Sunday, March 22, 2015
Week Three: Biology and Ethics
Singer, Wright, and de Waal all argue that our biology, as it has evolved, contains the seeds for morality. Embedded in these ideas is the notion that we are, by nature, a social/political species (ie, morality has evolved to regulate social/political arrangements which in turn contribute to our biological survival). With reference to some of their comments, what do you think an understanding of evolutionary biology has to contribute to our understanding of politics?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that, as Peter Singer concisely put it at the end of his talk, an understanding of evolutionary biology contributes to an explanation of our moral choices and not a justification of our moral choices. This relates to our understanding of politics through the realization that our intuitive moral choices are derived from the inherent prosocial tendencies of our human nature. Although as Wright says we do have the ability to overcome or rationalize reasons for treating someone else unfairly there is a sense that we all have of the golden rule, and that some actions deserve punishment. More specifically in politics I believe that there is an understanding that all people want to be treated equally and like in Frans de Waal’s presentations even monkeys have a sense of fairness, reciprocity, and compassion. I think this allows us to understand a little more about cooperation and how people work together, with the realization that we cannot accomplish something alone and that we must work together to achieve a goal. This is especially important in politics because as I see it the most desired skill for people in that field is the ability to generate compromise between two people or groups. Whether it is the ruling class to its citizens, one party to another, or one person to another. I think that a better understanding or our moral roots in evolution will help us to come to a conclusion on how we should live and even how we should govern.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary biology provides possible explanations behind some of the specific and innate behaviors that are a part of human nature. On this topic, one of the direct effects of human nature was to form civilizations that would help the community thrive and therefore increase the population’s chance of survival and reproduction to pass on our genes. This idea forms the basis of why societies with different rules of government, beliefs, and morals exist; due to differences in perception and cognition of how to best help the community thrive. Because the formation of societies is to some extent an evolutionary advantage, then the choices made by political leaders or their followers could also be explained in terms of evolution. Using the example of Wright’s speech, the political realm (including the leaders and citizens) can be analyzed using game theory, statistical methods to determine how people may act in certain situations. Whether the leader will be, by its formal definition just, is determined by what he thinks (hopefully) will be most advantageous for society, in terms of survival, reproduction, and in today’s world the least chaos. Now, the attitude and consequent decision-making of the leaders will come down to innate/ instinctual beliefs governed by years of neurological evolution (and is therefore in a sense not innate but rather “involuntary thinking” ) and egocentric & altruistic thought processes concerning what is best for thriving in society. Then can a leader finally reach a decision regarding implanting a certain rule, etc. which can be a non-sum of zero or sum of zero decision (as Wright suggests) and thus either benefit only he, only he and society, or both and globally as well. Furthermore these egocentric vs altruistic thought processes govern whether something/ someone is fair or not, which along with empathy, as discussed by de Waal are the pillars of morality, a quality needed both on the part of leaders and citizens for a smooth running society. For we think of fairness as an equal proportion of altruistic and egocentric beliefs; if one overrides another, we can become either too empathic and see our own downfall, or become too stingy which dampens the chance of a fair life for society. Therefore the ideas suggested by De Waal, Wright, and Singer lead to the single point that there is not a lone way of political governing that is moral, this morality is then governed by fairness and empathy, and these concepts have a physiological aspect, that raised long ago through evolution & thus can allow us to analyze political justice in terms of evolution. However we must realize that we are not speaking of evolution to justify that the powerful should not feel remorse for immorality because Darwin’s idea is for the survival of the powerful, which is ultimately not possible without a certain degree of altruism.
ReplyDeleteNice application.
DeleteI think Peter Singer best utilizes how the effects of evolutionary biology contribute to our view of politics by his talk of how we have these innate behaviors that has been passed down to us on what is wrong and what is right. Peter Singer talks about how if asked about the concept of incest that most people would normally say that it is wrong because of chances of abnormal births and the concept of incest has been passed down to us as being wrong and not normal.
ReplyDeleteRobert Wright also goes along a similar path when he talks about the exceptions to the Golden Rule, which is taught to us through nurture as we grow and those morals were passed down from the generations before us. Robert Wright goes more into a innate reaction of compassion for others. When we think of terrorist groups we are less compassionate than say people from our own church group.
Frans de Waal talks about how monkeys (our ancestors) who have a high brain capacity compared to other animals can show similar traits as us such as cooperation and empathy. This shows a learning ability that they do know what would be considered "moral behavior." These monkeys that even have no interest in gain for themselves, for example when they've already been fed, will still cooperate to help out their companion.
Through all these guys talks they show that through time we have evolved to see a different perspective. Even species that don't have the same linguistic abilities as us still has the same learning functions to do what is morally right. Now associating this to politics, we see that we all have this innate behavior of knowing what is wrong and right and being able to make the right choices for the best of the society instead of in ones own interest.
