In the last post I argued that the basis of our morality lies in our natural aversion to other people's distress. Put quite simply, we learn to avoid harming people because we don't like upsetting them.
But why might this tendency to find the pain of others aversive, and to learn the rules of morality on the basis of this aversion, have evolved?
The basic principle of evolutionary psychology is that a trait will become a part of a species' genetic make-up if it is beneficial to an individual's ability to survive and reproduce (if it is fitness-enhancing, in the jargon). This has been characterised as a “selfish” process – genes that harm their bearers (people) will be rooted out in favour of genes that help them to survive and procreate.
But how could this “selfish” process have given rise to a selfless trait – our desire to avoid and alleviate the suffering of other people?
The answer seems to be that a trait that reduces an individual's fitness – their ability to survive and procreate – can nevertheless be selected for and become a part of the species' genetic make-up if it is beneficial to the group that they live in. This is known as group selection.
Let's apply this to our case. A lone individual who is sensitive to the suffering of others might not be very successful, as he would be taken advantage of mercilessly by his selfish peers. But, a group which includes many individuals with this empathetic tendency could be much more successful than their more selfish competitor groups. They would be able to function more harmoniously together and to look after each other when they need help.
Is this the answer to the question of why morality might have evolved?
But why might this tendency to find the pain of others aversive, and to learn the rules of morality on the basis of this aversion, have evolved?
The basic principle of evolutionary psychology is that a trait will become a part of a species' genetic make-up if it is beneficial to an individual's ability to survive and reproduce (if it is fitness-enhancing, in the jargon). This has been characterised as a “selfish” process – genes that harm their bearers (people) will be rooted out in favour of genes that help them to survive and procreate.
But how could this “selfish” process have given rise to a selfless trait – our desire to avoid and alleviate the suffering of other people?
The answer seems to be that a trait that reduces an individual's fitness – their ability to survive and procreate – can nevertheless be selected for and become a part of the species' genetic make-up if it is beneficial to the group that they live in. This is known as group selection.
Let's apply this to our case. A lone individual who is sensitive to the suffering of others might not be very successful, as he would be taken advantage of mercilessly by his selfish peers. But, a group which includes many individuals with this empathetic tendency could be much more successful than their more selfish competitor groups. They would be able to function more harmoniously together and to look after each other when they need help.
Is this the answer to the question of why morality might have evolved?
This is a mechanistic approach which denies human spirituality. There is real evil in the world not just an evolutionary adaptation. It would seem to me that the 'empathetic' individual would find life intolerable in a society of uncaring individuals and become 'mentally ill' in our terms. A suggestion made by R.D. Laing in the 1960's. I don't think humans do ' look afer each other when they need help' we hide people away in units , special schools and hospitals. Human history, apart from the instance of some individuals , is not noted for its compassion for the sufferings of others.
ReplyDelete