1. 1 The Evolution of Morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

2. 2Outline Introduction Problem 1: How could morality be the result of evolution? The new science of morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Conclusion Problem 2: Morality debunked?

3. 3Outline Introduction Problem 1: How could morality be the result of evolution? The new science of morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Conclusion Problem 2: Morality debunked?

4. 4Introduction Evolution and Morality P1. Human behavior is the result of evolutionary forces P2. Human beings behave as moral agents CC: Moral behavior is the result of evolutionary forces  We should be able to explain human moral behavior in terms of evolutionary forces Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

5. 5Introduction Two Problems PROBLEM 1: P1: The law of evolution is a law of competition P2: Moral behavior includes seemingly non-competitive behavior – cooperation, altruism, sacrifice CC: Evolution cannot explain moral behavior  If evolution is a matter of competition, how could moral behavior have been selected? Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

6. 6Introduction Two Problems PROBLEM 2: P1: Evolution explains human behavior in terms of biological processes which are determined and have no “truth” to them P2: Moral behavior properly speaking is free and has value only if it based on truths CC: “If evolution is right, then there is no moral behavior properly speaking”  If moral behavior is the result evolution, is not morality an illusion? Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

7. 7Outline Introduction Problem 1: How could morality be the result of evolution? The new science of morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Conclusion Problem 2: Morality debunked?

8. 8 How could moral behavior result from evolution? PROBLEM 1: P1: The law of evolution is a law of competition P2: Moral behavior includes seemingly non-competitive behavior – cooperation, altruism, sacrifice CC: Evolution cannot explain moral behavior Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana THREE ANSWERS: 1. Moral behavior as a side effect 2. Biological Altruism 3. Selection of cooperative behavior

9. 9 1. Moral behavior as a side effect Non-adaptive traits as a side effect: - The development of the human brain is the result of evolution - Moral behavior comes as a non-adaptive side effect Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Other Examples: - Nerdy behavior - Taste for sweets and fats  Moral behavior could be a non-adaptive side effect of the development of the brain

10. 10 2. Biological Altruism Biological altruism - Reciprocal aid - Kin selection Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Other Examples: - Vervet monkeys’ calls - Insect colonies  Human moral behavior could be a case of biological altruism

11. 11 3. Selection of cooperative behavior 3. Selection of cooperative behavior The Problem: parasites Prisoner’s dilemma Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Simulation type 1: - Single encounter: - Best strategy: parasite - Paradox: both lose in trying to win! Jones cooperatesJones cheats Smith cooperatesJones: 3 kids Smith: 3 kids Jones: 5 kids Smith: 0 kid Smith cheatsJones: 0 kid Smith: 3 kids Jones: 1 kid Smith: 1 kid

12. 12 3. Selection of cooperative behavior 3. Selection of cooperative behavior Simulation type 2: - Repeated encounters - Memory of past encounters - Best strategy: “tit for tat” Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana  Cooperative behavior selected in the long run

13. 13 How could moral behavior result from evolution? -- Conclusion PROBLEM 1: If the law of evolution is a law of competition, could moral behavior, including cooperation, altruism and sacrifice, be selected? ANSWER: Of course it could! Cooperative behavior, altruism and sacrifice can be the most competitive behavior in certain environments. PROBLEM 1: If the law of evolution is a law of competition, could moral behavior, including cooperation, altruism and sacrifice, be selected? ANSWER: Of course it could! Cooperative behavior, altruism and sacrifice can be the most competitive behavior in certain environments. Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

14. 14Outline Introduction Problem 1: How could morality be the result of evolution? The new science of morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Conclusion Problem 2: Morality debunked?

15. 15 The New Science of Morality The Moral Sense Test - Harvard University - More than 300,000 subjects - All background: religion, age, culture, education Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana  How do humans decide what is right and wrong?

16. 16 The New Science of Morality The Trolley Problem Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Situation 1: Is it morally permissible to pull the switch?

17. 17 The New Science of Morality The Trolley Problem Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Situation 2: Is it morally permissible to push the fat guy?

