Good Natured - Origins of Right & Wrong in Animals by Frans De Wall
This is a great book on the evolutionary origins of morality in primates. The core concept is that any genetic trait that does does a better job at reproducing itself over time will become a characteristic of that particular species to which it belongs.
The benefit of a group cohesion trait such as aid in finding food, collective knowledge, and added security are obvious. Yet this trait also must compete against more selfish, non-group, traits. The resolution of this conflict ranges from strict hierarchical dominance behaviors (Baboons) to more egalitarian reciprocal exchange behaviors (Bonobos). Humans and Chimps are somewhere in the middle. This middle ground includes individual concern about the general state of relationships in the group. In Chimps this results in the dominant male breaking up fights with the females and adolescent males seeking peaceful reconciliation between high ranking male rivals. Only humans though seem to value altruistic behavior on a group wide basis and reward contributions to the quality of the social environment (page 34).
This book take the reader through all the stages towards morality with various and detailed examples of observed behavior including those from intelligent non-primates.
Chimp groups will enforce their will against individuals. When two chimps stayed outside at a zoo thus delaying the feeding of the rest of the group they were beaten the next morning when the group could get at them (page 89). Yet the fear of punishment is not the best way for a group work together. A better way is to internalize the submission to the group rules so that the group does not have to expend time and effort to keep each other in line which also risks destabilizing the group if revenge attacks start to occur. Rule internalization is exemplified by a need to please as shown in dogs and wolves leading the famous ethologist Konrad Lorentz to call dogs the animals with a conscience. In humans rule internalization is motivated by the desire to belong to, and be accepted by, a group. In return one will play by the group's rules.
Chimps mostly group conform due to fear of punishment but even then they do seem to have sense of guilt. When the ranking male is away low ranking males will seek to copulate with the females. If successful and the high ranking male returns a low ranking male will exhibit wide submissive grins and avoid the high ranking male. (page 110). Chimps are great at deception and trickery working to get their selfish way within the group rules.
Yet chimps also exhibit compassion to other group members when reciprocity can be expected. This compassion also only occurs as long as the behavior of the one needing help is not too different from the norm in which case compassion turns to fear and ostracism (as shown in the polio outbreak among the wild chimps at Gombe). An example of compassion is when a chimp will lower a rope to its mate trapped in a moat (page 82). Another example is when a chimp will keep a friend away from an angry higher ranking member (post page 88 pictures)
Yes chimp juvenile will even test group rules by teasing their elders just to see what happens as when one throws a stick at a resting elder. (post page 88 pictures)
Chimps have a sense of justice as indicate by their emotional responses when an expected reciprocity is not forthcoming. If it is a lack of food sharing a temper tantrum will result (page 93). In the case of help against a rival where the helper is not protected against a revenge attack the helper will then angrily chase the one it previously helped (page 97).
After conflicts chimp males often reconcile with a formal display of the loser bowing and then receiving a kiss and an embrace from the winner. (page 104).
This book shows that the basic morality of getting along derives from our evolutionary inheritance and that appeals to some god for authority is not needed for moral rules. The rule are within us with behaviors that benefit the group considered good and those that harm the group as bad.
(Personal opinion of reviewer) Yet humans go one step further. Humans add culture to groups, which are completely arbitrary beliefs and patterns of behavior that signal group identification. While hints of pre-culture exist in chimps and bonobos in terms of certain patterns of tool use and gestures they do not seem important in terms of group identification. That is chimps are not hostile to chimps that do not exhibit these traits, in contrast to humans. Culture allows evolution to work at a higher level of organization. Those cultures with ideas that promote better group survivals relative to others will tend to expand. This in turn lead humans to evolve strong emotional attachments to these cultural rules and consider upholding these cultural rules as morally good, on par with earlier pro-group behaviors.
Comments
Seems like a very interesting book - one I might add to my reading list!
