One of the issues being debated by freethinkers is the source of our morality. Some atheists postulate that morality is just the product of evolution while agnostics point out that there are cases of altruistic human behavior that have nothing to do with propagating one’s genes, and theists claim that our moral values must have therefore come from a Moral Lawgiver.
While some moral standards can be attributed directly to evolution (for example, a species or race composed mostly of murderers will soon kill itself into extinction, hence, murder is generally judged as morally wrong), some say that evolution cannot account for every act of apparent selflessness such as helping the poor, the sick and the old especially those to whom the giver has no blood relations.
While part of me wants to prove them wrong by explaining how evolution has given us the brains to continuously define moral standards with increasing sophistication, what I want to show in this article is that we are not as “moral” – at least in the altruistic sense – as we like to think we are.
Webster defines altruism as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others“. The operative word is unselfish, and it is precisely because of this qualifier that I daresay that most acts of caring and sharing cannot be considered altruistic because they are not unselfish but rather selfish, albeit with a very long-term view in mind.
In this way, I believe there are relatively few cases of altruism; what we often see is reciprocal altruism, defined as “a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism’s fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.”
Since life is not a zero-sum game, meaning whatever the strong/rich gives to the weak/poor has a relatively lower value to the former than to the latter, it is easy to explain reciprocal altruism. The loss experienced by the giver is less than the gain enjoyed by receiver, and when the giver becomes the receiver in the future, the investment will have paid off handsomely.
What is hard to explain, at least in terms of evolution, is true altruism – pure, selfless concern for the welfare of others at one’s own expense – particularly among those who do not even expect a heavenly reward. And the most altruistic people I can think of are the vegans and animal rights advocates. Helping other people, even those to whom we are not related, always carries the conscious or unconscious expectation that such gesture will be reciprocated in the future, not necessarily by the same people we helped. But caring about the lower animals and granting them equal rights, knowing full well that they have no capacity to repay us for our compassion and sacrifice (a vegan diet is expensive, not to mention not as satisfying, at least at the start), that is simply way beyond reciprocity.
But I will make no attempt to explain such behavior. Why? Because I don’t have to, if only to debunk the theists’ claim that our morality must have come from God. Vegans are the minor exception, not the rule, so instead trying to account their moral advocacy to evolution, I will simply say that humans in general do not have such morality, at least not as of this point in our history.
So to those who say that we are a moral race because we condemn murder, rape, and robbery and even made laws against them, think about the animals that we not only slaughter for food (and leather and fur!) but systematically raise in the most cost-effective way, crowding as many animals as possible in tight spaces to minimize cost without regard for their welfare (overcrowding causes stress, heatstroke and injuries – that’s why we cut off the beaks of chicks [without anesthesia!] so they don’t peck each other and damage the meat). And for as long as we buy and eat farmed chicken, pork, and beef, we are guilty of perpetuating their suffering. Is this something a species supposedly getting their morals from a loving Creator would do?
Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are just actions – physical actions, biological actions, and human actions. Human actors act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is a strictly human creation, subject to all the cultural influences and social constructions as other such human creations.
Does this mean that all human actions are morally equal? No…We create standards of what we like and dislike, desire or not, and make judgments against these standards. But the standards are themselves human creations and not discovered in nature…one group prefers patriarchal dominance, and so judges male privileges to be morally honorable…Thus, male ownership of females was once moral and is now immoral, not because we have discovered it as such, but because our society has realized that women also seek greater happiness and that they can achieve this more easily without being in bondage to males.
Will our race one day realize that animals also seek greater happiness and that they can achieve this more easily without being raised in cramped, cruel captivity all their short miserable lives? More importantly, are we willing to set them free at the expense of losing a reliable food source? Until then, there is no point in bragging about our so-called morality, and especially in arguing that our moral standards must be more than just a product of evolution.
* * * * *
The following is a comment from our resident vegan, Nancy, posted several days after this article was published. I’m featuring it here because it sheds light to the vegans’ supposed altruism:
Thank you for including nonhuman animals in your consciousness and in this post That said, if the definition of altruism includes no benefit to the individual, no one would be truly altruisitc. When one chooses to do good, one finds peace within and it could be argued that it is a selfish motivation to do what is aligned to one’s beliefs. This is also true for vegans. After I made the connection between violence and animal use, I became vegan because not doing so would make me intensely uncomfortable (to say the least). It would benefit my emotional well-being more to be a vegan than to continue to consume animals.
I am not more moral than non-vegans. I just happened to make the connection. Other people seem to have an intrinsic sense about this, kids who at a very young age realize that meat comes from animals and just refuse to eat them, even without anyone having to explain factory farming or environmental degradation. Others need exposure and information to sift through the many years of unquestioned beliefs and get it, like me. Whereas others are still brainwashed by the messages sent out by animal agriculture companies (“milk=calcium” when in reality broccoli has more calcium, “it’s tradition”, etc.) and need more time to make the connection. BTW a vegan diet is not expensive. It actually saves you money from medicine and hospital bills so it’s again self-serving if you look at it that way. It is also satisfying as your taste buds begin to appreciate the natural tastes. Regarding reliable food source, we stand more to gain if the world lived on a vegan diet. There will be more food since production will be more efficient. Again, this can be considered self-serving. Not destroying the only planet we live in, I suppose, would be self-serving as well.
