“Properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community.”
There is a dilemma that must be solved by all beings that form highly cooperative societies. This dilemma is how to obtain the benefits of cooperation without future benefits being destroyed by exploitation, such as by free riders accepting a benefit but not reciprocating. Solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma is difficult because exploitation is virtually always the ‘winning’ strategy in the short term and can be in the longer term.
Fortunately for us, our ancestors came across solutions that have enabled us to become the incredibly successful social species we are. Evolution encoded some of these solutions in our moral sense and cultural moral codes as “morality”. The science of the last 50 years or so reveals human morality to be elements of cooperation strategies2,3,4,5,9 which have made us “SuperCooperators”6.
Cultural moralities are solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, but they are also diverse, contradictory, and sometimes strange. Exploitation of out-groups (such as slaves, women, and “others”) has been common. Strange markers of being a moral person such as circumcision, dress and hairstyle, and food and sex taboos have been required.
Could there be a universally moral subset of these “descriptively moral” behaviors (behaviors described as moral in one culture but perhaps not in others)? Even when cooperating to exploit or make war8 on out-groups, we must necessarily begin by solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma within an in-group. To sustainably obtain these benefits of cooperation, people within this in-group “circle of moral concern”7 are not exploited.
This defines a universal moral principle: “Solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma without exploiting others in your circle of moral concern”. This principle is universal because it is a necessary component of all cultural moralities, even sub-cultures which restrict in-groups to family or friends and exploit everyone else. We can simplify this universal principle as “Increase the benefits of cooperation without exploiting others”, leaving “others” undefined for the moment.
This universal moral principle is an attractive reference for refining moral codes to better meet shared needs and preferences. It advocates increased cooperation which both increases material goods benefits and triggers the emotional rewards evolution encoded that motivate further cooperation. Because our moral sense was selected for by the benefits of cooperation, these cooperation strategies are innately harmonious with our moral sense. This moral principle is practical. Following common moral norms such as the Golden Rule is universally moral when the benefits of cooperation are increased. But when following such norms would not solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, as when dealing with criminals and in wartime, following them would not be moral. Since this universal moral principle defines only moral ‘means’ (actions that increase cooperation’s benefits without exploiting others) and is silent on moral ‘ends’ (what those benefits are), societies are free to define what those benefits of cooperation ought to be and change them as circumstances change.
The universal moral principle also sheds light on the morality of two human invented solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma: money economies (which efficiently enable cooperation that produces material goods) and rule of law (which effectively uses force to punish exploiters). Finally, because universally moral means are accurately tracked, this moral principle is a useful objective reference for resolving many moral disputes. (Disputes can persist about how “others”, “exploiting”, ultimate moral ‘ends’, and other implementation details are defined even among people who accept the principle.)
Individuals can benefit from this science by realizing that, properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community. Also, cultural moral norms are best understood not as moral absolutes but as heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of thumb) for sustainably increasing the benefits of cooperation. Further, if “others” are defined as all people, then all ‘moral’ norms that exploit out-groups contradict the universal moral principle. These include economic systems based on the unfettered pursuit of self-interest leading to exploitation and prohibitions against homosexuality that exploit homosexuals as imaginary threats.
This purely science-based definition of what ‘is’ universally moral appears to be culturally useful independent of any arguments for mysterious1 sources of obligation or moral authority. However, the principle does not answer all moral questions. What benefits for acting morally ought we seek and who ought to be included in “others” who are not to be exploited? Common preferences might be “increased well-being” and “everyone”. But here objective science goes silent; answers to these questions are in the domain of moral philosophy.
References:
- Blackford, Russell (2016). The Mystery of Moral Authority. Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Bowles, S., Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press.
3. Curry, O. S. (2007). The conflict-resolution theory of virtue. In W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 251-261). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
4. Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The Evolution of Morality. Springer.
5. Harms, W., Skyrms, B. (2010) Evolution of Moral Norms. In Oxford Handbook on the Philosophy of Biology ed. Michael Ruse. Oxford University Press.
6. Nowak, M., Highfield, R. (2011). SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. Free Press.
7. Singer, Peter (1981) The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton University Press.
8. Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality, from Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives, Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp. 91-234.
9. Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of Human Cooperation and Morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 231-255.
__________________________________________________________________
This article and others addressing the question of whether there is a universal morality are from TVOL’s project titled “This View of Morality: Can an Evolutionary Perspective Reveal a Universal Morality?” Reprinted with permission of the author.
