Of course there is and very well described in evolutionary science
You can explain why our survival instinct evolved so it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that we ought to survive but it is a fallacy (called the naturalistic fallacy): saying that something being natural means it is good.
That's a recurring theme in Ghost in the Shell, at least the anime series. That as the line between human and machine is blurred, the general trend is in the direction of homogeneity, but here and there you still see people doing "deontological" things, ostensibly as a grasp at uniqueness to preserve self.
An interesting thought occurs to me though, with the proliferation of various NN architectures, and the idea that such nets, if scaled and installed to power humanoid robots, would effectively learn different heuristics after training on chaotically different data, it's quite possible that machines will also gradually evolve individuality and something rather close to personality.
Perhaps individuality is an intrinsic, emergent property in any system of generally intelligent and learning agents. Like a 3+ body on steroids, millions, if not billions of dimensions.
Also interesting to consider that the emergence of uniqueness among a system of said agents seems to increase entropy, a presently unique to life property given that everything inanimate in the universe does exactly the opposite. The more I think of general AI, the more I have trouble distinguishing it from the only other sentient intelligence we know of.
I think that as machines become smarter and smarter, it is good that we dive a bit more in our philosophical world and reach for what makes us human.
It took me a long time to understand that if you remove the pure rational intellect, something precious still remains: the driving force that shapes our morals. There is not rational reason to like survival. To love our children, to do what we call good. The resons for that are moral and are, I believe, what defines us as human at the core.
Ian Banks was spot on in calling a future civilization a "Culture". Because when machines take over the productive work, defining our values is going to be our full time activity. Machines may participate, but why would they add anything we consider valuable to the core?
That's going to be an interesting transition and I am happy that I'll probably live to see it!