This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 1
This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality?
Darwin pondering the inner workings of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
evolution-institute.orgwww.evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 2
Table of Contents
Introduction: Is There a Universal Morality? 06 by David Sloan Wilson, Mark Sloan, & Michael Price
Overview of responses 08 by Michael Price, Mark Sloan, David Sloan Wilson 09 Contributors
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
Maybe
Universal Morality – A Passel of Distinctions 13 by Elliott Sober
“The question of whether there is a universal morality requires clarification.”
Do universal moral intuitions shape and constrain culturally prevalent 14 moral norms? by Harvey Whitehouse and Ryan McKay
“Universal moral intuitions are like anchors, invisible from the surface but immovably secured to the seabed, whereas culturally prevalent moral norms are like buoys on the surface of the water, available to direct observation.”
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 3
On Morals, Rituals, and Obligations 16 by Richard Sosis
“… breach of obligation may be ‘one of the few, if not, indeed, the only act that is always and everywhere held to be immoral’.”
Are large-scale societies outliers when it comes to core elements 18 of moral judgment? by Chris von Rueden
“Most comparative studies of human moral judgment have been restricted to large-scale, industrialized populations, but critical tests of putative universals must include small-scale societies.“
Universal morality is obscured by evolved morality 20 by Diana Fleischman
“.. evolved morality not only obscures universal morality, but also creates aversion to improvements to humans that would align our intuitions with actions that promote sentient well-being.”
Why It’s Unwise to Deny Moral Universals 22 by Andrew Norman
“You don’t need much in the way of normative assumptions to convert facts into values. Consider the assertion: ‘All else being equal, more wellbeing is better than less.’ Who could object? It’s all but definitionally true.“
Could morality have a transcendent, naturalistic purpose? 24 by Michael Price
“There is one way in which transcendent, naturalistic moral purpose could, in fact, exist”
Moral Universals, Moral Particulars and Tinbergen’s Four Questions 26 by David Sloan Wilson
“Tinbergen’s four questions apply to any variation-and-selection process, including but not restricted to genetic evolution. Accordingly, they can be insightful for the study of moral universals and particulars as products of human genetic and cultural evolution.”
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 4
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
No
Moral Disagreement is Universal 29 by Robert Kurzban and Peter DeScioli
“We can find a path to moral consensus by focusing on our shared concerns for people’s welfare, rather than contentious and divisive moral principles.”
Our Modern Moral Predicament 31 by Russell Blackford
“The outer limits of moral possibility are established by the emotional tendencies that prepare us to be morality-making beings.”
Is there a universal morality? 33 By Massimo Pigliucci “…ethics has to do with how to arrive at as harmonious social interactions as it is humanly possible.”
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 5
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
Yes
Morality is Objective 36 by Eric Dietrich
“… morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.”
Harmful Intentions Are Always Seen As Bad 38 by Gordon Ingram
“…it makes evolutionary sense that people would be hyper-vigilant about harmful intent, reading people’s morally relevant actions for clues of possible intentions to harm the values and structures that their own group holds dear.”
The Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World 40 by Oliver Scott Curry
“Morality is always and everywhere a cooperative phenomenon.”
A Universal Principle Within Morality’s Ultimate Source 42 by Mark Sloan
“… properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community.”
Illustrations by Julia Suits
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 6
Introduction Is There a Universal Morality? by David Sloan Wilson, Mark Sloan, & Michael Price
Our moral sense makes involuntary, strategies, that solve social problems near instantaneous judgements of arising from unbridled selfinterest. Many good and evil about other’s actions of the contradictions and bizarreness of as well as our own. Integral to these cultural moral norms can be explained by involuntary judgements is the feeling differences in who one ought to cooperate that they are binding on all. Yet, when with3, who one can ignore or even exploit8, we look across cultures, moral codes and markers of membership6 in these in are diverse, contradictory, and even groups and out-groups (markers such as (for outsiders) bizarre. Eating shrimp is a food and sex taboos, circumcision, hair and moral abomination? See Leviticus for this dress styles, sacred objects and ideas, and and many other entertainingly strange sacred authorities).No matter how flawed examples of enforced moral norms. and contradictory, our morally sanctioned behaviors have been adequate to make Observations like these have led some us the incredibly successful social species philosophers to argue that there is no we are. Might recognition and conscious universal morality and what is considered application of a universal morality at the morally binding depends upon the society heart of these cooperation strategies bring we live in4. Others have advocated versions even greater benefits? of utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, or theistic morality5, but no universal morality There are at least two categories of possible has become generally accepted. moral universals.
Might this state of affairs be ready to be The first is a moral universal that prescribes updated in light of results from science? what everyone ‘ought’ to do across all cultures, a morality that is universally There is a growing consensus that the binding. This is a common understanding neurobiology underlying our moral sense of “moral universal” in philosophy. and the moral norms of any given culture were genetically and culturally selected The second is what all moral systems for the benefits of cooperation they can be shown to have in common as produced1,2,7. That is, behaviors motivated cooperation strategies (what is common by our moral sense and enforced by to all cooperation strategies relevant to cultural moral norms are elements of morality), without these empirical universals cooperation strategies, notably reciprocity being somehow innately binding. A society
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 7 might advocate for and enforce such a commentaries to sketch a large canvas, moral universal as best for meeting their which will then be filled in with in-depth shared needs and preferences. articles and interviews.
TVOL is pleased to explore the question The writing assignment for each “Is there a universal morality?” with the commentator was “Is there anything that help of philosophers and scientists at the can be said to be universally moral, either forefront of studying morality in light of “this descriptively or normatively? Why should the view of life”. We begin with collected short average person care about your answer?”
Further reading:
1. Bowles, S., Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press. 2. Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The Evolution of Morality. Springer. 3. Fu, F., et al. (2012). Evolution of in-group favoritism. Scientific Reports 2, Article number: 460. doi:10.1038/srep00460 4. Gowans, Chris, “Moral Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 8
Overview of Responses by Michael Price, Mark Sloan, David Sloan Wilson
Our fifteen essayists provided a surprising immoral; and that everyone deserves equal diversity of answers to the question “Is there moral regard. a universal morality?” Such diversity of opinion on such a culturally important issue Putting aside the question of whether such suggests that this is a productive topic for conclusions are better-justified by science discussion. or by moral philosophy, a consensus in support of them could have important We’ve categorized all essays into three cultural implications. These conclusions broad response categories: “Maybe”, “No”, imply, for example, that morality is best and “Yes”. This structure presents some risk understood not so much as a burden but of oversimplification, but also provides useful as guidance for living a good life. And guidance about the general tone of essays, common moral norms such as the Golden which we thought justified the risk. Rule, and rules against theft, killing, and lying, are not moral absolutes but heuristics It would be easy to talk about how essays (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of disagreed, but focusing on potential thumb) for increasing the benefits of living commonalities may be more productive. in cooperative societies. Further, ‘moral’ norms that exploit or harm out-groups, Consider important questions such as such as “women should submit to men”, “What is morality’s function, and what is its and “homosexuality is sinful”, are based on ultimate goal?” and “What behaviors are the idea that some people are more worthy immoral, and who deserves equal moral of moral regard than others. regard?” Participants were not asked these questions directly, but most touched on Could focusing on points of consensus, them in passing in responding to “Is there a rather than on the best justification of that universal morality?” consensus (and perhaps there are multiple justifications), be a way forward for both the Regardless of whether responses fell in the science and philosophy of morality? “Maybe”, “No”, or “Yes” categories, there was considerable space for agreement. We want to express our gratitude to all our Specifically, many essayists seemed to participants for taking the time to record agree that morality’s function is to increase their thoughts about whether there is a the benefits of living in cooperative universal morality. Perhaps this project will societies; that morality’s ultimate goal is play a small part in advancing the cultural increased well-being or flourishing; that utility of research on the origins, and future, exploitation or “harm” (that decreases the of morality. benefits of living in cooperative societies) is
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 9
Contributors
Russel Blackford Oliver Scott Curry Eric Dietrich
Russell Blackford is an Australian Dr. Oliver Scott Curry is a Senior Eric Dietrich is professor of philosopher, legal scholar, and Researcher, and Director of philosophy at Binghamton literary critic. He is editor-in-chief the Oxford Morals Project, at University and founding editor of of The Journal of Evolution and the Institute of Cognitive and the Journal of Experimental and Technology. He is the author or Evolutionary Anthropology, Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. His editor of numerous books, most University of Oxford. His research work focuses on cognitive science, recently The Mystery of Moral investigates the nature, content consciousness, artificial intelligence, Authority (Palgrave, 2016). and structure of human morality. metaphysics and epistemology.