I did not finish reading simply because of the true practice altruism, it is a political relationship among its people within the community. It would simply kill those who will obstruct their ways and means in life, or would rise up and rebel on any one in any occasion to those that may threaten them of their ways and means in life.
In this article, Jesus was on mind but it is on economic reasoning that is all I see in it as far as in the readings I have done is concern… "It would be very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." – Jesus
Kung hindi kananiniwala sa Moralidad at dignidad ng isang tao, eh ibig mo sabihin kako eh na ang constitution ng Pilipinas ay peke? Diba base ito sa moralidad ng tao? Eh naghahayag ka ba ng supporta sa anarchismo?
So does this mean if morality can not be found in nature, does this mean our constitution is a false? Why do we need a constitution based on morality when morality does not exist in nature according Michael Shermer. We don't need the state to say prostitution is illegal because MORALITY does not exist in nature. So do we really need a constitution? We don't need one I guess.
continued-
Going back to altruism, I think when we over-intellectualize our experiences, we tend to lose sight of the fact that we still are spiritual beings who have full capability of observing our relationship to the world, who have full capability of distinguishing right from wrong through self-inspection. Based on my own experience as a Vipassana meditator, I can observe my own reactions (breath, sensations, pain in the body) towards external circumstances. No, I have not read many books on the origin, definition, manifestation or objectivity/subjectivity of morality, but I know that self-awareness is not an intellectual exercise, it's an experience-based one.
Thank you for including nonhuman animals in your consciousness and in this post 🙂 That said, if the definition of altruism includes no benefit to the individual, no one would be truly altruisitc. When one chooses to do good, one finds peace within and it could be argued that it is a selfish motivation to do what is aligned to one's beliefs. This is also true for vegans. After I made the connection between violence and animal use, I became vegan because not doing so would make me intensely uncomfortable (to say the least). It would benefit my emotional well-being more to be a vegan than to continue to consume animals.
continued-
I am not more moral than non-vegans. I just happened to make the connection. Other people seem to have an intrinsic sense about this, kids who at a very young age realize that meat comes from animals and just refuse to eat them, even without anyone having to explain factory farming or environmental degradation. Others need exposure and information to sift through the many years of unquestioned beliefs and get it, like me. Whereas others are still brainwashed by the messages sent out by animal agriculture companies ("milk=calcium" when in reality broccoli has more calcium, "it's tradition" etc) and need more time to make the connection. BTW a vegan diet is not expensive. It actually saves you money from medicine and hospital bills so it's again self-serving if you look at it that way. It is also satisfying as your taste buds begin to appreciate the natural tastes. Regarding reliable food source, we stand more to gain if the world lived on a vegan diet. There will be more food since production will be more efficient. Again, this can be considered self-serving. Not destroying the only planet we live in, I suppose, would be self-serving as well. 🙂
Thanks, Nancy, my favorite vegan. 🙂 I guess that answers most of the issues raised in the discussion.
Not all theists believe it came from a "moral lawgiver".
Altruistic behavior also benefits the individual. It is a big investment for gaining security among fellow organisms, and a sure win to survival of the fittest. Vampire bats, when they've sucked more blood than they need, regurgitate it to a hungry fellow without expecting in return from the actual bat.
As Richard Morris in his book The Evolutionists stated,
"Vampire bats sometimes fail to find a suitable large animal from which they can obtain a meal or are prevented from drinking as much blood as they would like. As a result they sometimes return to their roosts hungry. Failing to obtain a meal is a serious manner. If a vampire bat goes sixty hours without obtaining any blood, it can easily starve to death.
But this rarely happens. If another bat has drunk more blood than it needs, it will regurgitate some of the blood in order to feed another, hungry bat. It obtains no benefit from doing so. However, since the other bats exhibit the same behavior, it is likely to be given some regurgitated blood some night when it is hungry. The bats cooperate by sharing food. "
"But caring about the lower animals and granting them equal rights, knowing full well that they have no capacity to repay us for our compassion and sacrifice … that is simply way beyond reciprocity." @innerminds, some/many people, thanks to science, now understand that animals (including humans), plants, microorganisms are part of an ecosystem that, when destabilized, may harm human interests in the short and long term. E.g., indiscriminate logging (killing trees) that cause mudslides; killing 'pests' that cause more harmful pests to propagate. In the spirit of your definition of reciprocal altruism ("such gesture will be reciprocated in the future, not necessarily by the same people we helped"), can we not say that caring for plants and animals is also reciprocal altruism?
Brains and scientific culture are needed for comprehending ecosystems and environmentalism, so I think your phrase "evolution has given us the brains to continuously define moral standards with increasing sophistication" is on the spot.
