E THICS AND M ORALITY IN E VOLUTION By: Emily Trebek, Jessica Hecht, and Sean Astrup

A N E VOLUTIONARY P ERSPECTIVE ON M ORALITY Moral emotions are considered to be “emotions that focus on others and result in an outcome which helps others or society” (Brosnan, 2010) Historically, it was thought that only human beings are able to demonstrate morality We have found higher-level processes showing cooperation in non-human species as well especially primates This is important because it can allow us to understand how our sense of morality evolved

S MITH, D ARWIN, AND M ORAL E MOTIONS Adam Smith and Charles Darwin both believed the idea that animals have the capability to demonstrate morality Adam Smith supported the idea that human instincts were in place to promote survival/reproduction, and these instincts were experienced as emotions rather than rational thought Darwin proved that morality is innate through his study on facial expressions and how they are universally recognized by both humans and non- human species

M ORALITY AND J USTICE Equality and equity Equality “assumes identity outcomes, but fails to account for effort and deservedness” (Brosnan, 2010) Equity fills the void and has two parts: Reaction to one’s own outcome Reaction to others’ outcome

E QUITY AND E QUALITY IN N ON -H UMANS Many non-human species like chips, dogs and rabbits show responses that indicate frustration or distress when they are treated less favorably than a social partner In a study where chimps were given two options to bring food to itself only or bring food to itself and a partner, the chimp’s choices weren’t statistically significant. There are a few things that predict this behavior: 1. Food is a competitive resource which makes it a zero- sum game between those who have food and those who don’t 2. Explicit request are required to generate prosocial behavior in chimps Primates will only respond to inequity when the reward is a payment rather than a gift

0

E VOLUTION OF THE S ENSE OF J USTICE 1. Notice Inequity: byproduct of another behavior to force individuals to pay attention to details 2. Respond negatively to inequity: end interaction with inequity-givers make new relationships with beneficial people, enhancing the individual’s fitness 3. Understand they have received less and take steps to rectify inequity In humans, punish individuals who aren’t fair In animals, cease to cooperate 4. Respond with advantageous equity: acting against their own short-term self interest, giving up rewards to benefit partners to gain a long-term benefit

C RITICAL R EVIEW Are the observable moral traits in animals such as primates and social insects a result of convergent evolution (such as the eye) or a result of the beneficial trait inherited by an ancestor of these species? When different species of primates are tested they don’t always behave the same Wild species behave differently than species raised in captivity The reason humans respond negatively even when advantaged by inequality is that prosocial behaviors like an abnormally strong sense of reciprocity were very important during human evolution

W ORKS C ITED Brosnan, S.F. (2010) An evolutionary perspective on morality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(1), Cooperation and Fairness: Moral Behavior in Monkeys (Video file). Retrieved from Spiegel, A. (2010). Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous? Retrieved from storyId=