1.5.6 Evolution of Altruism

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

If other philosophical arguments and theology cannot provide a justification for being good, or behaving ethically, perhaps we can justify it by explaining how humans acquired altruistic tendencies, during the evolution of our species, so that we can (supposedly) adopt values based on that process.

We must make clear that our philosophy is informed by science and history, but not driven by it.  This is not “scientism�, the idea that we can use scientific methods and science itself to work out ethical guidelines or political structures.  If the scientific consensus on an issue contradicts what a philosopher claims about that issue, the philosopher needs to reconsider or clarify their views.  The science does not drive our philosophy but it can and does provide constraints on what works – because figuring out what works is the core business of science.  Similarly, if some political theory, such as Communism, has been tried in practice and failed, we need to be wary of promoting the same thing without addressing the reasons for the failure.  For instance, if a philosopher determined for some strange reason that we shouldn’t eat beans, our knowledge of science and history tells us there is nothing wrong with beans, the ban won't work in practice, and it would be better to think it out again.

This section doesn’t provide the details of the evolution of altruism, ie cooperation rather than competition, because that is covered in Part 2 on Science, especially Chapter 2.7 on neuroscience.  Here we summarize the science just enough to clarify the philosophical point we are discussing.

Evolution of Altruism

Competition and cooperation between individuals and between species have been features of biological evolution since the beginning of chemical evolution and the arrival of the first living organisms. To provide just a few snapshots of cooperation over time:

●   For cells to evolve, certain kinds of molecules have to interact with each other consistently.

●   For multicellular animals to evolve, individual cells have to cooperate with each other.

●   Ant colonies have soldier ants that sacrifice themselves for the good of the ant nest. 

●   Bees die – sacrifice themselves – when they sting animals to drive away threats to the hive.

●   Some birds mate for life, build nests, sit on the eggs, and raise their chicks together.  

●   Wolves, lions and many other predators hunt in groups so that they are more successful. 

●   In many species, an individual will endanger themselves to lure predators away from others.

●   Mammals such as apes, elephants and dolphins show emotions such as fear, anger and affection. 

●   Chimpanzees and bonobos have complex social relationships based on complex emotional responses and behaviours.  Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos have a common ancestor.

The behaviour of early hominids and primitive human beings is not all selfish, as some religions and philosophies would have you believe.  Humans evolved with complex emotions including fear, anger, affection, disgust and so on, and our behaviour is a mix of competition and cooperation.  Altruism, the ability and tendency to cooperate, evolved in humans alongside our competitive traits.

As explained in Part 2 on Science, the evolution of life on Earth is not driven by some external controlling “force�, and not “pulled� towards some supposedly ideal outcome (such as conscious, concerned, cooperative and competitive beings).  Differences that arise between individuals, as a result of genetic mutations or environmentally instigated epigenetic controls on gene expression, are essentially random.  But which individuals survive long enough to reproduce is not completely random: overall evolution favours those individuals that are more efficient at surviving.

Early humans, before they had acquired language, lived in small bands.  Our most basic emotional responses evolved from those of our antecedents in this context. 

●   Anger helps to protect us from being oppressed by others in the group;

●   Disgust (and bad smelling feces) helps us to avoid spreading diseases;

●   Affection helps us to look after others in our group, especially the young.

All of these emotions and responses help us to survive long enough to reproduce and carry on these behavioural tendencies.

Humans acquired language, the ability to talk to each other about a wide range of topics, some 100 or 200 thousand years ago.  Talking about their emotional responses led to the development of verbal rules of behaviour, that, when followed, promoted the survival of the individuals and perhaps the group.  In North Africa and Eurasia, about 5,000 years ago, when writing began, these rules started to be written down.  In non-literate societies the rules were passed down orally, in songs and stories as well as explicit rules.

Controlled Primitive Emotions for Within Group Ethics

This developed into a kind of commonsense tribal morality.  Many of the emotional responses seemed to be appropriate (at the time).  But some of the primitive emotional responses led to bad outcomes, so the rules evolved to include prohibitions against reacting emotionally in unhelpful ways. 

For instance, we should not let our anger cause severe harm or death in our group.  On the other hand, anger is a useful emotion when everyone in our band needs to defend our group against other bands of humans who have come to kill us, drive us away, or kidnap women. 

These rules developed a little differently in each band, each tribe, and each language group.  Philosophers, from ancient times to now, from Aristotle to contemporary, still frequently use appeals to this common sense morality to determine whether and act is moral or not.

Some cultural traditions developed that are justified by such emotional responses, but are still bad. 