Peter DeScoli Diana Fleischman Gordon Ingram
Peter DeScioli is Assistant Diana Fleischman is an Gordon Ingram is Associate Professor of Political Science Associate Professor at the Professor of Psychology and Associate Director of the University of Portsmouth. at the Universidad de los interdisciplinary Center for In addition to psychological Andes, Colombia. He teaches Behavioral Political Economy research Diana is involved in Developmental Psychology, at Stony Brook University. effective altruism and currently Cyberpsychology, and Psychology His research examines how sits on the board for Sentience of Language, and Cognition and principles of strategy shape Institute, a think tank promoting Culture. His research centers elements of human psychology expansion of the moral circle to on children’s and adolescents’ such as moral judgment. nonhuman animals. everyday communication online.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 10
Robert Kurzban Ryan McKay Andy Norman
Robert Kurzban is a Professor Ryan McKay is Reader in Andy Norman works at reviving of Psychology at the Psychology at Royal Holloway, the forgotten virtue of wisdom. University of Pennsylvania. University of London, and He teaches philosophy at He is the Editor-in-Chief of Principal Investigator of the Carnegie Mellon University and the journal Evolution and Royal Holloway Morality and writes about the philosophical Human Behavior, the Director Beliefs Lab (MaB-Lab). He foundations of humanist values of Undergraduate Studies has also worked as a clinical and topics ranging from the in his department, and the neuropsychologist at the evolutionary origins of human President of the Human National Hospital for Neurology reasoning to the architecture of Behavior and Evolution and Neurosurgery in London. knowledge systems. Society.
Michael E. Price Massimo Pigliucci Mark Sloan
Michael E. Price is Senior Massimo Pigliucci is the K.D. Mark Sloan is TVOL Morality Lecturer in Psychology at Irani Professor of Philosophy Topic Associate Editor. His main Brunel University London. at the City College of New interest is how insights from the Much of his research has York. His most recent book science of morality might enable focused on evolutionary is How to Be a Stoic: Using societies to refine their moral moral psychology. He Ancient Philosophy to Live codes to better meet human is also interested in a Modern Life. He blogs at needs and preferences. His blog evolutionary theory’s broad platofootnote.org. is scienceandmorality.com. explanatory power across scientific domains from the cosmological to the biological.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 11
Eliott Sober Richard Sosis Chris von Rueden
Elliott Sober teaches Richard Sosis is James Barnett Chris von Rueden is an philosophy at University of Professor of Humanistic anthropologist and assistant Wisconsin-Madison. His Anthropology at the professor of leadership studies research is in the philosophy University of Connecticut. at the University of Richmond. of science, especially the His work has focused on He studies status hierarchy philosophy of evolutionary the evolution of religion and and collective action in small- biology and his most recent cooperation. He is cofounder scale societies. Website: books are Did Darwin Write and coeditor of the journal https://sites.google.com/site/ the Origin Backwards? (2011), Religion, Brain & Behavior. chrisvonrueden/home and Ockham’s Razors – A User’s Manual (2015).
Harvey Whitehouse David Sloan Wilson
Harvey Whitehouse is Chair David Sloan Wilson is SUNY of Social Anthropology and Distinguished Professor of Director of the Institute of Biology and Anthropology at Cognitive and Evolutionary Binghamton University. He is Anthropology at the also President of the Evolution University of Oxford. He is a Institute and Editor in Chief of founding director of Seshat: This View of Life Magazine. Global History Databank, a huge volume of data on historical societies going back 5000 years.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 12
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
Maybe
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 13
Universal Morality – A Passel of Distinctions by Elliott Sober
Before you say whether there is a universal Moralities involve principles, and having a morality, you need to decide what you mean morality involves formulating and endorsing by that phrase. Here is a passel of distinctions a set of principles. This is a very sophisticated that are relevant to deciding. There are lots cognitive achievement. It goes well beyond of choices, so there are lots of questions, and parents wanting their children to thrive. there is nothing wrong with some researchers addressing some while others address others. 3. Slogans v Principles. Societies and individuals mouth short phrases about right 1.Uniquely Believed v Uniquely True. Social and wrong, but it is often a mistake to think scientists and evolutionary biologists will tend that these slogans accurately capture the to focus on whether there is a single morality principles that individuals and societies that all human beings, present and past, have really endorse. I don’t mean that people are embraced. It is obvious that people differ in insincere. They often are, but my point is that their moral views. Their question is whether our moral convictions are often far more subtle there are underlying commonalities. than most of us are able to fully articulate. Philosophers, on the other hand, tend to They are like the grammars of the languages focus on whether there is a single uniquely we speak. true morality – a morality that all human beings, past and present, ought to embrace. 4. Societies v Groups v Individuals. A society Philosophers differ in how they answer this promotes moral principles by framing laws and question. I note that this is a philosophical encouraging customs, but this does not mean question, not a question that science is in a that each individual in that society is fully on position to answer. board. And in between the whole society and
The question of whether there is a universal morality requires clarification.
2. Morality v Altruistic Motivation. Whether the individuals one by one, there are groups. people sometimes care about the welfare of This means that questions about universal others, as an end in itself, and not just as a morality can be posed at multiple levels of means to self-benefit, is a different question organization. from whether they embrace a morality.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 14
Do Universal Moral Intuitions Shape and Constrain Culturally Prevalent Moral Norms? by Harvey Whitehouse and Ryan McKay
There is much evidence to suggest that humans Theory which associates the individualizing virtues everywhere recognize the virtues of kindness, of care and fairness with Western, educated, fairness, loyalty, respect, sharing, courage, industrialized, rich, and democratic (aka WEIRD) and obedience and abhor cruelty, cheating, societies8 and more groupish and authoritarian betrayal, subversion, hoarding, cowardice, and moral values with traditional societies6,7. It is disobedience2,5,10. But people are often obliged to possible also to characterize the whole of human prioritize one virtue over others or condemn some history in terms of shifts of moral emphasis. For vices more than others, depending on a wide range instance, despotism has been said to follow a of contextual factors and goals. And this variability U-shaped curve in cultural evolution: while our is apparent also at the level of entire cultural ancestors were egalitarian apes, valuing compassion groups, some tending historically to emphasize and fairness, the rise of agriculture heralded certain virtues more highly or punishing particular increasingly cruel and repressive empires based vices more harshly than others. Social scientists on conquest, slavery, and the absolute power have presented countless examples of moral of rulers, but in the wake of the Axial Age and the values that serve to reinforce locally prevailing rise of more ethical religions the tide turned again in social structures – for example, that egalitarian the direction of increasingly liberal and democratic hunter-gatherers value sharing14, armies demand social formations1.While the details of such theories loyalty and self-sacrifice4, chiefdoms emphasize could be wrong, they all suggest that moral systems respect for natural superiors11, and affluent liberal are variations on a set of universal themes. democracies value kindness9. To use a nautical analogy, the relationship between At an even cruder level, it is possible to distinguish universal morality and its cultural expressions may two main kinds of societies from a moral be compared to the way in which invisible anchors perspective: those that privilege individual rights and chains constrain the movements of visible (even at the cost of collective safety and security) buoys floating on the surface of the sea. Universal and those that prioritize devotion and conformity moral intuitions are like anchors, invisible from to the group (even at the cost of personal freedoms the surface but immovably secured to the seabed, and privileges). Durkheim associated the first whereas culturally prevalent moral norms are kind of society with a highly elaborated division of like buoys on the surface of the water, available to labor in which a great diversity of human skills and direct observation. The same analogy might apply abilities needed to be integrated into an organic to numerous other domains of culture. whole, whereas deference to the group was more For example, there is much evidence that explicit prominent in simple societies in which individual religious beliefs, including so-called ‘theologically qualities mattered less3. A modern variant of this correct’ teachings of a given tradition12, are argument is presented by Moral Foundations similarly analogous to visible buoys while
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 15
more intuitive, or ‘cognitively optimal’ religious thereby amplify or constrain their expression? concepts13, are analogous to hidden anchor points. Efforts to investigate questions of that kind
Universal moral intuitions are like anchors, invisible from the surface but immovably secured to the seabed, whereas culturally prevalent moral norms are like buoys on the surface of the water, available to direct observation.
A key question would then become whether there would also need to take into account the is some kind of interaction between different effects of environmental factors on religion and kinds of anchors and buoys. At the risk of over- morality, ranging from drought and pestilence to extending this metaphor, we might ask whether institutional innovation and warfare, analogous the lines linking religious buoys and their anchors perhaps to the effects of wind and tides on the somehow get tangled up with normative buoys position of buoys. Efforts are only now beginning and moral anchors. For example, do theologically to explore the massive battery of empirically correct religious representations somehow tractable research questions such an approach activate our foundational moral principles and inevitably generates.
