From ‘The Intelligence Issue’
——————————————–
Are Humans Inherently Good?
This is a question as old as questions. Philosophers, theologians and social scientists have all been exploring the relationship between morality and the innate human character, and all have come up with their own explanations, all of which create even more questions. So it goes in the seemingly endless exploration of the human experience.
As the vast majority of humanity tends towards one religion or another, to varying degrees of fundamental interpretation, it is the religious explanation that seems most often accepted. In the Christian tradition, man has fallen, he is a sinner, and it is only his faith in God that will reunite him with otherworldly virtue.
Science is now taking a shot at the topic as well. Specifically, how has our history as an evolved species influenced how we behave as ethical or unethical creatures today? Some are now starting to argue that our sense of justice, fairness, right and wrong are hardwired into our minds. This is a stretch, at the very least, but some interesting new scientific developments are adding to the wider discourse.
But what do we mean by “morality”? What is “innate”?
Morality, at bottom, deals with the notions of right and wrong. This is highly problematic, as what is right and wrong differs wildly from one culture or civilisation to the next. But it does seem that certain fundamental themes reoccur in the vast majority of cultures. How – there are examples of differences in what being a moral individual encompasses in one group to the next. These differences can be minor(concepts about marriage and familial duty) or major(the willingness to cause other humans harm).
The very notion that a coherent morality even exists is therefore highly problematic as if it did, all humans would share it. The idea that one ought not kill, for example, would seem to be as basic a rule as possible. Unfortunately, there have been(and are) societies where killing was culturally appropriate(sacrifices to god, or in the search of justice in the form of capital punishment), but generally speaking the act of ending a human life in normal circumstances(just randomly killing) is highly looked down upon. Another example is child rape. Again, the vast majority of cultures have stigmatised child rape(with some bizarre and disgusting exceptions, with varied reasons).
Then, perhaps we ought to focus instead on the idea of altruism, or the human ability to sacrifice ones own interests to the benefit of another, and this can be with or without any expectation of reciprocity or benefit. The altruistic tendency of humans, regardless of society, is a theme that constantly repeats itself. But what is altruistic will depend on the society/culture in which we live. There have been societies(and still are) where people will offer themselves in death to the greater cause of their group. This can be seen in Japanese Kamikaze fighters, soldiers who will jump on a grenade to save their fellow troops or people who donate their organs to friends and family members at the risk of death.
And cooperation. We cooperate with each other on a daily basis. In modern society, this often takes the form of capitalist transactions, but can include holding the door open for a stranger, or giving up ones seat on the subway to a pregnant woman or elderly individual.
Our ability to be cooperative and altruistic, whatever the larger societal context, may be what we are ultimately discussing when considering our innate nature in regards to our peers.
When we use the word ‘innate’, we are asking about the fundamental hardwiring of our minds. With culture, social conditioning and stigma stripped away, will we all behave as violent animals, killing one another with total disregard for the other? Or, is culture a result of fundamental and relatively unchanging thinking patterns of the mind, combined with local conditions, needs, power structures and the like?
The evolutionary explanation for human behaviour is hardly new but is being reinvigorated and added to. Humans have learned to cooperate as a means of survival. For thousands and thousands of years, while our species was living in small communities that survived on substance agriculture and hunting, we developed means of maintaining harmony to ensure the individual would be able to better work with his peers and survive the cruel Darwinist reality.
But recently, a new book has made theory much more clear, and relies deeply on new research on how the mind behaves in different situations.
In The Mind of The Market, Dr Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine and professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University in Los Angeles attempts to aggregate this science into a coherent argument that humans are, if not inherently ‘good’, at the very least inherently cooperative.
Shermer is a classical liberal(libertarian, in American-speak) and is ideologically inclined towards market economics. To him, market-based societies are most properly suited to human nature as they force us to cooperate with others to best seek our own maximum benefit. Needless to say, he doesn’t have total agreement from his academic peers.
But Shermer provides examples of how we have evolved an almost irrational and self-defeating notion of justice, and provides some interesting evidence to support this.