Hi Arm,
It's one thing to care about the animals (and plants) in the wild since they are part of an ecosystem which we also happen to share. But the slaughter animals bred and raised entirely in captivity are within a somewhat isolated world. Well of course they also have environmental impacts (e.g., cows produce methane gas by farting), but this is seldom the reason why vegans do not eat animals; they abstain from meat because they feel compassion towards sentient living things outside the human species. As such, I don't think this is a case of reciprocal altruism, but rather "true" altruism, for which I still could not think of an explanation based on evolution.
If you have the time, please try to check this article titled "The Ethics of Veganism" by the FF's resident vegan, Nancy, and see if you can fit her arguments and motivations within the context of evolution:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/06/05/the-et…
Cooked animal meat smells good for most people, while raw blood and entrails are turn-offs. Roasting corn/grain also smells good for most of us. Humans are not carnivores; we have the physical machinery to masticate and digest grains. These suggest biological evolutionary roots. The physiological capacity of humans to survive on a plant diet is evolutionary.
The brain is an evolved organ. But we do not use our brains merely to tell us what is good to eat or who is a good mate (survival and reproduction). More than these basic functions, we use brains to create culture, including moral and ethical theories, and the vegan point-of-view. I think Stephen Jay Gould's spandrels/exaptation theory (evolution may create structures that can be used for something else/more than can be traced from the original impetus) can explain the versatility of the brain beyond survival-reproduction functions.
Vegan ethics is possible because we have evolved complex brains and have evolved as omnivores. Ironically, the same can be said for chicken-and-hamburger fastfood culture. 😀
[evolution may create structures that can be used for something else/more than can be traced from the original impetus]
That is the most logical explanation I can think of for the vegans' altruism towards animals, or altruism per se. But as Mr. Hector Gamboa would surely ask, is it supported by empirical evidence? 🙂
Experiments on morality and biology/evolution are fairly new I think, but not absent. An example is Paul Bloom's study of babies (to rule out/minimize cultural influences). Here's an excerpt from his article, which also describes work done by other scientists:
"We created a set of one-act morality plays. For each of these, there is a character who tries to do something and there's a good guy and there's a bad guy. These are animated figures or simple geometrical objects, or puppets. For instance, in one of our studies, a character would be struggling to get up a hill. One guy would come and push him up. Another guy would come and push him down. In another, a character would be playing with a ball. He rolls the ball to another puppet. They look at each other and the puppet rolls it back. He rolls the ball to another puppet, they look at each other, and then this other puppet runs away with the ball. In a third one-act play, there's a puppet trying to open up a transparent box. The baby can see that there is a toy in there. And one puppet comes and helps to open the box and, later, a different puppet jumps on the box, slamming it closed.
These are three examples; we have a couple of more scenarios in the works now. What we find is that if you ask toddlers of 19 months of age, “Who is the good guy?” and “Who is the bad guy?”, they respond in the same way that adults do. They point to the proactive agent, the person who helps the character achieve his goals, as the good guy, and they point to the disrupter, the thwarter, as the bad guy.
Now, maybe that’s not so exciting — these are fairly old kids. But what we've done is we've pushed the age lower and lower. In one set of studies, we present the baby with both characters, and we see where the baby will reach for, which one the baby will choose. Keep in the mind that everything is counterbalanced, and the person who's offering the choice is always blind to the roles of the different characters, to avoid the problem of unconscious cuing. Also, the parents have their eyes closed during the study.
We find that, down to six months of age, they'll reach for the good guy. We also have neutral conditions, and these tell us that they'd rather reach for the good guy than to a neutral guy, but they'd rather reach for a neutral guy than to a bad guy. This suggests that there are two forces at work — they are drawn toward the good guy and drawn away from the bad guy."
Interesting! So the toddlers can instinctively grasp the concept of help and harm. More importantly, they make moral judgments even if such help/harm is not directed towards them. Hmmm…that's really interesting. Any idea how we can explain this through evolution? 🙂
Michael Shermer's theory of bio-cultural evolution in his book (see lowest post for link & excerpt) basically integrates into one continuum many concepts of individual interests (selfish gene), shared-genes interests (kin selection), group interests (reciprocal altruism) and onwards to species and biosphere interests. Vegan ethics (and environmentalists, who are not necessarily vegans) fall into the biosphere interests. As humanity goes from narrow to broad ways of defining "self-interests", the explanation shifts from mainly biological to mainly cultural.
He writes better, so here's a sentence from him I distinctly remember and found online:
"an ascending hierarchy of needs from self-survival of the individual (basic biological needs), to the extension of the individual through the family (the selfish gene), to a sense of bonding with the extended family (driven by kin selection [or] helping those most related to us), to the reciprocal altruism of the community (direct and obvious payback for good behaviors), to indirect altruism of society (doing good without direct payback), to species altruism and bioaltruism as awareness of our membership in the species and biosphere continue[d] to develop"
Nice! That reminds me of my favorite vegan Nancy's comment on another article:
"I think most people protect what they love – family and friends, their home, their passions. Morality is just a constant progression of expanding that circle." <a href="http://(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/09/07/the-morality-of-a-nonbeliever/#IDComment100681414)” target=”_blank”>(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/09/07/the-morality-of-a-nonbeliever/#IDComment100681414)
Now my question is, how do we account species altruism and bioaltruism to evolution?