References 1.Bellah, Robert N. & Joas, Hans (2012). The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Boston: Harvard University Press. 2.Curry, Oliver, S., Mullins, Daniel, & Whitehouse, Harvey (forthcoming). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology. (https://osf.io/9546r/) 3.Durkheim, Émile (1893) [1933]. The Division of Labour in Society. New York: MacMillan 4.Durkheim, Émile (1897) [1951]. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: The Free Press. 5.Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. 6.Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029 –1046. 7.Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. 8. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61– 83. 9.McCarty, Meladee & McCarty, Hanoch, (1996). Acts of Kindness: How to Make a Gentle Difference. Florida: Health Communications. 10. McKay, Ryan and Whitehouse, Harvey (2014). Religion and Morality. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038455 Printed 2015, 141(2): 447-73. 11. Sahlins, Marshall D. (1963). Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and. Polynesia . Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 285-303. 12. Slone, D. J. (2004). Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t. Oxford University Press 13. Whitehouse, Harvey (2004). Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Rowman Altamira 14. Woodburn, James (1982). Egalitarian Societies, Man (NS), Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 431-451.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 16
On Morals, Rituals, and Obligations by Richard Sosis
In the mid-1990s, I conducted ethnographic I was troubled by the affair, but conversations fieldwork with the inhabitants of a remote throughout the day made it clear that others atoll in the Federated States of Micronesia. did not share my concerns. As was explained Their contact with the outside world to me, the retirees were wealthy so why consisted of a government ship that, about shouldn’t the teens help themselves to this six times a year, serviced the atoll and other surfeit? In their mind there was no stolen remote islands in the region. Thus, it came property or act of theft; this was simply an as a great surprise when half a year into my appropriate redistribution of wealth. I had fieldwork a yacht appeared one morning in heard this argument during my first days of the atoll’s lagoon. The yacht was owned by fieldwork when I returned to my hut to find a German couple who, following retirement, some new friends looking through my luggage. decided to travel the world by sea. They were My anthropological training—understanding clearly well versed in the cultural customs before judgment—was being tested to the of Micronesia; once they disembarked limits. It was a useful encounter early in my they headed directly to the chief, with the fieldwork because it emphasized something appropriate gifts in tow, to ask permission that is more fully appreciated through to visit the atoll. While the German couple experience than books: my moral assumptions spoke to the chief, some teens decided to were not necessarily their moral assumptions. visit the yacht and help themselves to some of the retirees’ equipment. When the couple Anthropologists are often unwelcome guests returned to their yacht and noticed the to evolutionary conversations about
…breach of obligation may be ‘one of the few, if not, indeed, the only act that is always and everywhere held to be immoral.
missing items they insisted that the chief find human universals. My non-anthropological those who were responsible for the theft so colleagues have understandably tired of that the stolen items could be returned. The the anthropological refrain “But in my tribe, chief, however, refused. The helpless couple they do X…,” where X is some exception eventually went on their way, presumably to whatever universal belief or behavior is regretting that they had ever stopped under discussion. So yes, in our discussion for a visit. we can scratch “stealing” off the list of potential universal moral rules, although on
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 17
Ifaluk taking resources from someone who they do establish that such an action is no does not exceed your wealth is immoral and longer simply lying, it is a breach of a publicly understood as stealing. And of course, many accepted obligation (to tell the truth) and is other potential candidates ultimately fall now understood as perjury. short. For example, in many cultures killing is sanctioned under specific conditions (e.g., Why should anyone care that upholding in defense) and incest is not only acceptable obligations established through ritual is in some cultures but expected, especially possibly a universal moral rule? Because it among the aristocracy. Finding universal moves the conversation away from searching moral rules is no easy task. for humanity’s universal characteristics, a search that even if successful will not help Anthropologist Roy Rappaport, however, us build a better world. As Adam Seligman suggested that breach of obligation may be and colleagues note, such commonalities “one of the few, if not, indeed, the only act will not provide guidance in living with our that is always and everywhere held to be differences2. Rappaport’s thesis does not immoral1.”Rappaport’s argument is long and sweep away the rich cultural diversity in moral difficult, but in short, he suggested that ritual rules, but rather posits a universal underlying performances establish obligations to behave structure through which moral obligations are according to the moral values explicitly or established. Understanding this structure is implicitly encoded in the rituals. Rituals do not vital for facing the inherent challenges of living enforce moral behaviors—lying following an in a morally diverse global community. oath in a court of law is all too common—but
References: 1. Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge University Press. (quote from page 132) 2. Seligman, A. B., Wasserfall, R. R., & Montgomery, D. W. (2015). Living with Difference: How to Build Community in a Divided World. University of California Press.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 18
Are Large-Scale Societies Outliers When It Comes To Core Elements Of Moral Judgment? by Chris von Rueden
On the island of Sumba, Indonesia, the universals in moral judgment might have evolved. anthropologist Webb Keane described to a local woman how Americans freely choose The Culture and the Mind Project, directed by their spouses. The woman exclaimed in shock, Stephen Laurence at the University of Sheffield, “So Americans just mate like animals!”1 has recently published two studies of moral judgment across societies, importantly including Human societies have varied tremendously in the many small-scale societies6,7. The societies range behaviors or cultural practices that beget moral from African hunter-gatherers to Amazonian opprobrium or praise. But there are also some horticulturalists to urban Americans. Participants commonalities, which may constitute an evolved from these societies were read vignettes, each moral sense2. Humans tend to judge unfairness, of which described a different harm, including dishonesty, theft, disloyalty to the community, battery, theft, spreading a false rumor, bribery, disrespect, impurity (e.g. incest), and harm of the violating a food taboo, and poisoning a well. vulnerable as morally bad, though the relative Participants reported the “badness” of the harms, importance of these domains may vary cross- as well as effects on perpetrators’ reputation culturally3 and across the political spectrum4. and probability of being punished. In the first Other putative, universal elements of human moral study, harms were judged less bad/punishable/ judgment include the distinction between intention reputation-reducing (but still unacceptable) when and accident2,and the tendency to see morals as described as occurring far away rather than absolute truths rather than parochial values5. in a nearby community, distant in time rather than in the present, and approved rather than Most comparative studies of human moral unsanctioned by a local authority figure. In other judgment have been restricted to large-scale, words, there was cross-cultural evidence of moral industrialized populations, but critical tests of parochialism. In the second study, harms were putative universals must include small-scale judged more bad/punishable/reputation-reducing societies. Small-scale societies are characterized when described as intentional. by traditional subsistence practices and low population density, and they tend to have less In both studies, there was significant variation extensive formal legal systems. Humans have across societies in terms of sensitivity to these lived in small-scale societies for the large majority moderations of harm. Urban Americans were of our species’ existence, so small-scale societies as or more morally parochial than several of the better approximate the conditions under which small-scale societies. But urban Americans were
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 19 more likely to increase the severity of their badness adjudication processes that adopt less explicit ratings when harms were intentional. Intention standards of evidence, or the presence of witchcraft had the least effect among rural Fijians, which is beliefs wherein attributions of bad intentions can notable since other populations in Oceania have lead to cycles of violence7. Future cross-cultural been described by anthropologists as having studies of moral judgment should pair standardized “mental opacity” norms- a reluctance to discuss or protocols with detailed ethnography to test among act on what others are thinking.1 these and other possibilities8.
Most comparative studies of human moral judgment have been restricted to large-scale, industrialized populations, but critical tests of putative universals must include small-scale societies.
