].
Workshop on encoding altruism: the art and science of interstellar messages composition,
France, Paris. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267736270_ALTRUISM_IN_
ISLAM_AND_HOLY_QURAN
Sikora, O., & Sirovátka, J. (2019). Lévinas v konfrontaci (1st ed.). OIKOYMENH.
Sirovátka, J. (2023). Autonomie a alterita: Kant a fenomenologie. Pavel Mervart.
Vander Zanden, J. W. (1987). Social psychology (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Wiswede, G. (2004). Sozialpsychologie-Lexikon. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9783486815641
Yeoman, B. (2021, June 1). Animal altruism. National Wildlife. https://www.nwf.org/Home/
Magazines/National-Wildlife/2021/June-July/Conservation/Animal-Altruism