My opinion of your opinion }:-> Humans actually go a step further over other animals in their development of objective knowledge, I don't think human "culture" in se is too impressive. The possession of objective knowledge, being largely an exercise in exosomatic adaptation, gives humans a distinct advantage in our survival - as Popper puts it, we can "sacrifice our theories instead of our skins". Culture itself is a byproduct of many things, including cooperation, knowledge, beliefs, and technologies. Morality is not sufficiently explained by culture, as morality precedes it, yet it seems morality is certainly affected/complicated by both culture and objective knowledge. I wonder how many adaptive benefits exist that one might attribute to "culture", of which our development of objective knowledge was not the greater causation? I think even culture itself, at least it benefits us, cannot escape owing this to the evolution of objective knowledge. Faith in culture as what separates from other animals as oppossed to our objective knowledge seems like just another rehashing of tribalism. To wit, when culture clashes with objective knowledge we end up with things like ritual mutilation and genocide. Just my stream of counsciousness on the matter };^D
I meant to say this: "I think even culture itself, at least [when] it benefits us, cannot escape owing this to the evolution of objective knowledge."
The value we place on gaining objective knowledge is a cultural value of modern society that clashes with other older cultural values dealing with respect for authority, pleasing the divine, etc. As you mentioned cultures with this trait are much better at survival and growth than those that do not have it.
I was just pointing out in my "personal opinion" that humans innately tend to believe that conformance to cultural beliefs or behaviors is "good" and that opposing them is "bad". This is a problem for morality since these cultural values seem to be arbitrary. Even our value on objective knowledge as a means for greater security is arbitrary. If happiness is the value of a society would objective knowledge be so highly valued?
Remarkable. We have such difficult balances to maintain, don't we?
And I didn't realize how challenging chimp society is - felt bad for the beaten ones (who lingered, and delayed feeding).
Cohesion is tricky - I so much enjoyed this. I'd like to read it, but I'll have to stop if "anyone" is badly injured,etc. Is it mostly OK that way?
.
The most gruesome scene mentioned in the book is how chimps kill the small prey they catch during a hunt. They just rip it apart. *shudders*.
I'll look for the book - thanks a lot!!!!
IMHO, on some level I can agree with most your propositions I’ve repeated below. However, statements like these are often strung together in an effort to support the arguments of post modernism and moral relativism (i.e. there is no objective truth, or if there is we can have no access to it or know anything about it), or perhaps to imply the need for some mystical transcendence of rational thought to avoid relativism/modernism. I don’t assume you believe in the conclusions of post modernism, moral relativism, or a transcendent supernatural power of mystical knowing, but my response below is to these interpretations, not necessarily yours, since that is what comes to my mind when I read them.
I believe science attempts to approach an objective truth by making conjectures, crafting falsifiable theories, and attempting to refute falsifiable test statements. When a theory contains many risky test statements that, after rigorous attempts at falsification, appear consistent with empirical observation, it’s said to contain truthlikeness – aka the appearance of objective truth. However, [e]ven certain scientific [theories] seem to become cultural beliefs when they become so closely held that they define a world view or paradigm though which other [beliefs are] interpreted. Yet, it’s very important to note that any cultural intepretation of a scientific theory should be disqualified from being considered truthlike, as the informative content of a theory is confined to its predictive test-statements. Even the direct knowledge provided by the test statements of a theory cease to contain truthlikeness once they are either falsified, or are no longer tested (perhaps because they have been accepted as an unquestionable cultural belief!).- The value we place on gaining objective knowledge is a cultural value of modern society that clashes with other older cultural values dealing with respect for authority, pleasing the divine, etc. However, the actual value we obtain from objective knowledge has little or nothing to benefit from cultural interpretation of it. A culture that encourages scientific inquiry has a great influence on the advancement of science, but once the culture begins dogmatizing certain aspects of science, even they begin to inhibit science.- humans innately tend to believe that conformance to cultural beliefs or behaviors is "good" and that opposing them is "bad". I would agree, the cognitive processes related to social conformity, which are beneficial products of adaptive selection in se, can be easily hijacked by the cultural, mystical, and religious experiences. This often results in what appears to be innately counter-intuitive behavior, like belief in immortality explicitly symbolizing an instinctual interaction with the world. Such experiences are easily shared/transferred to others, even if the exact versions of the explicitly stated beliefs often differ from person to person and culture to culture.- This is a problem for morality since these cultural values seem to be arbitrary It’s a bigger problem for a culture that embraces postmodernism, moral relativism, culturalism, mysticism, religion & the like, over science, when it comes to truth. Explicitly stated beliefs and moral values are often quite arbitrary, meaning that for example, a culture consisting of a population sharing the same underlying religious experience can be at war with each other over various conflicting explicitly stated beliefs and moral values, differences which to a scientific observer appear rather arbitrary. These cultures have no efficient centralized process for dealing with disagreements of truth. A culture that embraces science embraces a process of conjectures and refutations. The centralized resolution of intellectual disagreement is inherent to this process, as is the demarcation of arbitrary values and beliefs.