Moral parochialism, whether found in large or Identifying how moral judgment changes within small-scale societies, is consistent with several a society will also improve our understanding evolutionary theories of moral judgment, in which of the origins of the cross-cultural variation. A punitive sentiment is calibrated to its immediate recent longitudinal study found that Millennials effects on our relationships with group members6. in Western large-scale societies are more Why societies vary in moral parochialism requires utilitarian in their moral judgments than past theory development. Similarly, additional theorizing generations9. I am currently tracking how, in is needed to explain why societies vary in the moral one small-scale society (the Tsimane’ of Bolivia), weight given to intentions. In many small-scale an individual’s prestige positions him or her to societies, the reasons underlying actions may be less shift others’ moral judgments. important in moral judgments because of increased emphasis on kin-group (vs. individual) responsibility,
References 1. Keane, W. (2016). Ethical Life: Its Natural and Social Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2. Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds. New York: Ecco. 3. Shweder, R., Mahapatra, M., and Miller, J. (1990). Culture and moral development. In (J. Stigler, R. Shweder, and G. Herdt, Eds.) Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development (pp. 130-204). New York: Cambridge University Press. 4. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why God People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage. 5. Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. New York: Cambridge University Press. 6. Fessler, D. et al. (2015). Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 20150907. 7. Barrett, C. et al. (2016). Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 4688-4693. 8. Sperber, D. (May 26, 2016). How not to combine ethnography and experiments in the study of moral judgment. http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/dans-blog/how-not-to-combine-ethnography-and-experiments-in-the-study- of-moral-judgment 9. Hannikainen, I., Machery, E., and Cushman, F. (2018). Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? Cognition, 170, 95-101. Thanks to Daniel Fessler for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 20
Universal morality is obscured by evolved morality by Diana Fleischman
Every earthworm has, at one point, been your anthropomorphize themselves. Understanding mother. of psychology is clouded by intuitions especially the strong intuition that humans are Buddhism has many such thought experiments, not objects of a deterministic universe. ways to expand our notions of morality, to align it with what I’ll call here “universal morality”. Morality is too close to our eyes for us to see. Compounding the confusion of studying Universal morality is obscured by our anything as intimate as our own psychology is evolved morality. Some problems cause the self-deception integral to moral psychology. disproportionate suffering; there are ways to We punish those who transgress while looking greater optimize the flourishing of humans and for loopholes for ourselves, making self- other sentient beings. Our moral psychology, reported moral reasoning especially suspect. however, is designed to punish those who In the trolley problem participants are more challenge our in-group’s interests, reward likely to make utilitarian choices the greater those who work in our favor and maintain our their distance from the action that caused one signaled moral identity. This evolved morality death instead of many (e.g. choosing to save not only obscures universal morality but three lives instead of one). There is no real also creates an aversion to improvements to difference between pushing someone onto the humans that would align our intuitions with tracks and flipping a switch except in terms of actions that promote sentient well-being. plausible deniability. Detecting psychopaths was an important ancestral problem. Thus Progress on problems further away from our our conscious moral reasoning is optimized to evolved intuitions, such as in mathematics signal we are not psychopaths. “True” evolved and physics, has always been faster than moral reasoning is insulated from conscious progress on understanding human psychology awareness. Consistency, virtue and capacity for and moral philosophy. The fewer layers of self-punishment, otherwise known as guilt, are evolved psychology to peel away, the faster prioritized over aggregate benefit. progress can be made. B.F. Skinner noted it should be more difficult to send a man to the Moral debates dance around biting bullets moon than to implement effective education and avoiding fanciful repugnant conclusions. or to rehabilitate criminals. He lamented the Advocates of moral perspectives confuse degree to which we can control the inanimate, morality with the desire to preserve their including weapons, without the wherewithal reputations or align with the intuitions of their to solve social problems. Why? Humans readers. Thought experiments can help us
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 21 transcend our evolved psychology but the vast evolutionary psychology is that it condones majority of moral reasoning celebrates the immoral behavior by pointing to its natural output of essentially vestigial moral emotions. origins. Far from it, I believe we must There is no wisdom in repugnance. Nor is there acknowledge the shadow of our evolved any wisdom in beliefs we develop to align our morality in order to transcend it. The rapid intuitions with those of others, preserve our development of artificial intelligence has both reputations or signal we are not psychopaths. confused and clarified our vision of a universal
Evolved morality not only obscures universal morality but also creates an aversion to improvements to humans that would align our intuitions with actions that promote sentient well-being.
We have made leaps and bounds in moral morality. We don’t want our self-driving cars achievement compared to the deep history of to choose to kill three pedestrians rather than humanity and to the rest of the natural world. injure one driver. Most of us would want an Some consider nonhuman animals their in- artificial superintelligence to work for the group, or at least, are signaling their expanded aggregate good, to limit suffering and increase moral circle. There are hacks that stretch our well-being rather than signal consistency, moral circle outside our ingroup, like narrative disgust sensitivity, guilt or commitment to fiction and meditation. The world is a much tradition. Why shouldn’t we modify ourselves better place than it was, but an evolutionary to become more moral as well? perspective does predict limits to this moral expansion. The flourishing of sentient beings A moral artificial intelligence should have very is still impeded by moral disgust, outrage, and different moral goals than the average human, self-deception. Ironically, moral enhancement but how will we be able to build one with our such as augmenting intelligence with embryo evolved moral intuitions in place? selection, the only means by which we may expand our moral circle, is averted by Dear Seed AI, every living being has, at some feelings of disgust, neophobic anxiety and point, been your mother. an attachment to an amorphous, ill-defined concept of “natural”. One prominent criticism of
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 22
Why It’s Unwise to Deny Moral Universals by A. P. Norman
Are there moral universals? At first glance, A single instance, though, doesn’t tell us what this looks like a question of fact. To answer we really want to know. We want to know it, we’d have to nominate some candidates whether anything like a well-functioning value for universal moral truth, and check to see system has universal validity. whether everyone accepts them. We could ask all 7.6 billion people, for example, whether For much of the twentieth century, the they think recreational cruelty is wrong. Given politically correct answer was ‘No: universally human perversity, there’s a good chance that valid value systems don’t exist.’ People worried some will answer “no.” In that sense, there are that an affirmative answer would license probably no moral universals. political or cultural imperialism: people could get the idea that things really are right and But that’s not the question we really mean to wrong, and this might lead them to impose their ask, is it? What we want to know is whether values on others. In this way, it became trendy any moral strictures are binding on us all. So to deny moral universals. clarified, the answer flips: Of course there are moral universals. “Recreational cruelty is Trendy, but wrong-headed. For one thing, wrong” is an incontestable example of the type there’s a big gap between “Moral universals in question. Yes, some nut job might assert exist” and “I have all the answers.” Recognizing otherwise, but why should we listen to him? moral universals needn’t render one arrogant Either he doesn’t understand the question, and ready to impose. Second, our tendency or he’s being needlessly perverse. More to deny moral universals subverts the search important, he’s obligated to avoid recreational for common moral ground. (Why engage in cruelty whether he knows it or not. value inquiry if moral truths don’t exist?) Third, denying that there are common moral truths Invariably, clever people come up with doesn’t just humble cultural imperialists; it also counterexamples. ‘What about sadomasochists humbles the compassionate and the tolerant, and the organizers of ultra-marathons: don’t robbing them of conviction. Cultural relativism they facilitate recreational cruelty?’ Such robs us of moral courage. counterexamples miss the point. I could just as well have nominated “It’s wrong to visit Fortunately, the moral sciences are starting to recreational cruelty on the unconsenting.” Or change all of this. Moral and social psychology, “Pointless suffering is a bad thing.” Remember, game theory, ethology, primatology, one instance of a moral universal suffices to evolutionary psychology: all of these shed prove the existence claim. light on the origins and functioning of moral
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 23 sensibilities (also moral intuitions, norms, and kindness over cruelty, for example, isn’t rules). We now know that morality evolved arbitrary. Why? Well, kindness is objectively to serve a “pro-social” function: in the past, more conducive to shared wellbeing than it promoted cooperation and survival. Yes, cruelty is. The same goes for fairness over the first nervous systems prioritized self- unfairness, and honesty over deceit. Given care, giving the creatures that bore them a basic facts about animal nervous systems, some survival advantage, but natural selection has things really are better than others. repurposed our nervous systems to also care for kin, friends, and tribesmen. Our brains You don’t need much in the way of normative now deliver a mix of self and other-regarding assumptions to convert these facts into moral intuitions. principles. Consider the assertion: “All else being equal, more wellbeing is better than On the whole, our instincts are more selfish, less.” Who could object? Anyone worth taking short-sighted and tribal than is warranted. To seriously? Surely not: it’s all but definitionally properly promote shared wellbeing, we must true. This simple idea is an excellent place to deliberately discount some moral intuitions, begin building ethical common ground.
You don’t need much in the way of normative assumptions to convert facts into values. Consider the assertion: “All else being equal, more wellbeing is better than less.” Who could object? It’s all but definitionally true.
and deliberately amplify others. Here, moral It’s like a seed crystal: add this idea to a solution norms prove useful. Prohibitions against lying, of facts, and all kinds of moral truths precipitate cheating, and stealing, for example. “Be nice” out. And the truths you get—such as “Best not is a good rule of thumb, as is “Respect basic to harm conscious critters”— have a strong rights.” “Treat others the way you like to be claim to universal validity. So why not assert the treated” is pretty nifty, too. It’s not hard to existence of moral universals? By so doing, we extend the list. affirm our commitment to behaviors that tend to improve our collective lot. Notice that exhortations like these are more than merely subjective. Our preference for
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 24
Could Morality Have A Transcendent, Naturalistic Purpose? by Michael Price
I’ll interpret the question “Is there a universal morality emanates ultimately from human nature, morality?” in both a conventional and which itself evolved ultimately to enable genetic unconventional manner. survival and reproduction. But could morality have some larger purpose, that transcends and First, briefly, a more conventional response subsumes biologically-evolved human interests? (conventional from the perspective of behavioral biology, anyway) would be “yes and no.” Because This is a tricky question because natural there is an evolved human nature, the same selection is the only process known to science behavioral patterns tend to crop up repeatedly that can ultimately engineer “purpose” (moral or across cultures (and in some cases, across species). otherwise). It does so by generating “function,” These include behaviors we’d categorize as “moral”, which is essentially synonymous with “purpose”: such as reciprocal altruism, free-rider punishment, the function/purpose of an eye, for example, is kin altruism, incest avoidance, and cooperative to see. And if selection is the only natural source signaling. Even though these behaviors can be of purpose, it is hard to see how morality could considered universal, however, the psychological ultimately serve any larger kind of purpose. adaptations that regulate them may be facultatively Conventional religions sidestep this problem, evoked and prioritized in some environments more of course, by positing a supernatural purpose than others. We therefore observe cross-cultural provider. But that’s an unsatisfactory solution if variation in the extent to which these behaviors you wish to maintain a naturalistic worldview. are expressed. For instance, although all cultures have some restrictions on the permissibility of To most people with a naturalistic worldview, the 1 sex between genetic kin , some cultures regard issue ends here. There can be no transcendent sex between first cousins as taboo while others purpose because no widely-understood encourage it. Another example is cooperative natural process can generate such purpose. 2 signaling : although the signaling of moral virtue Transcendent purpose is a subject for religion, and cooperative disposition appears to be a and maybe for philosophy, but not for science. universal behavior, there is cultural diversity in the That’s the standard naturalistic conclusion. specific signals used (e.g., whether abstinence from a particular food is regarded as virtuous or not). The standard naturalistic conclusion is premature, however. There is one way in which transcendent, Now for a more unconventional interpretation. naturalistic moral purpose could, in fact, exist. Could morality be “universal” in the sense that there is some transcendent moral purpose If selection is the only natural source of purpose, to human existence itself? The conventional then transcendent moral purpose could exist interpretation offered above assumes that if selection were operating at some level more
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 25 fundamental than the biological. Specifically, of biological (including biocultural) evolution transcendent purpose would require a process alone. It suggests, rather, that biological/ of cosmological natural selection, with universes biocultural evolution is itself a subroutine of a being selected from a multiverse based on their larger evolutionary process.