Species altruism, my guess, is not so far-off from kin-selection theories: we share more genes with members of our species (whatever their nationalities, regions, etc.) than with members of other species, and the reproductive success of our genes are tied up with theirs.
Bioaltruism I have not read much about. Shermer references Biophilia, a book by Edward Wilson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis
I have not read this book nor anything by Wilson. Maybe someone else in FF has, or you should read his works and share your thoughts with us 😀
Hmmm…the biophilia hypothesis seems logical enough. Although it still isn't backed up by empirical evidence, it would be unreasonable to discard it outright because evolution and natural selection seem to answer more and more questions than the Creationists would have been comfortable with.
Hey Arm, it seems your expertise goes way beyond contraception and reproductive health. Care to write an article about morality? 🙂
I'm interested in the intersection of science and social policy. Which now reminds me to ask you why you seem so keen on establishing evolutionary roots of moral questions. The shortcut critique on this is that "what is" does not establish "what ought to be". E.g., evidence show that lack of skin pigmentation (leading to lighter colored skins) is an evolutionary adaptation in northern latitude regions where sunlight is weaker, but humanity now consider white supremacy an immoral idea. Should not moral principles be weighed against all current knowledge? So I go back to my first point that when you said "evolution has given us the brains to continuously define moral standards with increasing sophistication", I'll say Agreed! xD
Evolution may have given us the brains to continuously define moral standards with increasing sophistication, but what I'm skeptical about is whether evolution also gave us the motivation to follow these standards. For instance, I know that I'm guilty of perpetrating the suffering of farm animals (evolution gave me the brain to discern their suffering), but I still eat them, meaning evolution has not given me the drive to act on this knowledge.
Many people have pets and I'd hazard the guess that most people will not eat their pets. This better treatment of some animals probably have both biological (e.g., wolves/dogs co-evolved with humans; we like baby-faced, cute mammals, which scientists list as a human universal with evolutionary roots) and cultural forces involved. Many do treat some animals better, so I think our species have hope of "expanding the circle" as Nancy puts it. But evolution is amoral, so your skepticism is well grounded. Cultural forces will probably play the key role
Paul Bloom's article from here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morali…
Whoa! Been out of the loop for a couple of days now and I see that my name has been mentioned in this exchange. Uhm…. I think I'm okay being a spectator this time. 🙂 hehehe
You guys are bringing up very interesting points and explanations. They are all certainly worthy of thought and consideration. We can offer explanations and argue for plausibility of the explanations we come up with… that is fine and dandy. However, I think at the end of the day the truth of an issue won't depend on what we believe as much as what we can prove. With that, I believe empirical proof is a (if not "the") game changer. Carry-on guys! 🙂
Nah, the moment you questioned the atheists' prophet Darwin you ceased being a mere spectator. You're now committed to this discussion! 😀
[We can offer explanations and argue for plausibility of the explanations we come up with… that is fine and dandy. However, I think at the end of the day the truth of an issue won't depend on what we believe as much as what we can prove.]
Agree. But if both sides can't offer proof (say, evolution/natural selection vs. Creationism), the agnostics will lean towards the position that has the preponderance of evidence and the more plausible explanations. 🙂
😀 hahaha I’m reminded of an Al Pacino line: “Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN!!!”
I have no problems with leaning towards evolution-based morality if I had to choose a side. However, I cannot claim wisdom for my choice. Wisdom entails knowledge and I believe that we can pronounce as knowledge anything that we can demonstrate. If we're going to call it knowledge, we would have to be able to run an experiment on it that is repeatable. But I don’t think we can run an experiment on abstract things like God or morality. So we can't really say anything about it as knowledge. We can believe in a position if we want to… whatever grabs us. But I don't think we can call it knowledge.
Now, as with Prophet Darwin… I’m contemplating on putting St. Dawkins under the microscope too! 😀 hahaha
[But I don't think we can call it knowledge.]
Agree! Setting Gettier problems aside, knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". In this discussion the relevant word is "true", and sophisticated arguments alone are not enough to prove something as true.
Looking forward to your article on St. Dawkins. It will surely bring in even more comments! 🙂
[But I don’t think we can run an experiment on abstract things like God or morality.] Paul Bloom and other scientists do run experiments and other scientific tests (e.g., cross-cultural comparisons to tease out human universals) on morality. I think we should seek these out and study more.
Now on God, I think rational or science-minded believers should be the one to think of falsifiable claims or predictions and tests to run. The more that God-rooted principles and policies impact on this life (as opposed to the after-life), the greater the burden and responsibility should be on rational or science-minded believers.
