Chapter 6 Genesmanship

In which Dawkins explains (away) altruism

So, the only way an altruistic gene could become frequent enough in the gene pool to exist in a large number in the species is if the sacrifice it made in the individual was able to save enough replicas of itself in other individuals. This would be best accomplished by being altruistic towards children and direct siblings as they share 50% of the survival machines genetic material. However, children are even better (for the mother at least) because you can be sure the children are genetically related to you while a sibling may simply be deceiving you. The reason why children don't usually altruistically sacrifice themselves for parents is because they're usually in a less capable position to do so and the Parents have already fulfilled there reproductive function and are nearing the end of the end of their live making them less valuable.
So Dawkins theory is that our genes make us behave in a way as if we calculate the worth of helping a sibling. This takes into account how much the action would harm us and whether its worth the help done towards other copies of the same genes. Killing yourself would easily be worth saving 5 brothers or children because 5 x 50% is 250% and you only contain 100% of your own genes, therefor the sacrifice is clearly beneficial. However taking a slight risk to yourself to help out one brother or child is okay as long as it isn't very detrimental to your survival.
In species where communities are normally close kin or someone in a position to reciprocate the favor the genes aren't as specific as "Help any family member" because its very difficult to distinguish family from non family without records, so the genes say something more like "Help any member of the same species."
This was the case with humans. We evolved living in very small, tight knit communities so any gene for same species altruism would have quickly spread throughout the gene pool because the gene would save more replicas of itself then it would sacrifice, and so humans behave altruistically towards other humans. This ends up misfiring in today's society where we are no longer restricted to small, tightly knit communities. Charity towards a stranger, a homeless man, charity organizations, Dawkins would say, are all misfiring of genes meant to help only relatives or those in a position to reciprocate the charity.
This may seem needlessly similar to many people (especially religious people) but it actually makes perfect sense and their bias is preventing them from seeing it. They wouldn't deny this explanation for another behavior that makes a better example. Why do humans have sex while using contraception? It doesn't make any sense evolutionary. Sex is a waste of resources (energy, nutrients, time) if it does not lead to reproduction. However are genes aren't "intelligent" enough to tell us not to have sex if it doesn't lead to reproduction, they simply tell us to have sex. Sex with contraception for recreation is a misfiring of the gene that helps us reproduce. We still continue the behavior even without the benefits. There are few that would say we shouldn't bother with sex anymore.
Charity towards someone who's not genetically related to the charitable is similar to sex with contraception. Satisfying to our urges and yet without any of the genetic benefit. A simple misfiring.