Credit: CORBIS
HERE WE CAN start to see the beginnings of a coherent answer to our original question of how humans – driven as we are by selfish genes – have evolved such a complex capacity as morality.
In an environment where cooperation such as reciprocal altruism is beneficial – even if occasionally cheating is more beneficial – our selfish genes allow for the evolution of cooperative behaviour. However, in order for it to work, it needs to compel such behaviour. And what better device to compel us into action than our emotions, whether it be praising a cooperator for their altruistic actions or bringing righteous punishment upon a cheater for exploiting others' good intentions.
Thousands of years of armchair speculation by philosophers about the nature of morality is a tough act to follow, although there are signs the science of morality is starting to shift thinking even amongst the plaid-wearing, elbow-patch brigade.
Kim Sterelny, of the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, studies the philosophy of biology and psychology. According to him, evolution has received a great deal of attention in philosophical circles recently. "Evolutionary psychology is being taken seriously in philosophy, but that's different from saying that it's being accepted."
Yet, according to Sterelny, there are many philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett at Tufts University in Medford, north of Boston, and Richard Joyce at ANU, who are scrambling to review moral theory in light of the science.
As for whether we're born selfish … or not? "No one said we were selected to be perfectly cooperative. No one thinks we were selected to be saintly. We're selected to be partly cooperative, and partly generous," says Sterelny. "If there's selection for cooperation, and moral emotions that make morals easier and more reliable, that suggests we have a mixed psychology."
On one hand we have our selfish tendencies, which have obvious adaptive benefits, especially when we're in a competitive environment. On the other, we have altruistic tendencies selected to encourage us to cooperate with others, thus benefiting all. This means we have no single morality, and no single human nature. Instead, we have two prime driving forces – selfishness and cooperation – that work in tension, according to the dynamics of game theory, to yield our complex behaviour.
So maybe it's not such folly to wish for "universal love and the welfare of the species" after all.
Tim Dean is the editor of Cosmos, a philosophy graduate, and coordinator of Socrates Café, a group for philosophical discussion, in Sydney.
What of the role of the soul
What of the role of the soul in these matters of morality (it's ability to distinguish right from wrong). Or do the majority of scientists nowadays (or even just those working within this magazine) have no belief in the existence of the soul whatsoever? Does science as a subject exclude this topic?
soul is unnecessary by Orcus Dreki
i'm afraid i have to invoke Occam's razor here as an explanation, generally in science, the theory that can accurately explain reality with the minimum amount of assumptions prevails. the fact of the matter is if we can explain morality as a physical process of the brain, that came about through the evolutionary process there is no need to invoke a soul, because thats simply another assumption that has no evidence to back it.
therefore the question you should be asking is.
if every function traditionally given to the soul is actually a physical process of the brain, then what reason do we have to believe we have a soul at all?
the answer should naturally be
none at all besides our desire to have one
unfortunately
desire =/= reality
harsh but true
a soul
a soul cannot be measured or counted,
until it can be proven a factor and given a scientific relevant name.
A 'soul' is extremely non-scientific and could BE the unslefish gene but its still non-scientific.
its similar to saying "and then we will travel back in time and fix it", they are both absurd just this one is less absurd and more understandable
Eliot
what about agape altruism
While the experiments tell us much about human interaction. What model shows why a man would risk his life to save a dog in a frozen pond? This type of altruism appears to go well beyond any genetic based activity. Tit for Tat flies out through the window on this.
Morality Is Spacetime Umpire
Equator of self-contradiction (gluon of pair), is the cosmological umpire and Absolute Logic of Spacetime-Continuum.-Aiya-Oba (Poet/Philosopher).
evolution of evil souls
A recent personal encounter with an 'evil' soul - i.e. a person with a psychopathic/narcissistic personality disorder - has got me thinking about this topic. Are psychopaths somehow the product of environments pervaded by social breakdown (be it home or country), where selfish behaviour is more likely to be a 'winning' strategy than cooperative behaviour? Could this explain why there seem to be so many 'evil' people/leaders in war-torn or unstable countries, such as some of those in sub-saharan Africa? Or in socio-economically depressed areas? Some US research has shown that rates of sociopathy are higher in urban areas, particularly those which are socially and economically depressed. Are personality disorders such as psychopathy and narcissism, whereby those afflicted have little or no capacity for empathy, guilt or altruism , selected for in certain environments? Is this why such personality types make up a percentage of any given population? (some figures suggest as many as 1 in 25 people are psychopaths)