Hi arm, great posts! The problem with behavioral studies like Bloom’s is that they are assessed on models for “correct” behavior. But what does “correct” mean in a changing world? Besides, wouldn’t embracing the concept of “correct behavior” be counter to evolution? In evolution organisms adapt to changing environmental conditions. Environmental conditions affect human behavior. Our world has and continues to experience changes in environmental conditions. In light of these, can there ever be such a thing as an eternally “correct” behavior? Besides, what gives “correct” its “correctness” anyway? By what standard do we qualify the answer to that and why?
I think Bloom and colleagues' experiments are zeroing in on establishing and explaining the striking similarities between the moralities of current babies/toddlers and adults. These challenges the "blank slate" hypotheses–that human moralities are all culture based. I don't get your "models for 'correct' behavior" critique. Kindly explain.
Sorry for the blurriness. What my critique meant was that models for “correct behavior” seem to be taken as a “Control standard”. If, say, a particular behavior is defined in their study protocol as “correct behavior” which in turn is interpreted as “moral”, that is the criteria they basically set up to assess their data. But if we take evolution into consideration, wouldn’t standards change with evolution? Behavioral studies seem to put a fixed behavioral model (i.e. “correct behavior”) in an evolving world.
Another problem is the qualification of their control standard (i.e. “correct behavior”). What gives “correct” its “correctness” and why? In addition, I don’t even think Bloom’s studies address the “is-ought” problem that often plague moral issue questions.
From Bloom quoted above: "What we find is that if you ask toddlers of 19 months of age, “Who is the good guy?” and “Who is the bad guy?”, they respond in the same way that adults do."
I think Bloom's article deserve a second read.
Challenging the “blank state” hypothesis is intriguing. However, I can see a spin to suggest that morality is indeed separate from the human mind and that it is similar to basic logical truths that are not created by the human mind but merely recognized as evidenced by Bloom’s results. But this would also show that facts (data) alone do not necessarily determine the truth of a matter. Facts can be (and often is) used to seek out, recall, and be interpreted to sustain one’s beliefs. The interpretation of data is often deeply shaped by the beliefs of the researcher. This in one big problem that studies under the arm of “soft sciences” such as psychology face.
For an expanded view of the critiques that I embrace on behavioral / psychological studies and explanations, I find this link illuminating:
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/
It also touches on the seeming contradiction of behavioral studies with evolution.
If evolution is true, I think it's inescapable that "morality" must have evolutionary causes. To accept evolution but deny it's consequences but instead look for non-natural sources of morality, is just a way to justify one's religion/god – if one is a religionist, it's convenient to just attribute our ignorance (the "lack of empirical evidence") to a "lawgiver" – the god of the gaps. With consequences, I don't mean we now know about the natural sources of morality but rather, we now have a framework within which morality can be investigated. A scientific theory is used to summarize the data and use the same theory to predict "future" knowledge.
Is it moral to put the interest of other people above our own self-interest? WHY?
No.
@innerminds – you have to qualify that reply.
otherwise, you would be labeling firefighters, lifeguards, doctors, police, and other emergency workers as immoral people for putting their lives in danger to help others. they willingly expose themselves to hazardous conditions to help total strangers.
but because of their altruism, a lot of people have been saved. one could even say that altruism is one of the many survival mechanisms that social animals have evolved over the ages to save as many lives as possible at the cost of a few.
consider altruistic behavior in other species:
1. herd animals sometimes display this behavior – the older, sicker members of the herd lure the predators away from the main herd to give a better chance for the healthy ones (of mating age) to get away
2. prarie dogs bark to alert others of incoming predators even though they endanger themselves by announcing their position
Okay Wes. Firefighters, lifeguards, doctors, policemen, and other emergency workers are being paid to help others at the risk of their own lives. They probably get hazard pay and insurance too. They do what they do not out of altruism, but of duty. If they don't do their jobs, they might get fired and lose their source of income, so by helping others they are actually helping themselves and their families.
As for the herd animals and prarie dogs, what they do is actually reciprocal altruism, and while individual animals risk their lives, they are doing it to protect copies of their genes living in their offspring, siblings and cousins, so it is still self-interest influenced by natural selection, not altruism in the selfless sense.
[They probably get hazard pay and insurance too. They do what they do not out of altruism, but of duty. If they don't do their jobs, they might get fired and lose their source of income, so by helping others they are actually helping themselves and their families. ]
And what about those who act above and beyond the call of duty – oftentimes willingly risking their lives – to protect other people?
Soldiers in particular will cite a sense of compassion for their squad members when they risk their lives to protect one of them, or when protecting unarmed civilians.
One good example I can site is Romeo Dallaire, and other like him do intentionally jeopardize their military careers to protect people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A9o_Dallaire
You also fail to take into account another factor – that of whether the perks that said servicemen are actually felt to be a just compensation for the risk they take. Once again I go back to the example of soldiers – one of my closer friends in our arnis team recently served in Iraq, and one gripe he and the rest of his platoon had was their shitty salary, and yet they persisted on being professional for the simple fact they wanted to protect their other squad members, whom they considered very close friends.
