The following is a paper I wrote for my WRT 105 class in the Spring of 2014 that argues that morality is a byproduct of human evolution citing specific evidence from observable behavior of other mammalian species. I felt that this paper was relevant because it presents some solid evidence of the existence of traits like altruism and empathy in species which we share common ancestors with, such as the Chimpanzee. I connected this with Hierarchy in the Forest based on the arguments made based on examples from apes:
Evolutionary
Background of Moral Philosophy
A major bridge between philosophy and science is the
debate between morality as a byproduct of evolution and the development of
morality based in philosophical theories such as Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism.
Those who believe that morality developed as a consequence of having
advantageous effects on the survivability of a previous ancestor suggest that
morality was simply a trait that could have developed on any other species,
while those who believe that morality was developed as a way of organizing
civilization and advancing society say that morality is based in laws that
dictate human action. While there is a plethora of evidence on both sides of
this argument, the blending of science and philosophy currently has led to a
greater acceptance of the evolutionary model of morality. One such defender of
“evolutionary morality” is Massimo Pigliucci, who argues that by breaking down
morality into characteristics, one can show the basis for morality’s
development in humans in his book, Answers
for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life.
In this paper, I will argue that the development of human morality has its
foundation in the evolutionary history of the human race using evidence
presented by Pigliucci.
Pigliucci’s main argument for evolutionary morality comes
from observed altruistic actions of certain animals. Pigliucci begins by
denying “the idea that only human beings are moral animals” by referencing several
aspects of morality that are shared by both humans and other mammals (Pigliucci
48). One such aspect of morality is altruism, acting in such a way that your
actions benefit others while having no positive reciprocation to yourself. Pigliucci, focusing on altruism, explains
that “kin selection”, acting in an instinctive altruistic manner to protect or
aid a relative, is a common trait in many animals, and beneficial to natural
selection in that it “maximizes the chances of passing your genes to the next
generation” (Pigliucci 49). Because kin share genetic material, acting in order
to protect one’s genetics, even in cases where doing so would result in death
would allow one’s genetic material to continue to be passed on. This genetic material would by relation carry genes
that code for altruistic action, allowing the specific kin group to continue
carrying these genes. If these genes that coded for altruism continued to be
advantageous, they would continue to pass on through their genes, eventually
expressing themselves in other species further in this species evolutionary
tree. One extreme case of morality in terms of kin is the Belding Ground
Squirrel, which will “whistle” to alert other members of its group (normally
when family is nearby) of predators, purposefully drawing attention to itself
while allowing others to escape (Mateo). Natural selection is essential for
establishing a basis for the evolutionary argument of morality, which I will
further build off of this base.
A secondary basis of evidence of evolutionary morality
argued by Pigliucci is that of both “reciprocal altruism” and “indirect” altruism
(Pigliucci 50-51). Reciprocal altruism is an argument put forth by Robert
Trivers and Anatol Rapaport which reasons that altruism would be favored by
natural selection if “there is the
expectation of the other actor returning the favor at a later time” (Pigliucci
50). Evidence is presented of this form of altruism by examining vampire bats
feeding members of their group that do not feed successfully, with the
expectation that the same will be done for them in a future situation,
regardless of kin relation (Pigliucci). What this seems to suggest is that
animals not only assist their family in times of need, but are also sympathetic
of all members of their surrounding environment in order to have these feelings
reciprocated in the future, which was originally thought to be only a
characteristic of humans. The idea of the “Golden Rule” in Christianity
explains this idea well in humans. Jesus Christ teaches his followers to “do
onto others as they would do onto you”, in order in the future to have acts of
kindness directed back towards yourself. Indirect reciprocity deals with
situations where two actors normally do not see each other often, which gives
one actor incentive to cheat and balk out when the time has come to return a
favor under the guise of not being around enough to assist. In this case,
reputation is established, where other members of the group see reciprocity
taking place, and “judge” actors based on the amount of times they cheat
(Pigliucci 52). Pigliucci mentions that this form of reciprocity is present in
different species of primates, suggesting that primates may have a system of
“justice”, with the most “just” (those who cheat the least) being the most
successful mates, carrying on the sense of justice in their genetic code, once
again providing an evolutionary basis for the formation of justice and morality
(Pigliucci 52-53). With these forms of reciprocity and altruism shown in other,
closely related mammals, Pigliucci strongly argues for an evolutionary basis to
morality.
