Evolutionary/Biological Foundations Of Morality

Question 1

What is the focus of Naturalistic accounts of human morality?

Answer 1

The search for naturalistic explanations of the psychology of (1)moral judgement, and (2) conduct

• what causes people to be concerned with moral experiences
• how do we make moral judgements
• why do we behave virtuously or badly

Question 2

What are some challenges that Naturalistic accounts of human morality face (esp. compared to religious accounts)?

Answer 2

• moral phenomena need strong explanations (authority)
• naturalistic accounts can be unsatisfying, competition with already satisfying accounts
• naturalistic accounts diminish how we perceive phenomena: for example, if we propose that all charitable acts have an element of self-interest in them, then we infringe on the moral construct of pure altruism
• moral constructs not directly observable and moral phenomena difficult to study through naturalistic methods
• problems with definitions
• morality is complex and multi-determined, but we prefer simplicity

Question 3

What role does biology play in moral psychology?

Answer 3

• psychological science draws increasingly on biology
• > biology -> brain -> behaviour -> morality
• biologists have attempted to understand morality in terms of biology for a while now

Question 4

What are the two approaches to the role of biology in moral psychology? List an example of each approach.

Answer 4

1) evolution of mechanisms that inform moral judgment and behaviour (phobias, altruism, etc.): eg paternity uncertainty (fathers can never be 100% certain that their offspring are theirs) -> differential grandparent investment
2) role of biological processes (including brain) in moral experience -> eg. human’s natural reaction of disgust; neural processes while making moral judgements

Question 5

What are the six evolved psychological mechanisms that form the basis for human moral nature?

Answer 5

1) capacity for sympathy
2) specified forms of altruism
3) anger and desire to punish cheaters
4) moral emotions (eg guilt)
5) reciprocity
6) sense of justice (basic moral intuition)

Question 6

Define adaptations and their products in a moral psychology sense

Answer 6

Inherited and reliably developing characteristics that came into existence through natural selection because they helped to solve problems of survival or reproduction better than alternative design in the population during the period of their evolution.

• solutions (eg reciprocity in relationships with shared dependency)
• by-products (eg naval is not a required adaptation but the result of the umbilical cord which is)
• noise (eg nipples on men?)

Question 7

What is Proximal Override?

Answer 7

Proximal Override can occur with respect to distal evolutionary influences through behaviour modification (adaptivity in pre-historic times does not mean the impulse is adaptive now)

Question 8

What is the difference between analogous and homologous evolution?

Answer 8

Analogous: similar selection pressure on two different species
Homologous: selection pressure on a common ancestor

Question 9

What are Frans deWaal’s four aspects of primate moral ability?

Answer 9

1) sharing and exchange
2) conflict resolution
3) community concern
4) empathy and sympathy

Question 10

What is the main principle guiding sharing and exchange in primate populations?

Answer 10

Reciprocity
1) symmetry-based: passive
2) calculated: active (expectations of return), requires capacity to keep mental notes
Evidence: withholding favours from ungenerous others; grooming increases chances of benefiting from another’s food acquisition
3) reciprocity of harm: contributes to revenge system -> moralistic aggression: punishment of cheaters

Question 11

How do expectations of reciprocation suggest the foundation of the the “ought” according to de Waal?

Answer 11

Primates have expectations about how they and others should behave in certain contexts
- possible precursor to human sense of justice

Question 12

What are the three roles possible in conflict resolution?

Answer 12

1) conflict intervention: a third party, impartial to the conflict, intervenes (control role) and ends the conflict, common in despotic structures
2) protective intervention: where the focus is on protecting a recipient of aggression
3) mediation: impartial third party brings together individuals in order to end a conflict with reconciliation (common in more egalitarian cultures)

Question 13

Why does de Waal suggest that community concern evolved from conflict resolution?

Answer 13

• the benefits for each individual (and its kin) living in a community increases by promoting conflict resolution between group members
• however, this does not require a conscious sense of group welfare

Question 14

What is the proposed evidence that community concern exists among primates?

Answer 14

1) group celebration following end of conflict
2) punishment of rule violators, indirect reciprocity
3) evolved docility characteristic (docility is facilitative of group harmony)

However, community concern is the weakest evidence among the four aspects of primate morality

Question 15

Sharing, reciprocity, and conflict resolution do not require empathy or sympathy. What are the two mechanisms by which empathy and sympathy may have evolved?

Answer 15

1) co-evolution may have occurred, where the emphasis was not on the adaptation of sympathy or empathy, but they formed simultaneously
2) learned adjustment may have been a precursor: the capacity to modify one’s own behaviour to accommodate the limitations of others

Question 16

What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

Answer 16

Empathy: capacity to recognize and understand the feelings and experiences of another
Sympathy: experience of concern about another’s welfare

Wispe quote: “The object of empathy is understanding. The object of sympathy is the other person’s well-being.”

Question 17

What are the two points of evidence that suggest primates possess empathy, sympathy, and consolation abilities?