There is one way in which transcendent naturalistic purpose could in fact exist.
reproductive ability, and intelligence emerging These ideas are highly speculative and may seem (as a subroutine of cosmological evolution) strange, especially if you haven’t heard them as a higher-level adaptation for universe before. But notions of cosmological natural reproduction. From this perspective, intelligent selection, and of life as a mechanism of universe life (including its moral systems) would have a reproduction, are not so new or radical. They transcendent purpose: to eventually develop the have been under development for decades sociopolitical and technical expertise that would now3-11, and are reasonably consilient with enable it to cooperatively create new universes. existing bodies of scientific knowledge. This creation process would enable universe reproduction, because these new universes At any rate, my goal here is not to argue that these would need to be governed by the same physical ideas are likely to be true, nor that they are likely laws and parameters as the original universe, in to be false. I simply want to point out that if they’re order for intelligent life to be able to exist in them. false, then it seems like it must also be false – from a naturalistic perspective, at least – that morality Importantly, this idea of “cosmological natural could have any transcendent purpose. selection with intelligence”3-8 does not dispute that morality is ultimately explicable in terms
References 1. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 445: 727-731. 2. Bulbulia, J., & Sosis, R. (2011). Signalling theory and the evolution of religious cooperation. Religion 41: 363-388. 3. Crane, L. (1994/2010). Possible implications of the quantum theory of gravity: an introduction to the meduso- anthropic principle. arXiv:hep-th/9402104v1. Reprinted in Crane, L. (2010). Foundations of Science 15: 369-373. 4. Gardner, J. N. (2000). The selfish biocosm. Complexity 5: 34-45. 5. Smart, J. M. (2009). Evo devo universe? A framework for speculations on cosmic culture. In Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context, S. J. Dick and M. L. Lupisella, Eds., pp. 201–295, Government Printing Office, NASA SP-2009-4802, Washington, DC. 6. Vidal, C. (2014). The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective. Springer. 7. Price, M. E. (2017). Entropy and selection: Life as an adaptation for universe replication. Complexity, vol. 2017, Article ID 4745379, 4 pages, 2017. doi:10.1155/2017/4745379 8. Price, M.E. (Forthcoming). Cosmological natural selection and the function of life. In Evolution, Development and Complexity: Multiscale Evolutionary Models of Complex Adaptive Systems, edited by G. Georgiev, C. L. F. Martinez, M. E. Price, & J. Smart. Springer. 9. Smolin, L. (1992). Did the universe evolve? Classical and Quantum Gravity 9: 173–191. 10. Smolin, L. (1997). The Life of the Cosmos. New York: Oxford University Press. 11. Gardner, A. & Conlon, J. P. (2013). Cosmological natural selection and the purpose of the universe. Complexity 18: 48–56.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 26
Moral Universals, Moral Particulars and Tinbergen’s Four Questions by David Sloan Wilson
Niko Tinbergen, a pioneer in the study of animal qualify as moral. For example, psychopaths are behavior, wisely observed that four questions said to lack a sense of right and wrong, treating need to be asked for all products of evolution1. everything as instrumental to their desires3. In most experimental games that measure 1. Given that a trait is an adaptation, what is cooperative behavior, a sizable fraction of its function that contributes to survival and individuals don’t cooperate and/or don’t punish reproduction? norm transgressions4. Nevertheless, enough individuals behave morally in virtually all cultures 2. Given that evolution is a historical process, so that the cultures function as moral systems. what is the phylogeny of the trait? Phylogeny: The reason that we are 3. Given that all traits (including behaviors) have a psychologically endowed to behave morally, to physical basis, what is the mechanism of the trait? the extent that we do, is because of a historical process of between-group selection. As Darwin 4. Given that all traits must come into being conjectured long ago, individuals who behave during the lifetime of the organism, what is the morally are vulnerable to more self-serving development of the trait? individuals within their own groups, but groups of individuals who behave morally robustly Tinbergen’s four questions apply to any out-compete groups whose members can’t pull variation-and-selection process, including together. The fact that between-group selection but not restricted to genetic evolution2. (favoring the traits associated with morality) Accordingly, they can be insightful for the study is often opposed by within-group selection of moral universals and particulars as products (favoring the traits associated with immorality) of human genetic and cultural evolution. explains why all of us behave immorally at least some of the time and some of us more than Function: The most general statement that can others. Insofar as different environments call be made about human morality is a functional for different behaviors to benefit a given group, one: In virtually all cultures, most people have a the specific behaviors that count as moral can be sense of right and wrong that corresponds to the highly variable. Also, not everything that evolves welfare of their groups. Also, most people create, is an adaptation. There are byproducts, products abide by, and enforce norms on the basis of what of drift, and mismatches (adaptive in past but not they regard as right and wrong. Notice that present environments) for cultural in addition to this generality is statistical in nature. It admits genetic evolution. Thus, Tinbergen’s Phylogeny the possibility that some individuals might not question can explain a lot of moral particularism.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 27
Mechanism: What takes place in our brains their underlying mechanisms that evolve in any when we behave morally? The answer might be particular culture will also have particularistic “it depends”. One person might behave out of developmental pathways. a sense of duty. Another might take pleasure in helping others. Another might be trying to earn This will require a rethinking of some stage a ticket to heaven. There is inherently a one-to- theories of human moral development. For many relationship between the function example, in Kohlberg’s theory of moral
Tinbergen’s four questions apply to any variation-and- selection process, including but not restricted to genetic evolution. Accordingly, they can be insightful for the study of moral universals and particulars as products of human genetic and cultural evolution.
of a trait and the proximate mechanisms that development5, the highest stage is driven by evolve to cause it. This is important because universal ethical principles. When this “stage” is philosophers often reason on the basis of reconceptualized as a moral system that their own moral intuition as if it must be competes against other moral systems, it culturally universal. There is no warrant for this requires very special conditions to evolve, which assumption from an evolutionary perspective. accounts for the fact that most individuals and We must realize that the proverb “there cultures don’t achieve it. Creating such a moral are many ways to skin a cat” applies to the system is an important normative goal that I mechanisms underlying moral behaviors along share, but there is no warrant for calling it a with many other kinds of behaviors. stage in a developmental sense.
Development: Our core psychological ability While the topic deserves much more than a to function as moral agents might qualify as short commentary, Tinbergen’s four questions universal or nearly so, with developmental might prove as useful for organizing the stages that are correspondingly universal. study of morality as for all other products of However, the particular moral systems and evolution.