But despite that
[And what about those who act above and beyond the call of duty – oftentimes willingly risking their lives – to protect other people?
Soldiers in particular will cite a sense of compassion for their squad members when they risk their lives to protect one of them, or when protecting unarmed civilians.]
The operative word here is 'risk' – not 'sacrifice'. Risk is composed of two factors: probability and magnitude. When a soldier risks his life to save a civilian from certain death, he takes a risk that is [LESS THAN 100% probability] x [100% magnitude] (death is the ultimate damage, hence, I assigned 100% magnitude to it) in order to save the civilian from [100% probability] ('certain' death) x [100% magnitude]. In short, the soldier's risk is lower than the civilian's, resulting in a positive total outcome.
Now even the cynical jaded me would like to say that sometimes a soldier’s sense of duty exceeds the call of duty. But what if, hypothetically, a terrorist threatens to kill a hostage unless the soldier surrenders (to be tortured and killed the way Russell Crowe’s character did to his enemy in Law Abiding Citizen) in exchange for the release of the hostage? Here the risk for the soldier is [100% probability] x [100% magnitude] for the hostage’s potential gain of [LESS THAN 100% probability] (will the terrorist honor his word to free the hostage?) x 100% magnitude (life and freedom). Question: Is the soldier morally obligated to surrender, setting aside his own interest to serve the interest of the hostage? Take note that at this point the soldier is no longer 'risking' his life but actually 'sacrificing' it in exchange for the hostage's freedom.
So when it comes to firemen and policemen risking their lives for those in danger, their risks are lower than the risk of those they try to save because they have the proper equipment and training, not to mention the luxury of being able to approach the dangerous situation from the outside with some preparation.
So in response to Pinoy Radical's original question (Is it moral to put the interest of other people above our own self-interest?), let me qualify my answer, which is NO, by saying that it is NOT moral to put other people's interest above our own if the risk equation's total outcome is negative or even just zero. The tricky phrase in Pinoy Radical's question is "putting the interest of other people above our own self-interest". If it means "RISKING our self-interest for the interest of others", that's not necessarily immoral if the risks are lower than the potential rewards. But if it means "SACRIFICING our self-interest for the interest of others", then that is definitely immoral.
@Jong
But you're assuming that the soldiers are capable of making long analysis like this when the situations arise, of making a calculated risk where they're sure that the odds are at least reasonably stacked in their favor.
That's not usually the case for Medal of Honor recipients:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_W._Gilmore
I think the soldiers – or any other human being with at least average intelligence – can do such analysis subconsciously. Besides, the magnitude is the same – death – and it's just a question of who dies – the soldier or the civilian. So the only variable to be considered is the probability – what are the chances of a rescue mission succeeding.
something has to be said about our instinctive reactions during times of emergency, altruism doesn't always result in the best course of action. they include in the airline briefings that people who travel with small children should attend to themselves first before strapping in their kids. the risk+penalty of the adult getting knocked unconscious thus being unable to help both himself and his child is greater than the risk of an unsecured child.
if parents don't heed airline advice and strap their kids first before themselves, do you think its even a moral question in the first place?
But parents don't instinctively realize that by trying to secure their children first they are risking both their lives and their kids'. Parents have an instinctive tendency to protect their children (at their own expense) because they are weaker, not to mention they have a much longer life expectancy, hence, more potential for perpetuating their genes. Also, I doubt if adults will have the same tendency to secure young kids first if such kids are not their own.
yes, i was merely pointing out that actions borne out of natural instincts sometimes conflict with the statistically proven best course of action.
if such instincts were derived from some evolved defense mechanism, then its not a fool-proof way of arriving at a positive-sum situation.
Agree. Of course, such instincts were developed by natural selection for thousands of years – long before humans invented flying machines. Now relating it back to Pinoy Radical's original question (Is it moral to put the interest of other people above our own self-interest?), parents instinctively putting oxygen masks on their children first actually have the *intent* of protecting copies of their own genes, meaning it cannot be considered as putting the interest of other people above their own.
On the Topic of Soldiers.
Consider for a moment the indoctrination of Altruism as a cultural Ideal. This BLIND altruism is doing what is Good, as what Good the people who established the Doctrine say it is.
I'm not for Blind Altruism, especially since this is a Religious device. The sacrifice of a fanatic without really understanding the circumstance and the situation, versus a Reformer or Revolutionary who attempts to change mindful of the methods, possible consequences, and sacrifice.
Soldiers do not have the luxury to think when the bullets start flying, the Altruism taught to them can be reflexive and irrational. Consider the complex debate of Foreign Policy and the total understanding of the average soldier. in the end they go with their gut: the honor, duty, and self sacrifice disciplined into them.
Also I don't think the Understanding or Farsighted Altruism is absolute or can be said to be none or one. There are degrees of understanding and certainty, no one is 100% in their rational altruistic action. Even altruist have to be skeptical of their own actions, working with enough certainty to make a sacrifice but not "too much certainty" as to blind them when a different information starts popping up (confirmation bias).