Waal focused a lot on the moral behavior of animals and empathy. Something of interest Waal spoke on was the bonobo way which is the principle that if you have a valuable relationship that is damaged by conflict you need to do something about it. He believed that there was two main pillars of morality: Reciprocity and empathy. Over time that morality has evolved into empathy and consolation; prosocial tendencies, and reciprocity and fairness. Waal states that through kin selection compassion, love, empathy earn their way into the gene pool. The main point is that compassion leads you to do good things for people who will then return the favor.
ReplyDeleteWright spoke about evolution and ethics. He says that evolution is about passing on genes and that you don’t necessarily only pass on your own genes through reproduction; it can passed down through others. Wright says that one of things needed to survive is to cooperate and by forming strong, reciprocal relationships can be a huge asset in survival.
Peter Singer notes that ethical ideas can get into evolution and it is not just a matter of thinking of yourself. That if you care for others then others will care for you. There is a sense of fairness that has evolved because of the importance of reciprocal relationships and because we don’t want to be cheated in the reciprocal relationship.
I think when it comes to politics you have to understand the body of people you are governing and have a common goal to achieve towards. If over time we have incorporated mutual, civil understandings with others and also the hope of receiving what we put into something. I think the evolution of morals has a large contribution to how governments operate. Citizens have learned to cooperate together and have become a culture of give and take. The idea of this is that we can we can’t do things alone we need to do them together to benefit all of us.
Peter Singer explains that evolutionary biology has some things that in a way explains our moral choices. I, personally, am the type of person that does not like a lot of change, so I do things that I am taught to do at a young age and stick with that because that is what I am used to. But to almost counter-argue this point, evolutionary biology does not justify the choices that you make. I also do believe that evolutionary biology is a huge contribution of people knowing what is right and what is wrong through generations. If things are just getting passed down generation after another, some things are going to stick with some societies or families and almost never die out.
ReplyDeleteWaal's focus on animal behaviors really shows that because even animals have a sense of what equality is and fairness with each other. Due to the amount of knowledge they can keep, monkeys have somewhat of the same traits as us when it comes to cooperation and empathetic mindsets and know how to build relationships.
With this being said, perspectives on these subjects are different, but we can come to agree that the main point of this, in politics, is that there is no sole way to govern something with it being purely moral. These morals come from equality, fairness, empathy, and cooperation. Which means there cannot be one person of interest in governing a society. There needs to be people working together to make this world move further in the positive direction.
Having an understanding of evolutionary biology contributes to our understanding of politics because we can learn more about the morals of others. In the three videos of de Waal, Wright, and Singer, the speakers discuss the morals of people. de Waal compares the morals of humans and animals as being the same. Most people believe that animals do not have morals as we do, but he proved through multiple experiments that this can be possible. His experiments prove that even without knowledge of these morals, the animals have them by instinct. De Waal describes morality with two words such as empathy or compassion and reciprocity and fairness. These can help have more of an understanding of politics because if we consider these terms of morality it can help deciding issues in politics. Wright mentions that morality can deal with Kin selection which is compassion for your family and close friends. He says that most people have compassion for their close family and it is not universal, but this can be changed through evolution. Knowing and understanding these concepts and how it is evolved can help politics because if individuals would have more compassion universally then there would not be as much arguments in politics or other areas.
ReplyDeletePeter Singer focuses on human nature and being social animals in terms of evolution. He states that it is important to have social relationships with others and to be able to trust them for survival in life. This can be important in terms of politics because people need to have reciprocal relationships with others. Having relationships with people in politics can help individuals succeed in terms of getting power. Caring for others can help leaders as well because the citizens want to feel cared for and have reciprocal relationships with leaders. Singer also discusses how being "ruthless" does not have to be the answer for survival of the fittest. This can be compared to politics because leaders do not have to be "ruthless" in order to gain power, but can focus on the people and create relationships with them to gain power. He also brings up how we make our moral decisions through what we have been taught and told. These morals have been passed down to us. This can relate to politics because in many cases people argue with each other due to their morals and what they have been taught their whole life. If individuals would look at the situation fairly and justly then maybe there would not be as much judgement or disagreements.
Understanding evolutionary biology contributes to an explanation, not justification, of our moral choices. This comes into play in our understanding of politics. When exploring the tendencies of politicians, it can be seen that in order to gain favor in the public eye. Although there are characteristics of humans that would make them seem strictly concerned with their own self-interest, Wright and de Waal both describe a sense of fairness that would make humans much more community-oriented. This provides more understanding to the idea of working together for the common good. When this is seen in politics, that candidate or party is preferred because of the selflessness. However, far too often the words of a candidate do not come with results if they are voted into office.