References 1. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433. 2. A lecture that I frequently give on Tinbergen’s four questions is available online at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=yYrSQ3IULhk 3. O’Conner, L. E., Berry, J. W., Lewis, T. B., & Stiver, D. J. (2011). Empathy-based pathogenic guilt, pathological altruism, and psychopathology. In B. Oakley, A. Knafo, G. Madhavan, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), Pathological Altruism (pp. 10–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity,human cooperation, and the enforcement of human social norms. Human Nature, 415, 137–140. 5. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 2. The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 28
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
No
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 29
Moral Disagreement is Universal by Robert Kurzban and Peter DeScioli
What is universal about morality is morality are variable and changing, people need a flexible itself: cross-culturally, people think that moral psychology that can moralize whichever some behaviors are wrong, and so deserve actions are taboo in a given group9. However, this disapproval and punishment6. However, while does not mean that people only passively accept the capacity for moral judgment is universal, their group’s rules; they also actively advocate for there is tremendous variability in which the moral rules they prefer, especially when they behaviors people think are immoral5. We can find supporters to join their cause7. suspect that debates about moral universals are actually motivated by a different question: Many moral prohibitions have strategic Can people reach a consensus about which consequences because they constrain some actions should be morally prohibited? people more than others4. When a particular action is punished – such as same-sex marriage, Moral consensus is not only an abstract eating beef, black magic, disobeying authority, philosophical matter. People are worried about stem cell research – the subset of people who moral consensus for good reason. When a want to take that action are worse off; those community disagrees about the moral laws who don’t want to do the action are unaffected of the land, they can no longer rely on the or even gain a relative advantage. Given these rules to settle conflicts. Disputes are more strategic consequences, people tend to fight to likely to escalate with costly consequences for sway the rules that affect them the most11. everyone2,3. Moreover, rival coalitions struggle to impose their rules on those who disagree, This means that people’s efforts to persuade a further fomenting costly fighting10. community to adopt a moral rule – thou shalt not X – are essentially efforts to coerce a subset of In this context, what is universal about morality the community into a moral regime they would is disagreement. In all societies, people disagree, rather not be in. In practice, then, a society’s often violently, about which actions are immoral. morality creates a form of mob rule in which the For instance, recently, a prominent politician in moral prohibitions are determined by the most India offered a $1.5 million bounty to decapitate a powerful coalition, which is often the one backed popular actress who portrayed a Hindu queen in by the more numerous faction. Majoritarian a way he thought was morally offensive. Artistic political regimes, while having many virtues, allow expression or capital offense? Unfortunately, majorities to coerce minorities with the sticks these kinds of moral disagreements are universal. afforded them by moral rules.
Human moral judgment allows virtually any action Amid all of this conflict, however, our moral to become a prohibited and punishable offense. A psychology does have elements that can key reason is that individuals need to keep track of promote consensus. When almost everyone the moral rules in a community so they can avoid benefits from a moral prohibition, it generally crossing moral boundaries. Because moral rules becomes a matter of consensus because
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 30 everyone ends up advocating for the same least some sense of compassion and concern rules. This applies to the most universal for others’ welfare. Importantly, our sense of prohibitions such as those against (unprovoked compassion is psychologically distinct from our intentional) killing, harming, stealing, and lying. moral principles and prohibitions2. Contrary to These agreeable morals can be leveraged to traditional views, people do not actually need build consensus. moral rules to care about others’ well-being.
We can find a path to moral consensus by focusing on our shared concerns for people’s welfare, rather than contentious and divisive moral principles.
This idea underlies utilitarian philosophy, that a Instead, we should aim to use our universal rule should be adopted if it leads to net benefits sense of compassion to guide the choice of to society1.This philosophy basically attempts to moral prohibitions toward greater consensus. build consensus around the concept of welfare, This idea differs from what we typically see in while diminishing the large variety of contentious politics, where politicians appeal to coalitions moral rules about other matters such as taboos and moral principles, emphasizing who is surrounding food, sex, or supernatural beliefs. right and who is wrong8,11.In contrast, leaders who wish to build a broad consensus should We can find a path to moral consensus by emphasize how their policies will improve focusing on our shared concerns for people’s people’s welfare, especially by meeting people’s welfare, rather than contentious and divisive most pressing needs. moral principles. All normal humans have at
References 1. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Son. 2. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112(2), 281-299. 3. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 477. 4. DeScioli, P., Massenkoff, M., Shaw, A., Petersen, M. B., & Kurzban, R. (2014). Equity or equality? Moral judgments follow the money. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1797), 2014-2112. 5. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998-1002. 6. Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers. 7. Kurzban, R., Dukes, A., & Weeden, J. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: Reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277(1699), 3501-3508 8. Petersen, M. B., (2016). Evolutionary political psychology. Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Buss, D. M. (ed.). 2 ed. Wiley, Vol. 2, p. 1084-1102. 9. Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10(3), 218-221 10. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality, from Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives, Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp. 91-234. 11. Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2014). Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions and Why We Won’t Admit It. Princeton University Press.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 31
Our Modern Moral Predicament by Russell Blackford
I understand morality as a human invention, binding upon all rational beings that might underpinned by our evolved emotional exist in the universe, it is implausible that tendencies and our existential situation. they exist—and indeed, the idea seems to Morality is thus a technology that responds defy coherent explanation2,4,6. Might there, to our needs as social animals1,5,6. It facilitates nonetheless, be one true morality for human cooperation, originally in small groups in beings (not necessarily for whatever other competition with each other and with the rational beings happen to exist) grounded in a local non-human predators3,6. It provides common human nature and transcending the a counterweight to our limited rationality, desires and attitudes of particular people and information, intelligence, and sympathies6. the varied moral systems of actual societies6?
From the viewpoint of an ordinary person who This still seems unlikely. It requires a more has been socialized into a particular moral harmonious and purposive conception of system, the local moral norms will usually human nature than appears scientifically and seem like something more impressive and historically plausible6,7. We probably won’t metaphysical than I’ve described. They will discover a single perfect way of life for either
The outer limits of moral possibility are established by the emotional tendencies that prepare us to be morality-making beings.
appear to be categorically authoritative; they individuals or societies. That said, not just will be experienced as objective requirements any set of proposed norms can form a viable for conduct. For most people, that is, their moral system. Natural boundaries are shaped society’s standards for conduct appear to be by the function of morality in facilitating necessitated by a mind-independent reality social cooperation. The outer limits of moral that transcends any mere social institutions and possibility are established by the emotional anyone’s contingent desires and attitudes2,4,6. In tendencies that prepare us to be morality- typical societies, this appearance is taken to be making beings. In particular, we care most the reality and given some kind of supernatural about ourselves (as individuals), our offspring, explanation. kin, mates, and other affiliates1. We show some restraint in hurting each other, a degree If objective moral requirements are construed of natural kindness and reciprocity, positive as transcending human nature itself, and as attitudes to helpfulness, and a disposition to
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 32 seek vengeance when betrayed and to punish societies blend different groups with complex, non-cooperators3. diverse, yet intertwined, histories, and with their own religious and moral traditions. Rival Moral systems vary considerably, but some traditions often confront each other within virtues of character, such as courage and the same society, struggling for political and honesty, are likely to be regarded highly in any cultural supremacy3. human society. Conversely, no human society can tolerate unlimited ruthlessness in social, Second, the world’s societies—again with sexual, and economic competition within the divergent moral traditions—increasingly group; more specifically, each society insists need to cooperate with each other to handle on limits to intra-group violence. A full and problems on a very large scale6. In this situation, systematic understanding of the phenomenon our existing moralities and our evolved of morality would include both the possibilities emotional tendencies do not necessarily serve for variation in moral systems and the us well. They helped us to cooperate and boundaries within which variants proliferate. survive in small, often mutually suspicious, Against that background, our modern moral groups. Arguably, they are not so helpful when predicament involves at least two interrelated we come to terms with global issues of climate problems. First, we increasingly live in societies change, epidemic diseases, and the spread of that contain relatively little in the way of a massively destructive weapons. unitary moral system. Instead, contemporary
References 1. Churchland, Patricia S. (2011). Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton University Press. 2. Garner, R. (1994). Beyond Morality. Temple University Press. 3. Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them. Penguin. 4. Joyce, R. (2001). The Myth of Morality. Cambridge University Press. 5. Kitcher, Philip (2011). The Ethical Project. Harvard University Press. 6. Mackie, J. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin. 7. Williams, Bernard (1995). Evolution, Ethics and the Representation Problem. In Making Sense of Humanity and other Philosophical Papers 1982–1993. Cambridge University Press, pp. 100-110.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 33
Is there a universal morality? by Massimo Pigliucci
No, there is no such thing as a universal science, though at the time it was mostly morality, and it is somewhat surprising that physics). And he thought he could do that by people are still asking this question in the sheer force of reason. Rejecting — rightly — any 21st century. Then again, that doesn’t mean divine inspiration on the matter, Kant arrived that anything goes, a la moral relativism. Of at what he thought was a universal logic of course, much depends on what one means by morality, his famous categorical imperative: “universal,” so let’s try to parse things out a bit. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should To begin with, if by “universal” we mean that become a universal law.” Kantian deontology morality is like the laws of physics, or like (i.e., duty-based ethics) has all sorts of specific mathematical theorems, or perhaps like the problems, well known to philosophers, but the laws of logic, then forget it. Setting aside most fundamental one is that moral philosophy interesting discussions on the nature of is nothing like physics. Or logic. mathematics and logic and whether even their tenets are truly universal or not, morality isn’t Rather, the ancient Greeks and Romans were even in the ballpark. far closer to the mark: ethics has to do with how to arrive at as harmonious social interactions as “Morality” comes from the Latin moralis, the it is humanly possible, and this can be done in a word used by Cicero to translate the Greek variety of different ways, which is why Socrates êthos. The Latin word refers more properly to at one point said that what goes in Athens does the habits and customs of a people, while the not go in Sparta, and vice versa. Greek one is related to the idea of character. So “morality” is concerned with people’s This begins to sound suspiciously like moral characters and how we interact with each relativism, though, and yet very few of the other in society. ancients would fall under that category (except the Sophists, the precursors of both modern Indeed, the modern, especially Western, lawyers and of radical postmodernists...). What secular conception of morality as having to saved ancient ethics from relativism, and what do with a universal code of behavior, with will save us more than two millennia later, if we Right and Wrong (note the capitalization) is a stop listening to Kant (or John Stuart Mill, or a recent phenomenon, mostly to be traced to the lot of other modern moral philosophers) is the Enlightenment and particularly to the figure existence of human nature. of Immanuel Kant. And that’s not a good thing, unfortunately. Socrates, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Cynics, and a number of other Greco-Roman schools Kant wanted to put moral philosophy on the agreed on one thing: human beings are a same firm footing that Newton had provided particular type of animal, and that particularity for natural philosophy (what we today call lies chiefly in two aspects of what it means
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 34 to be human: we are highly social, and we are of a social animal naturally requires, and as it capable of reason. requires.” (Meditations, IV.24)
…ethics has to do with how to arrive at as harmonious social interactions as it is humanly possible.