Nice bit of logical altruism here. It might even work, within limited cases and cooperative groups. I admit, it is clean, neat and attractive. It is also idealistic. In any case, the “rub” is likely commitment. You need enough ticket buyers in order to have a successful show. People talk a lot about morality. Those include philosophers. Much of our self-absorbed, self-centered world cannot see beyond the next deal (sound familiar?). Therefore, anything tagged as moral or morality does not get their attention or interest. Sloan’s idea could be revolutionary. It is elegant. What is needed are enough ticket buyers. Might be a tall order.
Hi Paul, thanks for your complimentary words. I agree with your concerns.
Even though I am confident in the scientific truth of my claimed species-independent moral universal, I am largely stumped as to how to interest people in adopting it as a moral reference.
The only justification I can presently offer is as a preferred instrumental choice of the form “If you expect this universal moral principle to meet your needs and preferences better than any alternative, then you ought (instrumental) to advocate it as a moral reference.” I see a good case for it being preferred compared to available alternatives.
Paul – continued
I believe it will be preferred as an instrument choice because, better than any alternative,
1) It reveals morality not as a burden, but as a means of increasing the benefits of cooperating in groups.
2) It may be the only objectively true (as a matter of science) moral principle I am aware of – making it useful for resolving moral disputes.
3) It is uniquely harmonious with our moral sense, since the cooperation strategies it is based on are what shaped our moral sense.
4) Following it will efficiently trigger the psychological rewards encoded in our biology to motivate continuing to cooperate with family, friends, and groups even when doing so is not in our short-term interest.
5) It is compatible with the goals implied by most answers to the broader ethical question “How should I live?”. A Stoic, for example, should feel little to no contradiction with advocating it as a reference for resolving disputes about cultural moral norms.
Stick with what you believe, Mark. Arnod Lele might be interested in this, if he does not already know ( Love of all Wisdom)
Best Wishes, PDV.
From Edward O. Wilson’s short book “The Meaning of Human Existence” discussing Human evolution, speculating on the evolving of our ancestor Homo habilis.
“It led to innate group-wide morality and a sense of conscience and honor. The competition between the two forces can be succinctly expressed as follows.
Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”
Wilson was basically making the twin arguments that altruism (cooperation if one prefers) was part of both individual selection and group selection during our evolution. The individuals needed the group to survive in order for themselves to survive. The individuals figured out that being a “free rider” was short term thinking. Presumably many social mores and customs grew around what group selection had already put into motion. (at least that is the way I understood the argument)
As Mr. Sloan points out, things get a little harder as we expand our definition of “our group”.
Family groups, to tribes, to shared language/ethnicity, to racial features, to ethnic nations, to civil nations. My understanding of Humanistic philosophy is that it encompasses all of Mankind, and for some all sentient life, and finally to all life that can experience pain and suffer. And then it gets to the concept that nothing, including ourself, is itself without everything else.
Which I suspect created the reactionary backlash of Margaret Thatcher stating that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families.
Full circle in just a few million years.
We seemed hard wired for morality. We just can’t seem to decide whom it applies to.
Hi LyleT, right. As you are likely aware, Peter Singer (a utilitarian) describes moral progress as “expanding the circle” of who deserves full moral regard. Understanding past and present cultural moral norms as parts of cooperation strategies goes beyond this, though. For example, it reveals the shameful origins in exploitation of outgroups by descriptively moral norms such as “homosexuality is evil” and “abortion is always wrong”. This explanatory knowledge could be helpful in resolving disputes about which moral norms a society will advocate and enforce.
Paul, thanks for the encouragement. These ideas appear culturally valuable to me, but figuring out how to make that case to others is difficult. And, particularly as a non-academic, constructive criticism is hard to find.
I have been thinking about a universal-principle-morality, and if such a principle exists, or, even if it could, would it? The wide range of religious and quasi- religious teachings make me philosophically doubtful. Of course, philosophy is a doubtful, uncertain endeavor, at the best of times. Current times are not the best I have seen, nor was I alive yet when nuclear energy was weaponized. It does seem problematic when new technologies are weaponized before their possible benefits are well-examined. It just seems to be how we roll. It is odd: I doubt I would have thought about this idea, had you not brought it up. Odd, indeed.
On a lighter note £: It is yet odder, still, when deeper thought propels me to trivial thinking. Sorta like my consciousness saying: give it a rest. Here is what happened over the last twenty-four hours. I was preparing a vegan stew: cabbage, onion, potatoes, carrots, garlic, etc. For some infathomable reason, I thought: wonder if carrot tops are edible? I found out. Yes, they are, but some people are allergic to them—alkaloids or some such reaction. So, I cooked some carrot greens into the stew. Not many, see. So far, so good. I won’t push it too far. Maybe morality is just too sensitive for many of us?