There are three major objections to the idea the morality
is an evolved trait. The first is that while altruism may be a common trait
among more developed animals, morality in humans is based on the “ability to
empathize”, which no other creatures besides humans have (Pigliucci 54). The
difference between altruism and empathy is that while altruism is more of a
physical action, empathy is a feeling signifying recognition of another’s
emotions towards a certain situation, such as feeling bad for someone who has
lost a relative. It has long been thought that because empathy does not exist
outside of human beings because of its complexity of emotion and social
relations. However, there is significant evidence that shows that not only do other
species besides humans possess the ability to empathize with others in their
groups, but empathy is as significant in animal societies as in humanity. Jane
Goodall’s work with chimpanzees showed that “When a male is attacked, he will
often run screaming in obvious distress to a companion, at which point the two
will embrace and scream in concert. Or the distressed male may seek his mother
and simply hold her hand” (Pigliucci 54). These obviously empathetic reactions
also show a telling aspect of chimpanzee social relations, as most judgments
and social organization is based on empathetic relations between members, not
unlike human society. Furthermore, this shows that if morality is solely a
human characteristic, it cannot be based in empathy, and gives greater merit to
the idea that morality is an evolved trait of humanity.
A larger objection to evolutionary morality is the
question of whether or not these traits in animals discussed are actually the
basis of morality, as “true morality” possesses a “conscious sense of right and
wrong”, and a “strong feeling of indignation” when faced with a morally unjust
action (Pigliucci 55). The counter to this question is the explanation of
neurobiological “automatic social behaviors” (Pigliucci 55). Many researchers
claim now that morality could have begun with automatic behaviors in animals such
as attachment to kin and altruistic actions towards these members. Reciprocal
altruism towards non-kin group members, would develop next, and eventually
underlying “emotional responses” that dictate morality in humans would develop (Pigliucci
55). Essentially, this model of the evolution of a sense of true right and
wrong undermines the concept that true morality exists only in humans. In
Joshua D. Greene’s The Secret Joke of
Kant’s Soul, evidence through neuroimaging shows that much of deontological
(rational) ethics is “emotionally driven”, showing greater support to the idea
that emotional responses are more motivated by an evolutionary undertone than
expected (Greene 41). This shows that right and wrong, as well as strong
feelings against unjustness can be motivated by subconscious evolutionary
concepts of altruistic and emotional nature.
A final objection that can be raised against evolutionary
morality comes from Glaucon’s argument for the nature of justice and law in
Plato’s Republic. Glaucon considers
the nature of justice not a natural state of human beings, but a sort of
“compromise” in order to advance and coexist in society (Plato). Glaucon thinks
(much like many early evolutionary biologists according to Pigliucci) that the
natural state of human being is injustice and selfishness, acting in a way that
benefits no one but themselves. By extrapolating Glaucon’s argument, one could
protest by using Glaucon’s nature of man as an example of the impossibility of
morality evolving, as altruistic actions would have no benefit to earlier
species. However, as shown by “kin selection” and the discussed forms of
altruism, actions that have no benefit to the actor in question can still be
advantageous to evolutionary selection, as genes from family members and
community member can still be passed down (Pigliucci). These altruistic actions
disproves Glaucon’s claim that the natural state is selfishness, as these
animals who exist in a natural state have social order, a sense of altruism and
empathy towards other members of their species, and benefit from these actions
by carrying on genetic material. New evidence from many researchers shows that
unselfish actions occur in species, perhaps suggesting that justice IS the
natural state of humanity, contrary to Glaucon’s argument.
In summary, I have argued that morality evolved through
natural selection of beneficial traits. This explanation is a blending of
science and philosophy, often thought to be two separate fields of study. In
fact, this evidence shows the contrary. Science and philosophy often can
provide answers to many of the questions each field struggles with, such as the
nature of morality, and bioethics. Research done by members of the scholarly
community such as Pigliucci and Greene is part of the ever- growing connections
between disciplines of the humanities and sciences, and has promising implications
for the future.
Works
Cited
Greene, Joshua D., and
Fiery Cushman. "The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul." The Moral
Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 35-66. Print.
Jill, Mateo.
"Belding's Ground Squirrel Research." Belding's Ground
Squirrel Research. Mono Basin Clearinghouse, 1999. Web. 03 Mar. 2014.
Pigliucci, Massimo.
"The Evolution of Morality." Answers for Aristotle: How Science
and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life. New York: Basic,
2012. 45-58. Print.
Plato, G. R. F. Ferrari,
and Tom Griffith. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.
Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment