This interpretation of the natural state of humanity, while countering Hobbes� view of governed man, gives occasion to a lack of altruistic cause in contemporary human society due to its digression from its natural state; so the egoistic cause becomes predominant in humanity�s manufactured social state due to physical and moral atrophy and weakness. Both Hobbes and Rousseau have compelling portraits of humanity�s motives. Hobbes has our nature being from egoistic origins to egoistic ends; while Rousseau does not see egoism dominating our origin, but culminating in our exodus from nature into modern, self-made environments.
Rousseau�s portrait of early, natural, human life reflects primarily on the individual. Darwin�s observations of organization in early communities act as stepping-stones from Rousseau�s state of nature into the pre-modern social state. Darwin explores the development of the sympathetic instinct, and how it helped to express altruistic urges�before Hobbes� idea of predilection towards government, and Rousseau�s idea of enervation through society.
Darwin�s observations of praise and reproach in primitive tribes give insight into the early capacity for sympathy in humanity�s nature; �that the members of the same tribe would approve of conduct which appeared to them to be for the general good, and reprobate that which appeared evil.� This moral faculty is rooted in many species� instincts, as Darwin states, �even dogs appreciate encouragement.� He writes that,
Ultimately a highly complex sentiment, having its first origin in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellowmen, ruled by reason, self-interest, and � confirmed by instruction and habit, all combined, constitute our moral sense of conscience.

Darwin sees this approbative activity linking with the building of sympathy, fidelity, and courage within a group. Individuals that work together receive approval from each other, while not working together brings shame and failure to the group: �Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected.� A community of humans that exhibit these tendencies more readily is more likely to succeed and survive, because they are �always ready to warn each other of danger [and] to aid and defend each other.�
The disposition to reciprocity, fostered from receiving approval by the group for acts that work to further the community, is a strong indication of the existence of altruistic thought in early human development; even as it tended to be better for the individual to remain in a tightly knit tribe. Kant�s theory of a categorical imperative relates to humanity�s natural inclination towards good will and duty within the community.
Kant�s idea of universal morality argues that humanity �ought never to act except in such a way that [she] can also will that [her] maxim should become a universal law.� As this moral root works to direct the process of praise and blame in a community because it is an innate characteristic of human nature; the absolute idea of altruistic action exists as a function of communal living, just as egoism exists to preserve the life of the autonomous individual. That both states of autonomy within nature and community within social tribes exist in our past as histories of our natural development, both egoism and altruism can be seen working to organize our actions relative to our social environment. Kant�s theory of a categorical imperative removes nature from taking praise or blame for our moral situation. Of any action�altruistic, or egoistic�Kant�s theory says that �the [individual] human being is alone its author� That it is ultimately our free will that determines our actions, it is increasingly important to discover why self-regarding behaviour has become so common in the contemporary human experience.
When Descartes argues for the existence of truth based on the existence of his thought, he introduces a view of egoism to which there is no denying: �That this truth �I am thinking, therefore I exist� [is] so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics [are] incapable of shaking it.� To have such an egotistical, irrefutable truth as the starting point for a philosophical thought that became increasingly popular, Descartes increased the stature of egoism by placing it before altruism�as a truth. Kant�s take on truth through the knowledge of ones own existence differs from Descartes; because Kant asks how one can know she is existing unless she is aware of something permanent outside of herself from which she can distinguish herself. She is aware of herself; therefore there is something permanent outside of her. This way of viewing Descartes problem of truth allows for an altruistic motive because it does not presuppose the interior before the exterior: The two exist together symbiotically. Unfortunately, this idea did not gain the household commonplaceness that Descartes� did, and Darwin�s ideas are still widely contested in the West. Most, if not all philosophies that have become absorbed into the western, secularist moral vernacular have been predominantly egoism and capitalism promoting. It is entirely possible that humanity�s will to be in this state is how we came here; but if we are responsible for our own nurturing�having utterly created our own world around us�are we not historically responsible for our current state?
It is my view that, because of a long history of western, egotistical, philosophical arguments, contemporary western society seldom acknowledges anything other than self-satisfaction. The major problem with this state of egoism is its manifestation in a largely overpopulated human state. The burden placed by this uncontrolled consumption is crippling and destroying the natural environment we can exist in on earth. While contemporary shifts toward sustainable diets and environmental ethics may seem an altruistic course for humankind, there is very little that is altruistic about these trends because of how much they benefit the individuals that promote them. Being in a market driven population, the products said to produce cleaner effects and sustainable solutions are sold as progress to the majority by a minority interested in profit. That the philosophers of the Enlightenment do not cover ideas on profit�s place in human nature, our current state is uncertainly progressive. If we are indeed responsible for our moral actions, and also for creating the environments that nurture us; perhaps through constructive education, based in secularism and biased with altruistic thoughts, we will begin to affect and equal out our unfortunate heavy lean on the ego.