18. 18 The New Science of Morality The Trolley Problem Results: - Two situations similar from a rational point of view - But people’s choices differ Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Interpretation: Hauser: - Irrational intuitions (gut reactions), not rational reasoning, are at work in our moral judgments - These intuitions (gut reactions) are the result of evolutionary processes - Fat man: avoid interpersonal violence

19. 19 The New Science of Morality Neurobiology Results: - Brain damage – loss of moral sense - MRI: instincts vs rational reasoning in moral judgments  At least part of our moral judgments are influenced by some biological instincts – a “moral instinct”. Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

20. 20 The New Science of Morality Universal Grammar Chomski and language learning: - Universal grammar: innate - Particulars of each language: culture  Pinker: “the primary colors of our moral sense” Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Similar idea in the moral domain: - Universal grammar: innate - Particulars of each morality: culture

21. 21 The New Science of Morality Conclusion Psychological and Neurological research: Moral judgments are at least partly influenced by a “moral instinct”, which is part of our biological make up, resulting from the long process of evolution Hauser and Joyce: This shows that morality is an mere illusion. Does it follow? See Pinker Psychological and Neurological research: Moral judgments are at least partly influenced by a “moral instinct”, which is part of our biological make up, resulting from the long process of evolution Hauser and Joyce: This shows that morality is an mere illusion. Does it follow? See Pinker Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana

22. 22Outline Introduction Problem 1: How could morality be the result of evolution? The new science of morality Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Conclusion Problem 2: Morality debunked?

23. 23 Morality debunked or strengthened?  Pinker: Morality not debunked but strengthened! How? Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana PINKER: "So, dissecting moral intuitions is no small matter. If morality is a mere trick of the brain, some may fear, our very grounds for being moral could be eroded. Yet as we shall see, the science of the moral sense can instead be seen as a way to strengthen those grounds, by clarifying what morality is and how it should steer our actions"

24. 24 Morality debunked or strengthened? Two Arguments  Are we biologically determined to make the “moral” choices we make? Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana 1. Argument for Determinism: P1. If our moral behavior results from our biological make up, then it is determined. P2. Moral behavior is true moral behavior only if it results from free will CC. There is no true moral behavior -- illusion

25. 25 Morality debunked or strengthened? Two Arguments Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana 2. Argument for Relativism: P1. Whether a trait is selected by evolution depends on whether or not such trait is beneficial to survive in a certain environment. P2. Whether or not such trait is beneficial to survive in a certain environment has nothing to do with it being right or wrong CC. If our moral behavior is a trait selected by evolution, then it has nothing to do with right or wrong, ie: - moral behavior is not grounded in moral truths  Is our “moral” behavior just another mean to survive?

26. 26 Morality debunked or strengthened? Against the Argument for Determinism Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Are we biologically determined to make the moral choices we make? Seriously? – Princeton party  The universal grammar gives the primary colors: it remains to design the full painting! Three Levels: - Universal Grammar: tool kit for building particular systems of morality - But the particular systems come from other sources !

27. 27 Morality debunked or strengthened? Against the Argument for Determinism Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana  There is no biological determinism for moral behavior Three Levels: - Universal Grammar: tool kit - Culture and Education: particulars – but we know it is not enough - Intellectual Autonomy: reflection and modification

28. 28 Morality debunked or strengthened? Against the Argument for Relativism Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Is our “moral” behavior just another mean to survive? Compare with mathematics: - We are born with a evolutionary-driven rudimentary mathematical knowledge – monkeys too! - We build on it with mathematical reasoning and discover mathematical truths  From the fact that a rudimentary version of our mathematical knowledge is the result of evolution, it does not follow that we cannot build autonomous, true knowledge!

29. 29 Morality debunked or strengthened? Against the Argument for Relativism Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana Then for morality: - We are born with a evolutionary-driven rudimentary moral tool-kit - We build on it with rational reasoning and discover moral truths  There is no reason to reject the idea that that there are moral truths if we admit the existence of mathematical truths

30. 30 Morality debunked or strengthened? Conclusion Evolutionary forces explain rudimentary versions some of our tendencies toward moral behavior, and some of the content of our moral thoughts. But evolution is not the whole story: - There is no determinism of moral behavior - From the fact that some rudimentary version of morality is the result of evolution, it does not follow that there are no moral truths Evolutionary forces explain rudimentary versions some of our tendencies toward moral behavior, and some of the content of our moral thoughts. But evolution is not the whole story: - There is no determinism of moral behavior - From the fact that some rudimentary version of morality is the result of evolution, it does not follow that there are no moral truths Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana  Autonomous rational thinking is what makes moral behavior and moral thoughts truly moral.

31. 31Conclusion PINKER: "Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.” " PINKER: "Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.” " Soazig Le Bihan -- University of Montana