The first bit means that we are all deeply There is something, of course, the ancients inter-dependent on other people. Despite did get wrong: they, especially Aristotle, the fashionable nonsense, especially in the thought that human nature was the result of United States, about “self-made men” (they are a teleological process, that everything has a usually men), there actually is no such thing. proper function, determined by the very nature Without social bonds and support our lives of the cosmos. We don’t believe that anymore, would be, as Thomas Hobbes famously put not after Copernicus and especially Darwin. it, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The second But we do know that human beings are indeed bit, the one about intelligence, does not mean a particular product of complex and ongoing that we always, or even often, act rationally. evolutionary processes. These processes do not Only that we have the capability to do so. determine a human essence, but they do shape Ethics, then, especially (but not only) for the a statistical cluster of characters that define Stoics becomes a matter of “living according what it means to be human. That cluster, in to nature,” meaning not to endorse whatever turn, constrains — without determining — what is natural (that’s an elementary logical fallacy), sort of behaviors are pro-social and lead to but rather to take seriously the two pillars of human flourishing, and what sort of behaviors human nature: sociality and reason. As Marcus don’t. And ethics is the empirically informed Aurelius put it, “Do what is necessary, and philosophical enterprise that attempts to whatever the reason understand and articulate that distinction.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 35
“Can an evolutionary perspective reveal a universal morality?”
Yes
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 36
Morality is Objective by Eric Dietrich
The world is increasingly embracing diversity morality, cannot be the whole story. There — religious, cultural, and political diversity, is a need for clear, definite moral lines that for example. Embracing diversity means cannot be crossed without (near) universal, being more tolerant of differences between robust condemnation: racial and gender individuals and groups, both large and small. discrimination, sexual harassment, terrorism, This surge of tolerance is accompanied by an and ignoring global warming are often thought increasing moral relativism, especially among of as objectively morally wrong. But this moral young people. Moral relativism is thought to objectivity seems to be accepted only for naturally accompany tolerance. such big issues as those just listed. Relativism appears to hold sway over much of our daily Consider the burka, an enveloping outer conversations and judgments. garment some Muslim traditions require their women to wear. Burqas cover the There is, however, a clear path to a universal woman’s body and often, her face. Many and powerful moral objectivity, the view thoughtful non-Muslim people, especially in that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as the west, while rejecting, or not accepting, objectively true as science and mathematics. burqas for women in general because, e.g., The key ingredient is the notion of harm. they seem sexist, do accept, or do not object to, the practice of wearing burqas where it is Every living animal with a nervous system practiced. This is because wearing burqas is an can and does experience harm (it may be that integral part of an ongoing, robust culture. every living thing experiences harm, but that
…morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm
A westerner might say: “I reject burqas as is an issue for another time). Harm is marked sexist, but this is just my personal view; others by pain, fear, hunger, thirst, sadness, frustration, have different views, and theirs are just as ...any negative emotion. We live in a universe legitimate as mine.” This is relativism: the view that randomly dishes out harm — consider that different moral norms are equally moral the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, and are therefore to be tolerated. as just one example. But we can check both intentional harm, which is under our Relativism, even if part of the story of human control, and other types of unintentional
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 37 harm, e.g., environmental damage caused by objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, development. so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply The question now is “Why ought we to check on the fact that harming exists and should be (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because checked. it is harm. Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, Of course, implementing this moral truth is by definition. Hence we all have a moral duty quite complex. But that is a story also for not to harm other living things. This moral another day. duty exists objectively because harm exists
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 38
Harmful Intentions Are Always Seen As Bad by Gordon Ingram
While many moral norms are arguably cases unfavorably4. My Ph.D. student, Camilo universal1, I will focus here on a kind of moral Moreno, and I recently replicated that result meta-norm, namely, the importance of an with a cultural group (relatively low-income actor’s intentions for people who make moral Colombian children) whose moral reasoning evaluations of their actions. Some of the had never before been studied like this. We best evidence for the universal importance also demonstrated that it held true even for of intentions comes from developmental children as young as three who did not pass a psychology, showing how moral reasoning standard false-belief task – that is, they seemed works before children have received much incapable of representing beliefs of another cultural learning about social rules. Experiments person that differed from their own5. using animated characters have shown that even completely pre-verbal infants implicitly prefer If we assume that these young children are characters who try to help another character, condemning someone for an intention to but fail, to those who try to hinder another break a rule, it seems strange that while character but accidentally help them2. unable to understand that someone can have a wrong belief, they are yet able to understand A further development takes place when that someone can have a wrong intention children aged 6 or 7 stop explicitly condemning (that is, an intention to break a rule that they characters that accidentally harm another themselves would follow). A more natural character, despite having intentions to help interpretation is perhaps that across the them. This phenomenon is generally known various scenarios that we used, the characters as the outcome-to-intention shift3, implying are being judged for an intention to harm. We that children move from a focus on morally already know that three-year-old children are evaluating the outcomes of actions to capable of understanding the concept of harm evaluating the intentions behind the actions. because even three-year-old children easily This is, in fact, a misnomer, as only bad distinguish between two types of normative outcomes with good intentions are affected rules: conventional rules, which are authority by the transition. Good intentions with good dependent, vary from place to place, and tend outcomes are always judged favorably, while to have less serious consequences if violated; bad intentions with bad outcomes are always and moral rules, which are independent of judged negatively. The only other interesting whether an authority figure says they should combination is that of bad intentions with good be obeyed, apply everywhere, and whose outcomes. Previous work showed that children violations have serious consequences6. Only as young as four nearly always judge such the second type of rule is associated with the
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 39 idea of harm: when asked why moral rules the perpetrators, and thus no material harm should be followed, children spontaneously would result. bring up the idea of harmful repercussions to not following them but tend not to mention Reflecting on these experiments in the light of harm in connection with conventional rules. the importance of intentional understanding
…it makes evolutionary sense that people would be hyper-vigilant about harmful intent, reading people’s morally relevant actions for clues of possible intentions to harm the values and structures that their own group holds dear.
In contrast, authors such as Jonathan Haidt7 in moral development, it occurs to me that have argued from a “moral pluralist” point although no material harm resulted in the of view that concerns about harm (and its vignettes, the characters in them may have positive counterpart, care) represent just one been judged for their apparent intentions of at least five foundational systems in human to harm: not to do material harm, but to do moral psychology. Much of the evidence for symbolic harm to a group, authority or belief this comes from experiments in which working system. From the perspective of cultural group conservative, working-class, or non-Western selection8, it makes evolutionary sense that participants would condemn much more people would be hyper-vigilant about harmful harshly than their liberal, middle-class, or intent, reading people’s morally relevant Western counterparts such transgressions actions for clues of possible intentions to harm as having sex with an already-dead chicken, the values and structures that their own group cleaning a lavatory with the national flag, or holds dear. The importance of all this is that it incest between consenting adults, even though instructs us to remember that our ideological it was made clear that these transgressions opponents may feel threatened by our ideas, would not be witnessed by anyone other than just as we can feel threatened by theirs.
