Biological Roots
Family Values
Imagine that you are a gene (as in a length of the DNA that lasts long enough to be evolutionarily significant [not necessarily coding for a single protein]), as unusual and difficult a request as that is. Now imagine that your main aim is to survive for long enough to be replicated (in humans through sexual reproduction). You also have a secondary aim; to help exact copies of yourself - for example, the ones your organism views as sibling and parents each share around 50% of your own organism's DNA, so have a 50% chance of having 'you'. Remember, you're just a sequence of bases, and are unable to directly influence the environment, but you are able to code for the physiology and psychology of the organism you are a part of - the real you! By giving your organism certain traits that other organisms might see as 'moral', and indeed other traits that could be seen as 'immoral', you can ensure your survival, and the survival of those who are likely to possess a replica of yourself.
This is a grossly simplified and anthropmorphised thought experiment. Your genes can no more select your characteristics than you can select the weather tomorrow, but over enormous lengths of time there is a process by which your genes can gain control over your characteristics - evolution. More precisely, evolution selects those genes which code for evolutionarily advantageous trait. Those organisms with 'bad' genes, both physiological and psychological, will die out, and those that have 'good' genes will flourish. For example, we can assume that a mutant gene that gives an organism an insatiable desire to slaughter all its relatives will not remain in the gene pool for very long. On the other hand, a gene that makes the organism a selfless being which lives purely to serve others and expects nothing in return will also exist for the briefest moment on an evolutionary timescale.Now that you've been given a background, it's time to go back to the issue at hand. Why do we feel an innate empathy for those who are closely related to us (as well as partners), and will invest our time and energy for them even if we expect absolutely nothing in return - what most know as love. As I alluded to above, we share around 50% of our genetic material with immediate relatives, and smaller percentages with more distant relatives. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that the human mind is geared towards wanting these relatives to survive and reproduce as well, as a gene that gives us a sense of family altruism will be very successful. It's worth spending a couple of minutes trying to get your head around this idea, as it is important to the rest of the article and is profound in its own right.
Evolution favours genes that produce organisms that invest time and energy into other organisms that are likely to share the same gene. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle - the reason why almost every animal has been observed to help out its family.
Reciprocal Altruism
So we've looked at the roots of family altruism, but the vast majority of people we meet aren't related to us. Why is it that we ever help out non-related people, and why do we expect them to help us?
In short, this is a case of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". Seemingly altruistic acts are often carried out with the expectation of a return in the future from the person benefiting. I know how cynical that sounds, but in many situations it turns out to be true, even if we don't realise or want to accept it. As I mentioned earlier, genes that coded for an organism that would provide help at the expense of its own chances of survival would quickly die out, as the organism would be vunerable to exploitation to what we can call 'cheaters', who accept the saintly organism's aid but give nothing in return.
However, there's still hope for humanity! People could not be entirely selfish/exploitative. While genes could code for an organism that will only receive help without giving any in exchange, the rest of the population would evolve to identify cheaters, and evolve a mechanism against them, such as grudge holding if they don't return favours. Technically a small number of selfish organisms (or people) could exist, but it's unlikely that they would come to dominate the population.
The genetic roots of morality apply more to other animals than to humans, for the simple reason that we have evolved something unique - a brain that can make complex decisions for itself. We have moved beyond our genetic pre-programming to establish a higher, and occasionally a lesser, morality.
I should point out that most of the post so far is a summary of Richard Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' - a fantastic book that you should definitely read!
Cultural Roots
Memes
It has been proposed that a new, more rapid type of evolution has taken over where evolution left over. Instead of genes being propagated through the generations, there are now ideas or 'memes'. While genes use the organism as a host, and reproductino as a means of self-continuation, memes use the human brain as their host and the transmission of information (word of mouth or writing for most of human history) its means of continuation.Just like genes, 'bad' memes, or those that are not memorable, relateble or useful, will die out, and the 'good' memes will survive and spread. An example of this is religion. Religion gives answers to deep and troubling questions about reality, as well as providing the possibility of good things in the future when the present is full of suffering. As a result, it has become a particularly successful meme, survivng for millenia and held by billions around the world. Likewise, ideas such as nationalism, racism, charity and countless others can come to be widely held if they are successful memes.
The other cultural sources of morality or immorality are well-known, so I won't waste your time telling you about them. These include religion, family, friends education and media, and probably many more that I haven't thought of.
Nature vs. Nurture
In the end, this entire issue of the roots of morality boils down to the classic nature vs. nurture debate. It's certain that both play important parts, but we may never know which has the greater role, and the discussion of it is beyond the scope of this post (but maybe I'll spend some time looking at it in the future!)
I'll leave you with a couple of things to think about:
1. If a person was seperated from other people from birth, and every man-made thing and piece of information (i.e. no culture whatsoever), would they see murder as inherently wrong?
2. If a person was taught from the age when they could first absorb information that murder is inherently good (not just the 'better of two evils', but a highly moral and righteous thing in its own right), and were not exposed to any information that would conflict with this (i.e. culture overload), would they come to believe that murder was a truly good thing?
Feel free to leave your opinion on these questions in the comments below.
- Daniel