Common sense morality, while appropriate in some circumstances, is often grossly inappropriate.  Honour killings are not based on the Truth or Reality, and deny women the right to Diversity and Life. Honour killings contravene the ethical values we discuss later in this chapter: Love, Equality and Responsibility.

Evolved Altruism as a basis for Ethics

We can't simply rely on our “feelings�, which are driven by our primitive emotions and shaped by the cultures in which we are born.  We need to think about many existing or proposed ethical rules and behaviours, and act in “manual mode�, not automatic pilot.  If your instincts tell you it's OK to beat up or kill an unfaithful spouse you need to control those instincts, not use them to justify your crime.

More philosophically, previous sections explain why evolved altruism is NOT the basis for our ethics.

Section 1.5.2 shows that any simple justification of what is good can be questioned.

●   If we rely on uncontrolled emotions to determine what is good, we can ask: why is that good?

●   If we did propose that killing an unfaithful spouse was good, we can ask: why is that good?  And why does any justification you offer make it good?

It becomes an infinite regress.  We need more than a simple assertion that this or that is good.

Some people could claim that since humans are made in God’s image then these primitive emotional responses that lead to a kind of common sense morality must be approved of, or placed in us, by God.  Section 1.5.3 shows that we cannot use God as the source of value or goodness, because we have to ask whether God is good and whether God is providing us with good advice or whether God instilled in our human nature good emotional responses.  We cannot simply assert that God is Good, because that leads either to a circular justification, or simply an unjustified assertion.

Some people claim that behaviour that is natural is good, and that which is unnatural is bad.  Section 1.5.4 shows that we cannot derive an ought from an is.  Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it is good.  Many natural behaviours cause harm or are, in a modern context, just unskillful – ie stupid.  Most humans in modern societies live very unnatural lives, sleeping in beds, sitting in chairs or on cushions, wearing culturally appropriate clothes, eating in culturally appropriate ways.

Our Use of Evolved Altruism

We acknowledge that humans did evolve altruistic traits.  So we don't need to clutch at straws to explain where the desire to do good comes from.  We don't need to invoke the supernatural, or God(s) or a dualistic world (in which values come from another ideal world into our material world).  For many, learning that evolution explains why we behave altruistically is a major revelation.  Publicizing the evolution of altruism reduces the need for supernatural explanations of the origin of goodness.

We also have to admit that the ethical choices we make, explained below in Sections 9, 10 and 11 of this Chapter, are in the first instance motivated by our universal human tendencies to have these primitive emotions, because most of us have evolved a desire to do good. 

At the same time, we are aware that uncontrolled primitive emotional responses are not enough.  So we must use our brains, thinking consciously (in “manual mode�), to adapt our emotional responses in a consistent way, so that both emotion and intellect can accept the ethical values we choose.

Psychopaths

We must also be aware that a significant minority of people, perhaps 1-2%, apparently have no innate sense of empathy or compassion.  We call then psychopaths or sociopaths. 

Not all are vicious monsters trying to inflict harm and bend other people to their will: some just don't care what other people think, and are not fearful or anxious about being punished for hurting others.  Some psychopaths function quite well in society, perhaps with occasional unacceptable outbursts.  Some learn to dominate others and become leaders, in politics or business, perhaps known for their ruthless, single minded ambition.  (Nevertheless, many politicians and business leaders are loving compassionate people who succeed because of their sound decision making abilities, and their ability to motivate others, not because they’re ruthless.) 

There is a reasonable scientific explanation for a minority of psychopaths continuing in the population.   Psychopaths apparently don't have the same neurons in their brains that activate when they see things that we expect would cause an emotional response in normal people.  This would be due to genetic differences.  Psychopaths still interact with other people, still have sex and create babies, and these babies will often have the same genes that cause psychopathic behaviour as that parent. 

If too many people in a population were psychopathic the degree of cooperation could decline and that population might not prosper.  In successful, ie continuing, societies psychopaths remain a minority.

The Empathetic Majority

The Reasonable Global Way we propose is dependent on the majority of people having normal emotional responses, specifically including compassion or empathy.  All societies have to find ways to deal with freeloaders and potential tyrants, and we discuss these elsewhere.

In a way it is a happy accident that most of us choose values in ways that are consistent with our primitive natures.  It means there is no internal mental or emotional conflict between our primitive drives, our psychology, and what we choose as part of REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way.

On the other hand, it is not an accident at all.  These drives are part of our humanity.  It is because we have them, that after considering the alternatives as outlined herein, we as individuals choose to adopt the core values that we do.  And though the choosing is motivated by our human emotions, we use our core values to modify or constrain our primitive emotional responses when necessary.

We summarize the conclusions we can reasonably come to on these issues as follows: