A debate is raging between philosophers and biologists. As
we learn more about the evolution of morality, some evolutionists are staking
claim to the topic of morality as a biological one, not a philosophical one.
The idea
that morality is derived from our primate predecessors dates back to the 70s
and it hinges on the idea that our human morality stems directly from the
primates’ sociality tenants: empathy, the ability to learn and follow social
rules, reciprocity and peacemaking.
These
fundamental virtues drove the actions in primate communities that from a
humanistic perspective seem quite “moral.” For example, chimps share food more
often with other chimps that have groomed them. Chimps will also make up and
console the loser after fights. Often, female chimps will even prevent a fight
from happening.
All of these moralistic sorts
of actions ultimately stem from an innate fitness advantage. Maintaining a
happy and unified community is important in working together for survival. Thus
these exhibitions of morality by primates may be driven by a necessity for
survival, yet they are nonetheless, the precursors to what humans call
morality.
Human morality seems to be
driven by more of an innate sense of righteousness than any sort of urgent
necessity for survival, but the parallels between primate and human morality
are evident.
Perhaps philosophers and
biologists need not work separately on the topic of morality but instead simply
acknowledge that one field is able to describe the origins and history of
morality while the other field is equipped to focus on the uniquely human
aspects of morality.
Check
out this article on the evolution of morality: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/health/21iht-snmorals.4978821.html?_r=1
-RYAN GUPTA
You say that morality enables a happy and unified community, but what about the acts of ethnic cleansing to obtain that homogenous, happy, unified community without the tensions of class/cultural/religious divisions? Also, despite us being the most "moral" organisms, what do some of these debaters say about humans being the only organisms that systematically kill one another for no fitness advantage. i.e. other organisms kill members of their own species to eat, to gain a mate (rarer, but possible), and/or gain control (i.e. the new lion in a pride killing the cubs).
ReplyDeleteI would argue that most murder is to promote a personal agenda such as financial gain or emotional satisfaction (vendetta). Other murders may be attributable to insanity, a problem more prominent amongst humans because of the complexity of the human mind.
ReplyDelete