I would suppose the important services rendered by those types of occupations far outweigh their actual compensation. I would even count public school teachers among those whose pay is way below their contribution to society in general.
So you don't count them as altruism? As long as you get some sort of compensation, even though its not commensurate, automatically excludes it from becoming altruistic in nature?
Say for example, a good neighbor offers to help me paint my house but asks nothing in return. I offer him juice as a token of my appreciation and he accepts. Does it take the altruism out of his actions?
I agree that the services rendered by the soldiers, firemen, policemen, etc. far outweigh their actual compensation, but the risk they take is less than the danger already happening to those they try to save because they have the proper equipment and training and the luxury of being able to approach the dangerous situation from the outside with at least some preparation. Also, the benefit they give to others outweigh their own sacrifice (not zero-sum). And the teachers seeing (or hoping to see) their pupils grow up to be good citizens (and even perhaps immortalize the teachers' memes – or memories) is the real compensation for their sacrifice.
As for the good neighbor offering to paint your house, that is reciprocal altruism, because surely he expects either consciously or unconsciously that you might be able to help him in the future.
"As for the good neighbor offering to paint your house, that is reciprocal altruism, because surely he expects either consciously or unconsciously that you might be able to help him in the future."
Maybe that's just you. If you could actually come up with an empirical data based on anthropological or behavioral observations and not just an introspection, you'd be able to convince more.
Your idea of human nature an altruism is so confined to your personal experiences substantiated with pseudo-mathematical calculations that it left no room for heroism and no 'goodhearted' individual is good enough in your own microcosm of a moral world.
You're right, I have no empirical data based on anthropological or behavioral observations, just an introspection from my personal experiences. I guess I should have said:
"As for the good neighbor offering to paint your house, that is *probably* reciprocal altruism, because he *probably* expects either consciously or unconsciously that you might be able to help him in the future."
I do not agree, however, that my mathematical calculations (or formula) are pseudo. Can explain why you say they are pseudo?
Nicely written, innerminds! In my discussion with Stephanie, I gave this scenario and question… Why is it considered immoral when, say, a person stabs another? The act of stabbing alone is not immoral; it only becomes immoral when the act destroys something we value (like human life). If human life did not have value, would the stabbing of a human still be immoral? The question now is, where and how do we derive this value? If the human mind creates this value, can it change very much like how social conventions get changed by humans? Some may say that this human mind creation of human value suggests that humans do not have intrinsic value. With that, there may be no such a thing as morality, afterall.
Oh, I should put part of my response from that thread here as well:
I see morality as one of the effect of humans judging humans. If a human stabs a pillow, the human is not immoral. If a human stabs another human, the human is immoral. If a monkey stabs a human, it's an accident.
I think that morality is not independent of the human mind. Even if we say that the monkey finds itself immoral for stabbing such a poor creature, then yeah that monkey's morality will be independent of the human mind, but it's still dependent on the monkey mind.
My point is, morality is a creation of the mind. It needs a mind to exist. And that mind came about because of evolution.
—
"With that, there may be no such a thing as morality, afterall" — I think there is no such thing as morality if there is no such thing as the mind.
Thanks, Hector!
[Why is it considered immoral when, say, a person stabs another? The act of stabbing alone is not immoral; it only becomes immoral when the act destroys something we value (like human life). If human life did not have value, would the stabbing of a human still be immoral?]
As Tamarindox said, "Any act that is against life is bad and evil. Any act that enhances life is good and right." Since we are humans and alive at that, it is only natural that we tend to value human life, hence, we judge stabbing as immoral.
[The question now is, where and how do we derive this value? If the human mind creates this value, can it change very much like how social conventions get changed by humans?]
I believe it is natural selection that created this value (on human life), not the human mind. Those who do not give value to human life tend to neglect their own lives as well as their offspring's, so they often don't get to live long enough to spread and perpetuate their genes. So I don't think our value on human life will change the same way social conventions do, which are indeed created by the human mind.
Let me share with you a short passage from the book Primal Fear by William Diehl:
“Malum prohibitum [wrong because prohibited] is the way society defines the limits of acceptable behavior. So if everybody in the country wants to drink booze and booze is against the law, the law gets changed. But malum in se [wrong or evil in itself] never changes. If everybody in the country suddenly went kill-crazy, they wouldn’t legalize murder.”
You might be interested in an old article of mine titled Malum Prohibitum. 🙂
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/26/malum-…
Hi innerminds, yes, as tamarindox said “Any act that is against life is bad and evil”. But the question is… why? Is the answer dictated merely by the consequence or does life have intrinsic value? (i.e. value in itself regardless of consequence) The idealist in me tells me that life does have intrinsic value but the pragmatist in me agrees with you and tamarindox. My realist side is hovering somewhere in the middle. 🙂 hehehe Anyway, thanks for the link to your old article. I will have a look at it once I get the chance. In the meantime, enjoy your weekend! 🙂
Great Work Jong, I'd like to add some sources for those who are interested in pursuing the matter.
