Daniel Dennett expertly devotes two chapters to this discussion in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of LIfe, from which I will quote to provide a framework for my own ideas.
…no matter how potent cultural forces are, they always have to act on the materials genetic forces have shaped for them…the sociobiologists are also right to stress that our unique capacity to act on a different set of reasons does not prevent us from being inconvenienced or even tortured or betrayed by our “animal” urges.
I will address two questions to guide the discussion of this post:
-
What conclusions have been made by evolutionary theorists?
-
To what degree is our morality influenced by genetics?
Conclusions made by Evolutionary Theorists
The Descent of Man
In his Descent of Man, Darwin drew some conclusions on the development of morality.
-
“moral faculties” are not inherent but evolved from our social nature, which was a result of natural selection, just like the social nature of other primates and mammals
-
our “social instincts” provide survival benefits for our species
-
“in order that primeval men…should have become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings”
Altruism
Darwin’s ‘social and instinctive feelings’' that produce our moral sense are varying types of altruism and reciprocity. As results of natural selection, Rachels (1990) lists the following altruistic urges:
-
Kin altruism: this involves showing special regard for one's family members
-
Group altruism: such regard goes beyond one's immediate family to encompass those belonging to the larger group of which one is a member
-
Widespread altruism: each and every member of one's species is held to be worthy of regard
Reciprocity has an obvious survival benefit: if I help you, you’ll likely help me at a later time. This ethic is summed up in many cultures and commonly with phrases like “reap what you sow”, “do unto other as you would have them do unto you”, and “good karma”.
The Selfish Gene
In the God Delusion, Dawkins (2006) gives four Darwinian reasons for altruism, two of which I’ve already mentioned:
-
Genetic kinship (much like Rachels above)
-
Reciprocation
-
The benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness
-
The additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.
Dawkins (1989) gives kin altruism an interesting twist by asserting that genes (acting in their own self interest) cause individuals to act against their individual interest by helping related organisms reproduce. Thus the gene is promoting its own replication in other bodies by generous social instincts.
Another idea promoted by Dawkins (2006) is the ‘by-product’ concept, which explains why we have biologically based urges and forces that sometimes appear to serve no evolutionary purpose, yet influence our moral sense. He states,
Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small and stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on. And intelligent couple can read their Darwin and know the ultimate reason for their sexual urges is procreation. They know that the woman cannot conceive because she is on the pill. Yet they find that their sexual desire is in no way diminished by the knowledge…its force, in an individual’s psychology, is independent of the ultimate Darwinian pressure that drove it…independently of its ultimate rationale.
The Influence of Genetic Adaptations
Our bodies and brains (our phenotypes) are the way they are because of our inherited genes. The influence of these genetic adaptations upon morality can be greatly observed in many facts including:
-
Millions of years of primate evolution has made us into a species that survives within complex communal/social structures.
-
-
The nature of our brain allows for metacognitive and contemplative thought. This allows most humans to understand cause and effect and use interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. These abilities have resulted in various superstitious ethics, religious moral codes, civil laws, and philosophies of morality.
-
The very biologically based emotions and urges that have allowed us to survive also tint our view of what is right and wrong.
Evil Genes
Particularly interesting to our discussion is a recent work called Evil Genes, which shows how genes predispose certain individuals to psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, extreme amounts of narcissism, and other Machiavellian traits. In many cases, our free will is simply an illusion, and our genes determine more than we realize.
Universal Moral Grammar
Current empirical studies show that there are indeed moral universals for contemporary Homo Sapiens on Earth. Marc Hauser, Harvard professor and author of Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, presents individuals from across the globe with moral dilemmas in which they have to choose who and how someone will live or die. Of people surveyed, 90-97% (including isolated tribes with no contact with formal religion or the western world) make the same moral decisions and often can’t explain why. In a Chomskian manner, Hauser, through his studies, promotes the conclusion,
Driving our moral judgments is a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years to include a set of principles for building a range of possible moral systems. As with language, the principles that make up our moral grammar fly beneath the radar of our awareness.
Conclusion
Without doubt, our ethical sense is not as simplistic as proposed by the religious traditionalists, yet we can begin to gain understanding through a study of its evolutionary origins. It is a result of our evolutionary history that our human gene pool provides a basis for the commonalities existing among the world’s various cultures.
Dawkins, Richard (2008). The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books.
Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rachels, James (1990). Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yet in modern societies, this reflex must be subjugated through enlightened self-control, education, and respect. We must learn to fear less and celebrate more. More than just accepting differences, we must value our differences. Religion, ethnicity, nationalities, et cetera, are not going away in any near century, and even if they did, humans would still find labels to segregate themselves and express their hatred. Ignorance is the real culprit. The problem remains…some people love their ignorance.
Posts