ReplyDeleteAnd understanding of evolutionary biology test to contribute to our understanding of politics because we can learn about the morals of others and what they believe and and why! De Waal showed in his videos through many examples that humans and animals both have morals. Wright mentioned that morals come from who you are around, for example your friends and family. Singer focused on human nature and having relationships with others. All of these are important when it comes to politics because it helps us build relationships and learn new things. Many of us base our decisions and have habits due to what we have learned or inherited from people. This can be a bad thing because then we may not develop our knowledge and decisions based off our own opinion and what we've learned but instead others opinions. We all need to work together for the common good but at the same time develop our own opinion and not judge so everyone has a fair chance with everything. We all need to work together to accomplish things and with no judgement and better coping skills, we all can do that!
ReplyDeleteOur understanding of evolutionary biology greatly contributes to our understanding of politics. We learn our morals and values towards others by what we are influenced to believe. Friends and family are a huge impact on where our morals are learned as stated by Waal and I absolutely agree with his findings. The relationships we have with those closest to us are the foundation of the beliefs and morals we learn throughout our lives. From these relationship we also develop our political culture or socialization which can be a negative thing. Instead of developing our own viewpoint we go along side with those closest to us political opinion and eventually pass that on to other generations. What needs to happen is people need to become more involved and develop their own personal opinions on politics instead of just following others.
ReplyDeleteFrans de Wall begins to explain how evolutionary biology leads to ideas in politics. Through these studies he shows that as higher cognitive ability is developed through evolution, aspects of morality are also developed. The chimpanzees have higher cognitive abilities than many other animals and exhibited great understanding of the principles of cooperation, collaboration, fairness, and empathy. Many other animals are incapable of exhibiting these principles, and human who have even greater cognitive function expand even further upon these morality principles.
ReplyDeletePeter Singer states "We need to train our thinking to see that we have these judgments because we have evolved them from our ancestors who needed them for survival. This helps to show that moral judgement has evolved from something that was exercised out of necessity of survival into something that occurs more at the subconscious level.
This and many other arguments of Singers lecture as well as the studies completed by de Waal show that as cognitive development evolves that capacity for the understanding of Moral principles. Based on changes in life style and building upon what ancestors developed in order to survive, Moral judgement and principles has become an unconscious part of the human family, which over time has led to the basis of politics based upon this moral understanding.
Using the talks by de Waal, Wright, and Singer we are able to realize that understanding evolutionary biology contributes to understanding politics in different ways. De Waal’s presentation brought up the important idea of fairness. He showed experiment with monkeys and not wanting to accept unequal pay. This experiment helps us to realize that we are the same way. When we do the same job as others we expect the same equality. He also showed the experiment with the elephants learning how to work together. This relays onto politics by if one person tries to do everything by him or herself then it would be extremely difficult to achieve a goal. They would be left with the “whole rope but no food.” Both de Waal and Wright discussed the concept of reciprocal altruism, which describes one individual bringing down their fitness to help another’s and expecting that person to pay them back later. This then brings up the Golden rule and how it is in our human nature. As a world, we are not all loved and we do not show the same compassion to some as we do to others. We take the golden rule under our own hands and we only apply it to those who we want. We make exceptions as Wright explains and this gives the world trouble. In order to change this we must expand our moral imagination, our ability to put yourself in the shoes of others and open your compassion. If we expand this we may overcome and begin to think about others and apply the golden rule not just selectively, but entirely. We must put our mind into others and try to reframe the way people think. Singer again tags along with de Waal and Wright by stating that we need to cooperate with others and form reciprocal relationships such as “I do something, you do it back,” and that if you care about others they will more likely care about you. Just as politics. If you show them respect they will more than likely respect you. He also discusses different judgment and how its part of our human nature. Everyone is learned to judge alike. He asked the reality questions of what people thought were right and wrong and almost everyone had the same answer. We all have a rational way of thinking because we look at the consequences. Looking at the consequences leads to politics by setting laws and knowing what is just and not. Overall, we tend to prefer those that are close to us (ex. People in the same country) and form reciprocal relationships with only those, but if we give care and concern to those outside of the relationship (people in other countries) then it will create an even larger relationship. We have to govern outside of our comfort zone to have support from everyone not just selective.
ReplyDeleteIn Waal's presentation he showed the audience how even monkey's and other animals have moral behaviors. Throughout his presentation he stated that the two pillars of morality are fairness and compassion. Then goes to use the example of the study where one monkey would help another monkey get food even though one has been fed. This goes to show that even a monkey has the ability to show fairness and compassion through its evolution.
ReplyDeleteWright gives good detail as to how the golden rule of compassion has been passed on through evolution. He says that as a species our natural use of compassion has evolved from just kin to other groups such as friends and allies. He then takes it one step further by trying to show how universal compassion is a possibility in our world. To do this we must put our selves in a moral imagination, meaning to put ourselves into someone else shoes. He recognizes that as humans who are from a variety of different cultures, this is very hard. He says that as humans we are very selective of when we will use this moral imagination, but he says this is where the religious leaders of the world will have to step in and help us with this process.