Answer 17

1) Succourant behaviour: helping, caregiving, or providing relief to distressed/endangered individuals other than kin. (This is distinguishable from nurturant behaviour, as nurturing is helping, caregiving, or providing relief /specifically towards kin/.)
2) Consolation: appeasement of distressed individuals through grooming, embracing, etc by third parties following a fight (requires both empathy and sympathy)

Question 18

What are de Waal’s four tendencies (or ingredients) for morality?

Answer 18

1) Sympathy: attachment, succourance, learned adjustment, cognitive empathy
2) Norms: prescriptive rules, anticipation of punishment, “ought” expectations
3) Reciprocity: giving trading, revenge, moralistic aggression
4) Getting Along: peacemaking, community concern, negotiation of conflicting concerns

If these are the basics, is animal morality so much inferior to our own?

Question 19

What are the four components of morality where humans exceed other animals due to differences in cognitive capacity?

Answer 19

1) cognitive empathy
2) internalization of rules
3) sense of justice
4) community concern

But does this mean that animals are less moral?

Question 20

What are three important challenges when comparing human and animal morality?

Answer 20

• animals are not moral philosophers (but then, how many people actually are either?)
• if the goals of “moral conduct” are met, then on what basis is animal morality inferior to our own?
• the risk of anthropomorphism in ethology: ascribing human feelings/intentions where none exist (because animals can’t speak to us, we can’t know their cognitions, can only study/observe behaviour

Question 21

What are the implications for human morality based on studies of moral behaviour in primates?

Answer 21

• much of what we consider moral in humans appears to build on evolved mechanisms apparent in animals
• this suggests that at least some of people’s moral experiences are grounded in their “human/animal” nature, and don’t need to be expressed through active thought
• this is consistent with the tradition of moral intuitionism, or just trusting our moral instincts, as advanced by Hume, Darwin, and Haidt
• de Waal emphasizes that moral systems are not rationally derived, with the goal of controlling a nasty, brutish human (as Thomas Hobbes describes us to be). Rather, moral systems reflect evolutionary pressure to balance individual and social interests
• also emphasizes that moral judgements are often expressed with high emotion. emotion isn’t the antithesis of morality, but a part of it!
• but, human morality not limited to moral intuitions because humans have the capacity to derive abstract moral principles. Yay!

Question 22

What are some caveats drawing conclusions about human morality from primate behaviours?

Answer 22

1) we still cannot derive ought from is
2) normative guidelines need not rely on biologically based tendencies
3) evolved preferences may not always align with moral prescriptions derived for contemporary, large social systems (there is sometimes a difference between moral sentiments and legal codes)
4) we cannot only examine the good qualities that we share with primates, but also the capacity for violence and destructiveness

Question 23

• Evolutionary purpose of sharing and exchange

Answer 23

One’s failure to support themselves one day (eg. Acquiring food) can be offset by another’s willing to share

Question 24

• The capuchin food-sharing experiment: what happened, what were the results? What was the gender effect found?

(Flack and de Waal study)

Answer 24

Two capuchins were placed in a situation where only one capuchin had access to food. Whenever the food-haver dropped, food, the food-lacker took the food, with no contest from the food-haver. This is passive sharing. Then the capuchins switched roles. The amount of food that the now food-having capuchin shares is parallel to the amount of food that they took from the other capuchin before. This pattern was clearest for females.

Question 25

• Sharing and exchange continued: in de Waal’s “monopolizable food” studies, what was the basic procedure? What were the 2 results?

Answer 25

Basic procedure: captive group of chimps received a bundle of food, wound so tightly together that it made it possible for a few chimps to keep the food for themselves (this is literally all the description in Ellard’s notes says. It’s a little unclear to me, but I don’t think it matters much.).

Results: researchers found that sharing occurred in stable dyads (ie. between two chimps), reciprocally.

Question 26

• How does a beta male chimp negotiate an undisturbed mating session?

Answer 26

By grooming an alpha male chimp

Question 27

• Criticisms of evolutionary psychology (just 2)

Answer 27

• arguments are made post-hoc (long after evolution is happening, we’re speculating on it)
• we may draw erroneous conclusions (eg. Phrenology)

Question 28

Cosmides and Tooby: who were they? What were some of their key beliefs?

Answer 28

Evolutionary psychologists who studies humans and their cognitions

Believed that the human brain wasn’t an all-purpose learning machine, and were dismissive of the idea of the brain as a “blank slate”

Believed that human brain has evolved to handle to common problems posed by our environment (which was, up until recently, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle)

Believed that our brains held specialized “programs”, like a computer, and that those programs were likely evolved to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and not necessarily beneficial in a contemporary context.

believed in the existence of “human nature” and wanted to figure out its cognitive components

Believed that we have reasoning instincts!!!! (Which the next flashcard is about)

Question 29

What are ~reasoning instincts~? (Cosmides and Tooby, 2004)

Answer 29

Evolved cognitive mechanisms that are activated by an internal or external stimuli, and executed, usually automatically, without much awareness, and are instinctual

“as a species we have been blind to these instincts not because we lack them but because they work so well.” - Cosmides and Tooby