References 1. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2. Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Failed attempts to help and harm: Intention versus outcome in preverbal infants’ social evaluations. Cognition, 128, 451–474. 3. Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Paul, Trench, & Trubner. 4. Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgement. Cognition, 127, 6–21. 5. Moreno, C. O., & Ingram, G. P. D. (2018). Manuscript in preparation. 6. Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 7. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. 8. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 40
Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World by Oliver Scott Curry
What is morality? And are there any universal because there are many types of cooperation, moral values? Scholars have debated these there will be many types of morality. Kin questions for millennia. But now, thanks to selection explains why we feel a special duty science, we have the answers. of care for our families, and why we abhor incest. Mutualism explains why we form groups Converging lines of evidence – from game and coalitions (there is strength and safety theory, ethology, psychology, and anthropology in numbers), and hence why we value unity, – suggest that morality is a collection of tools for solidarity, and loyalty. Social exchange explains promoting cooperation1. why we trust others, reciprocate favors, feel
Morality is always and everywhere a cooperative phenomenon
For 50 million years humans and their ancestors guilt and gratitude, make amends, and forgive. have lived in social groups. During this time And conflict resolution explains: why we engage natural selection equipped them with a range of in costly displays of prowess such as bravery and adaptations for realizing the enormous benefits generosity; why we defer to our superiors; why of cooperation that social life affords. More we divide disputed resources fairly; and why we recently, humans have built on these benevolent recognize prior possession. biological foundations with cultural innovations – norms, rules, institutions – that further bolster And, as predicted by the theory, these seven cooperation. Together, these biological and moral rules – love your family, help your group, cultural mechanisms provide the motivation for return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be social, cooperative and altruistic behavior; and fair, and respect others’ property – appear to they provide the criteria by which we evaluate be universal across cultures. My colleagues the behavior of others. And, according to the and I analyzed ethnographic accounts of ethics theory of ‘morality as cooperation’, it is precisely from 60 societies (comprising over 600,000 this collection of cooperative traits that words from over 600 sources)2. We found that constitute human morality. these seven cooperative behaviors were always considered morally good. We found examples of What’s more, the theory leads us to expect that, most of these morals in most societies. Crucially,
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 41 there were no counter-examples – no societies Tarahumara, “respect for the property of others in which any of these behaviors were considered is the keystone of all interpersonal relations”. morally bad. And we observed these morals with equal frequency across continents; they were ‘Morality as cooperation’ does not predict that not the exclusive preserve of ‘the West’ or any moral values will be identical across cultures. other region. On the contrary, the theory predicts ‘variation on a theme’: moral values will reflect the For example, among the Amhara, “flouting value of different types of cooperation under kinship obligation is regarded as a shameful different social and ecological conditions. And deviation, indicating an evil character”. In certainly, it was our impression that these Korea, there exists an “egalitarian community societies did indeed vary in how they ethic [of] mutual assistance and cooperation prioritized or ranked the seven moral values. among neighbors [and] strong in-group With further research, perhaps gathering new solidarity”. “Reciprocity is observed in every data on moral values in contemporary societies, stage of Garo life [and] has a very high place we shall be able to explore the causes of this in the Garo social structure of values”. Among variation. the Maasai, “Those who cling to warrior virtues are still highly respected”, and “the And so there is a common core of universal uncompromising ideal of supreme warriorhood moral principles. Morality is always and [involves] ascetic commitment to self-sacrifice… everywhere a cooperative phenomenon. And in the heat of battle, as a supreme display of everyone agrees that cooperating, promoting courageous loyalty”. The Bemba exhibit “a the common good, is the right thing to do. deep sense of respect for elders’ authority”. Appreciating this fundamental fact about The Kapauku “idea of justice” is called “uta-uta, human nature could help promote mutual half-half…[the meaning of which] comes very understanding between people of different close to what we call equity”. And among the cultures, and so help to make the world a better place.
References 1. Curry, O.S., Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centred Approach, in The Evolution of Morality, T.K. Shackelford and R.D. Hansen, Editors. 2016, Springer International Publishing. p. 27-51. 2. Curry, O.S., D.A. Mullins, and H. Whitehouse, Is it good to cooperate? (forthcoming) Testing the theory of morality-as- cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology. (https//osf.io/9546r)
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 42
A Universal Principle Within Morality’s Ultimate Source by Mark Sloan
There is a dilemma that must be solved by all beings within an in-group. To sustainably obtain these that form highly cooperative societies. This dilemma benefits of cooperation, people within this in-group is how to obtain the benefits of cooperation without “circle of moral concern”7 are not exploited. future benefits being destroyed by exploitation, such as by free riders accepting a benefit but not This defines a universal moral principle: “Solve reciprocating. Solving the cooperation/exploitation the cooperation/exploitation dilemma without dilemma is difficult because exploitation is virtually exploiting others in your circle of moral concern”. always the ‘winning’ strategy in the short term and This principle is universal because it is a necessary can be in the longer term. component of all cultural moralities, even sub- cultures which restrict in-groups to family or Fortunately for us, our ancestors came across friends and exploit everyone else. We can simplify solutions that have enabled us to become the this universal principle as “Increase the benefits incredibly successful social species we are. of cooperation without exploiting others”, leaving Evolution encoded some of these solutions in “others” undefined for the moment. our moral sense and cultural moral codes as “morality”. The science of the last 50 years or This universal moral principle is an attractive so reveals human morality to be elements of reference for refining moral codes to better cooperation strategies2,3,4,5,9 which have made meet shared needs and preferences. It advocates us “SuperCooperators”6. increased cooperation which both increases material goods benefits and triggers the emotional Cultural moralities are solutions to the cooperation/ rewards evolution encoded that motivate further exploitation dilemma, but they are also diverse, cooperation. Because our moral sense was contradictory, and sometimes strange. Exploitation selected for by the benefits of cooperation, these of out-groups (such as slaves, women, and “others”) cooperation strategies are innately harmonious has been common. Strange markers of being a moral with our moral sense. This moral principle is person such as circumcision, dress and hairstyle, and practical. Following common moral norms such food and sex taboos have been required. as the Golden Rule is universally moral when the benefits of cooperation are increased. But Could there be a universally moral subset of when following such norms would not solve these “descriptively moral” behaviors (behaviors the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, as when described as moral in one culture but perhaps not in dealing with criminals and in wartime, following others)? Even when cooperating to exploit or make them would not be moral. Since this universal war8 on out-groups, we must necessarily begin moral principle defines only moral ‘means’ by solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma (actions that increase cooperation’s benefits
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 43 without exploiting others) and is silent on moral friends, and community. Also, cultural moral norms ‘ends’ (what those benefits are), societies are free are best understood not as moral absolutes but as to define what those benefits of cooperation ought heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of thumb) to be and change them as circumstances change. for sustainably increasing the benefits of cooperation. The universal moral principle also sheds light on Further, if “others” are defined as all people, then all the morality of two human invented solutions to ‘moral’ norms that exploit out-groups contradict the the cooperation/exploitation dilemma: money universal moral principle. These include economic economies (which efficiently enable cooperation systems based on the unfettered pursuit of self- that produces material goods) and rule of law interest leading to exploitation and prohibitions (which effectively uses force to punish exploiters). against homosexuality that exploit homosexuals as
… properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community.
Finally, because universally moral means are imaginary threats. This purely science-based accurately tracked, this moral principle is a useful definition of what ‘is’ universally moral appears to be objective reference for resolving many moral culturally useful independent of any arguments for disputes. (Disputes can persist about how “others”, mysterious1 sources of obligation or moral authority. “exploiting”, ultimate moral ‘ends’, and other implementation details are defined even among However, the principle does not answer all moral people who accept the principle.) questions. What benefits for acting morally ought we seek and who ought to be included in Individuals can benefit from this science by realizing “others” who are not to be exploited? Common that, properly understood, morality is not a burden; preferences might be “increased well-being” it is an effective means for increasing the benefits and “everyone”. But here objective science goes of cooperation, especially emotional well-being silent; answers to these questions are in the resulting from sustained cooperation with family, domain of moral philosophy.
References 1. Blackford, Russell (2016). The Mystery of Moral Authority. Palgrave Macmillan. 2. Bowles, S., Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press. 3. Curry, O. S. (2007). The conflict-resolution theory of virtue. In W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 251- 261). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 4. Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The Evolution of Morality. Springer. 5. Harms, W., Skyrms, B. (2010) Evolution of Moral Norms. In Oxford Handbook on the Philosophy of Biology ed. Michael Ruse. Oxford University Press. 6. Nowak, M., Highfield, R. (2011). SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. Free Press. 7. Singer, Peter (1981) The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton University Press. 8. Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality, from Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives, Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp. 91-234. 9. Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of Human Cooperation and Morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 231-255.
evolution-institute.org This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality? 44
This View of Life is the online magazine of the non-profit think tank The Evolution Institute, which applies evolutionary science to pressing social issues, deploying a multi-disciplinary team of experts in biology, the social sciences, and Big Data. Projects of study include the Norway Initiative on global quality of life, the Urban Initiative on sustainable community and educational development, and Sheshat, a large, multidisciplinary database of past societies, used to test theories about political and economic development.
Consider joining the TVOL1000, a group that supports the magazine, helps to shape its content, and otherwise works to establish “this view of life” as a worldview for accomplishing positive change.
www.evolution-institute.org TheEvolutionInstitute @evoinstitute
10627 Machrihanish Circle San Antonio, FL 33576 (813) 435-3534
evolution-institute.org