In one example, humans are placed in a game situation whereby there are two players and one of the players is given US$100. He must come to an agreement with the other player as to how to share the money(and must share at least US$1), but if the other player does not agree then both get zero dollars.
When this game is played, a large majority of 60-40, 70-30 or even 55-45 transactions are rejected by the other player. Even though both players are better off either way, nothing less than a 50-50 split is commonly accepted. When asked why they reject anything less than a 50-50 split, players often cite unfairness.
To answer these questions, scientists have placed primates in similar situations. The magazine Scientific American explains:
In (an) experiment in which two capuchins were trained to exchange a granite stone for a cucumber slice, they may the trade 95 percent of the time. But if one monkey received a grape instead(a delicacy capuchins greatly prefer over cucumbers), the other monkey cooperated only 60 percent of the time, sometimes even refusing the cucumber altogether. In a third condition in which one monkey received a grape without even having to swap a granite stone for it, the other monkey cooperated only 20 percent of the time. And in several instances, they became so outraged at the inequity of the outcome they heaved the cucumber slice back the human experimenters! (Emphasis added.)
Similar experiments with other primates have had similar results. Even our evolutionary kin seen predisposed towards fairness in cooperative activities (that is, if you accept that we have evolutionary kin to begin with).
Other studies done on the human mind have demonstrated that different hormones are released in out brains depending on the situation. These chemicals cause us to feel emotions that manipulate out behaviour. One such hormone is called oxytocin, and is released when humans fairly cooperate. In fact, when humans are given oxytocin in a nasal spray, and put in situations where they are encouraged to cooperate in a laboratory setting, those who are given the hormone are much more likely to behave extremely
cooperatively than those who were not given it.
Shermer describes oxytocin as an evolutionary-born “social-glue”. Those who were more able to cooperate with their peers in primitive human society (the vast, vast majority of our history) were more likely to survive, and those with a higher propensity to secrete this hormone would be more likely to cooperate.
In addition to this, we now know that when humans peaceably cooperate, the brain secretes dopamine, which is associated with pleasure, sex, happiness, addiction and serves as the brain’s way of rewarding certain behaviours.
So, where does this leave us? Are humans inherently good, bad or somewhere in the middle? We can say with certainty that we are disposed towards cooperation, and that this may be due to our evolutionary origins. In addition, we know that humans can be kind for the sake of kindness(altruism). But the nature of kindness and altruism can change from society to society.
Then, what we are left with is more of a guide of how to make moral humans than a guide of how humans are moral. We ought to organise in societies where we can peaceably cooperate for mutual benefit (market economies may satisfy this) and we ought to find ways to reward altruism, perhaps similar to the way that American universities require students to have volunteer experience prior to admission (this is admittedly paradoxical, as we are then being altruistic for personal benefit).
Humans are capable both of immense kindness and selflessness on the one hand, and then on the other can easily cause horrible suffering to others given the “right” situation. It may sound like social engineering, but policy planners when seeking to build harmonious societies need to take evolutionary morality into account.
We can also say that evolutionary morality is not(yet?) the be all and end all to explain human actions. There is much room for the philosophers, theologians and social scientists to add to this discussion. In what may be an act of cosmic humour, these groups are unlikely to cooperate much in this task.
==================================================
This article was taken from “The Intelligence Issue” of LEXEAN. I thoroughly enjoy reading their magazine and hope more people will get their hands on it. I have re-published the article without seeking any prior consent and so if anyone has any objections, please inform me and I will more than willing to remove this article. In any case, I have no intention of reproducing more than 1 article from any 1 issue.
Related posts:
Great stuff for reading! Agrees that more people should be reading it. But not quite my cup of tea thou. Glad you’re enjoying it.
What’s YOUR religious ‘affiliation’ ? That definitely affects your worldview.
Great stuff for reading! Agrees that more people should be reading it. But not quite my cup of tea thou. Glad you’re enjoying it.
What’s YOUR religious ‘affiliation’ ? That definitely affects your worldview.