The main point that I took away from Singer is how he said we must be able to trust others for survival. So in political terms a leader must care for there citizens, because everyone wants to be cared about. A leader must also realize he needs the help of others to succeed.
All of these speakers gave good insight as to why it is important for our survival to have compassion. They all gave examples how evolution has gave us our natural uses of compassion, but we must expand on this to keep pushing forward.
All three speakers made points that can help relate the topics of evolutionary biology to politics. In De Waal's speech he focused on topics such as fairness,reciprocity, and compassion. His studies with monkeys and elephants showed that they have the ability to show these traits and can recognize how these traits don't necessarily benefit themselves but benefits their peers. Wright expanded on the idea of compassion, focusing on the idea of the golden rule and game theory. Wright believes the idea of the golden rule has been passed down to them, but people are to selective in the use of it. He asked people to expand their moral imagination and try to put yourself into their shoes to gain an understanding of their views. Singer's statement at the end of his presentation summarized his view, "an understanding of evolutionary biology contributes to an explanation of our moral choices and not a justification of our moral choices. Therefore you judge most of the moral choices that you make based on what you believe to be right or wrong through ideas that have been passed down through evolution. In regards to politics the ideas presented display how a politician should think in a manner that care about the people he is in charge of rather than himself. The previously mentioned traits of compassion, reciprocity, and fairness all promote improvement of the people not self improvement.
ReplyDeleteI think that evolutionary biology and the like definitely has a contribution to political philosophy. It allows us to look at the whole picture from a different perspective. De Wall brings up the point of how animals fight and that it may seem it is just violence and survival of the fittest but in reality we can see some conditions of animals (chimps and elephants) where they show qualities of “fairness.” Singer reinforces this point, in his argument about evolution and morals. This would hint that our basic morals can show themselves in more advanced animals. This would widen the viewpoint of our morals being either just a human experience. This would give some sort of a scientific backing to the religious argument that there are inherent, “known” morals that all share. To take a different side, Wright claims that moral and ethical behavior comes from a self-centered, survival of the fittest approach to evolutionary moral. Basically, we only help others when we have something to gain. This would help us understand how different groups of people can be moral and ethical to each other but not to other groups. This is a view of morals and ethics which we rarely look at; so while I’m not sure if I agree with these theories, they definitely have room contribute different perspectives on the ethical and moral side of political philosophy.
ReplyDeleteHumans are animals. This is an idea that so many people divorce themselves from and yet it helps us to understand what makes us human. Qualities that we formerly considered uniquely human have been seen in many non-human animals. In Dr. Frans de Waal’s talk he mentions two monkeys (and two elephants in a later example) understanding that they had to work together to get to a common goal, in the case of the example being food. Another interesting trait was mentioned by Robert Wright in his talk where he talked about the idea of kin selection. Essentially the nitty gritty of this idea is that it expands the bounds of classical natural selection by favoring not only the reproductive success of the individual but also of those genetically close to the individual. This is actually a concept that we discussed in my Animal Behavior class and one of the examples we used in that class was of three vervet monkeys where the oldest daughter helps the mother take care of the younger daughter. There is no direct benefit to the oldest daughter but it does help the monkey’s gene line to be passed on. That same example could be used in a human scenario by switching the monkeys with people. In a human scenario, and maybe even in the monkey scenario, the focus of continuing one’s gene line is probably not in the forefront but it is subconsciously there and could be an example of why humans show compassion. The reason that humans are able to extend this out to those not of one’s family could be related to the idea that Robert Wright brings up about zero-sum relationships and non-zero sum relationships. As he explains, evolutionarily a non-zero sum relationship is more advantageous than a zero-sum relationship because if you are in a zero sum relationship only one of you wins while in a non-zero sum relationship both sides win. Zero-sum relationships can lead to resentment among the two groups and could be a reason why wars break out. An example in animals besides humans of a zero sum relationship is given by Frans de Waal in an experiment where one monkey was given a lesser food (a cucumber) and the other monkey a greater food (a grape) for the same behavior. This unequal balance in rewards lead to the one monkey receiving the cucumber as a reward to react aggressively towards the experimenter. Understanding the behaviors that I mentioned, as well as many other innate behaviors that have been uncovered by evolutionary biologists, we can better understand how to use politics in a constructive manner. For example, if two parties in a government’s parliament want two different things and the legislation from both sides only supports their side they are in a zero-sum relationship with each other. In order to be a good leader and put them in a non-zero sum relationship one could promote them to be empathic and produce a compromise bill that contains a little of what each group wants. In short, it would be very advantageous to study the evolutionary biological aspect of human behavior in order to use politics successfully.
ReplyDelete