i don't see any particular reason why it's necessary to choose between kin selection and group selection as some kind of monolithic force. there's nothing wrong with arguing that insects operate on group selection, whereas mammals operate on kin selection; there's no reason to interpret evolution as an ethereal natural law that exists "out there" somewhere waiting to be discovered, and rather a lot of reason to conceive of it as driven by randomness and chance.

one of the things that bugs me about evolutionary biology right now is this tendency to assume that any kind of mutation is an adaptation, beneficial, a response and has a cause, and that it must be demonstrated otherwise, if it is the case. it's teleological, and the field is littered with it. but, it's not consistent with the basic scientific method, either. rather, when presented with a specific mutation, the null hypothesis should be that it's a consequence of drift, and you should be doing hypothesis testing on it to determine if there's evidence that it's actually an adaptation or not. the idea that you have to choose between these two models is coming from this similar place of mythologizing around evolution as something almost supernatural in scope.

in terms of human societies, i don't think there is really a serious debate at play. we kin select. artificially. that's obvious.

https://prospect.org/article/evolutionary-roots-altruism