Even our value on objective knowledge as a means for greater security is arbitrary. This I have to disagree with, while one might concoct arbitrary reasons for valuing objective knowledge, the value itself isn’t arbitrary at all. Arbitrary beliefs and values are contingent solely upon one’s discretion; they’re capricious, unreasonable, and unsupported. In contrast, there’s a great deal of evidence supporting the pursuit of objective knowledge to enhance our security. As we both know, threats to our security come from the matter/energy/space of reality, and science helps us understand these threats and mitigate them. Consider these amongst millions of examples: our objective knowledge of astronomy makes us more secure against catastrophic collisions, of physiology/medicine against disease, of thermodynamics against extreme temperatures. It’s the essence of post modernism/relativism to consider objective facts like these as relative cultural truths – one culture values astonomy’s informative content as it relates to comets, one culture doesn’t, thus it’s a relative truth. Yet, if a large comet is hurling towards us at 300 miles per second, it won’t distribute destruction based on what cultures accept the arbitrary relative truth of ‘armageddon via comet destruction’. Nope, we’re all dead, unless a group/culture happens to piece together objective knowledge of things like astronomy, rocket propulsion, nuclear fusion/fission, etc, to provide greater security through a technological innovation. If a culture that manages to accomplish this explicitly states that they did so because they believe a three toed ogre with a magic wart on his arse divinely guided them throughout the process, perhaps their explicit reason is arbitrary, but the value of the act (not being dead) certainly isn’t. However, I think we would more probably expect that a society which managed to accomplish the above feat would be firmly grounded in the rational pursuit of objective knowledge, likely with a culturally embedded awe for the universe and a love of science, not a love for three toed magic wart arsed ogres... }8^> To wit, less than 10% of preeminent scientists in the US believe in three toed magic wart arsed ogres, or any supernatural being for that matter…}8^D
If happiness is the value of a society would objective knowledge be so highly valued?
Great question! Probably not. The short answer might read as follows. “ the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship” (Karl Popper) The pursuit of objective knowledge is just as easily misguided or stifled in the name of a greatest happiness principle. Objective knowledge flourishes best within an open society that makes it a matter of public policy to minimize pain and maximize the freedom of individuals, while leaving the increase of happiness largely to private enterprise. As Popper said, “...human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.“ I actually throw some jain philosophy and peter singer into the mix and take it a step further: to minimize the pain and maximize the freedom of all sentient beings, without tolerating the intolerant or appeasing authoritarianism. I think objective knowledge, and ultimately happiness itself, are maximized in this way.
Just as your review of the book implies, objective knowledge actually predates human culture - it actually predates humans! I find that fascinating in itself.
Peace,
Drac
Speaking of chimp diets, I think we can learn a lot about what diet humans evolved on by studying chimps. As for chimps killing small prey in said fashion - I think the data suggests this would be a rare occurance at best in "chimp culture". The reason being that neither chimps nor early humans ate much meat at all, and most of what we would classify as meat actually came from insects. To wit is the following chart from two sources, Goodall & Conklin, showing time spent on feeding activities sorted by food. Note that since it takes far more time/energy to capture meat and consume it, the amount of meat consumed by chimps is actually a smaller % than the % time spent hunting/feeding.
4
[http://www.ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm]
It has been said that the average chimp might consume the equivalent of a single small pea in insect & small animal meat per day, with insects being eaten mostly. I think it's safe to say the small game hunting incident described would be a rare occurance, and probably a counter-productive activity that had more to do with aggressively asserting position in the group than anything.
Great post! Thank you, I needed a primate lesson. One of my grad teachers (the most intimidating one) studies primates and I'm fairly clueless about it.
One thing about culture, it has been identified in other "lower" thinking animals such as wild cats but in a much more loosely defined way i.e. one species of cat in a certain part of the world will consume one type of food and the same species in some other part of the world will consume something different even if both are available in both places. But I feel we shouldn't exclude non-primates from this "culture" idea.
Also the post reminded me of a show I saw wherein there was this idea that children in tribal and agricultural communities where the families depended on the children's cooperation for the families' or group's survival were better citizens and were more dedicated to the families themselves. Can't remember where I saw that.