Game theory in the Evolutionary perspective, in which successful strategies are "selected for" and propagated through time. Consider Human behavior and why a particular kind of altruism, Benevolent, intelligent and far thinking self-interest, traits that evolved into virtues and continue to evolve as its weaknesses are being eased out and the strategy gains complexity.
Suggested Readings
Gintis, Game theory Evolving: A Problem-Centered Introduction to Modeling Strategic Behavior.
Prof. Robert Axelrod's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod, work in Evolution of Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Coo…. See Axelrod's Tournaments. Axelrod relates the structure and results of his computer tournament, in which submitted programs played one another in a repeated prisoners dilemma environment. Axelrod makes interesting observations about the characteristics of players who are successful in such environments.
Particularly the program Tit for Tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat which explains Reciprocal Altruism in Animal Communities or in Humans.
Altruism is a moral principles, Christianity's guiding moral principles. Whatever you do or act the beneficiary must be OTHERS (God, society, government) not yourself. The primary purpose of your life is TO SERVE OTHERS (God, society or government) and NOT for your own happiness. Ask then WHY? They cannot give sensible answers.
Actually there is a morality that is anti-life and there is a moral principles that is pro-life. Any act that is against life that is bad and evil. Any act that enhances life is good and right. To human being he must discover what are good and evil actions for ones own life based on what is true or false.
Michael Shermer ( as quoted in the article) did not define and identify what morality is. He just stated human actions, biological actions but did not state WHY does living organism acts. WHAT IS the object of their (living organisms) actions. We must remember that it is ONLY the living organism that acts, not the non-living things or inanimate things like stones, rocks. The objective of the actions of livings organism is to remain alive. If the organism fails in the action it will die. Even the single cell organism have to act to absorb nutrients in order to be alive or else it will die. In contrast, inanimate objects do not act that way. It would be wrong to say that morality do not exist in nature. Morality exist in the nature of the living organisms. Observe all the living organisms. Human beings is the highest living organisms. Morality to man have to be discovered by his mind. It is only man that can kill himself or commit suicide.
I agree with you. We don't need a constitution if morality does not exist in NATURE.
Richard Dawkins gives a evolutionary explaination for altuism in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene.
To accept that is to do it on Faith.
Dawkins' explanation in The Selfish Gene is supported by observations of animals in nature, logical arguments, and even computer simulations – all of which are open to public scrutiny and peer review. To accept it is to do so with reason, not faith. I have yet to hear a rational atheist say "because Richard Dawkins says so". I did, however, hear "because the Bible tells me so" a couple of times. Well I guess that's faith. 🙂
why is it that apologists frequently project the insecurities of their faith's on their own lack of credibility on others? its not like the cited source asks the reader to take it at face value, a lot of Dawkin's earlier observations were later updated in his followup books. He, or any responsible scientist, never claimed to be infallible
Michael Shermer wrote an entire book about this deep topic (The Science of Good and Evil) and proposed both biology AND culture ("bio-cultural evolution") as the source of humanity's morality AND immorality. I think you'll love to get a copy of this book (not sure now if I got mine from NBS). Excerpts here: http://www.michaelshermer.com/science-good-evil/e…
Shermer's outline of Chapters 1-3:
"In Part I. Why We Are Moral: The Evolutionary Origins of Morality, a theory on the origins of morality is presented in four chapters. This part addresses the why question of morality. Chapter 1. Transcendent Morality, presents an answer to the challenge that without a transcendent source of validation (for most people this is God) all ethical systems are reduced to moral relativism or moral nihilism. I demonstrate that evolutionary ethics can be ennobling and morality transcendent by virtue of the fact that the deepest moral thoughts, behaviors, and sentiments belong not just to individuals, or to individual cultures, but to the entire species. Chapter 2. Why We Are Moral, presents my theory, based on a model of bio-cultural evolution, to explain the development of the moral sentiments and of moral behavior. The chapter reviews the million years over which the pre-moral sentiments evolved in our ancestors under primarily biogenetic control, the hundred-thousand years over which the moral sentiments evolved in our species alone, the transition about 35,000 years ago when sociocultural factors became increasingly dominant in shaping our moral behavior, and the shift within the past 10,000 years when the moral sentiments were codified into form ethical systems. Chapter 3. Why We Are Immoral, addresses the darker side of humanity: war, violence, and the ignoble savage within, showing that we are both moral and immoral animals. Here I address the classic problem of evil — if God is all-powerful and all good, then why does evil exist? If God is neither all-powerful nor all good, then evil can logically exist; but this is not a deity most believers would profess belief in or make a commitment to. If there is no God, then how are we to deal with evil on the scale of the Holocaust? Do bad people ultimately get away with doing bad things if there is no final judgment? I suggest a way around this conundrum, as well as debunk the myth of the Noble Savage and peaceful native, showing how all humans share a common humanity."