Natural selection is mainly thought of as being applied to the biological and physical features of organisms during evolution. The traits that help humans survive through different circumstances will continue to be passed to the next generations because through natural selection the fittest survive. Charles Darwin then applies natural selection to morality in societies. I agree that natural selection can also be applied to the moral faculties of humans. A society’s viewpoint on rationality, and what is right and wrong, can be affected by natural selection ending with some societies being better than others.
Darwin discusses natural selection being applied to moral faculties of humans in chapter five of Descent of Man. Darwin uses the example of two tribes of primeval man who come into competition against each other. If one tribe is full of a large number of endowed members, this tribe would better succeed and conquer the other, as long as all other circumstances are equal. The tribe with the morals will continue to conquer other tribes, until another group with better morals comes along and defeats them (155). Some morals that have been shown to improve society include sympathy and courage.
A large group of individuals with these morals would be more prone to help each other when in need or in danger, be braver in tough situations, etc. If this group went against a tribe that does not have these virtues, then they would have a better chance at defeating them. This process of conquering continues slowly, to advance society’s moral qualities and spread them throughout the world. This process of natural selection on morals affects the individual, but the advantage arises when more than one individual with these good virtues come together.
If only one or a few individuals have a high standard of morality, they are not ble to compete against larger groups of people, but if there is a bigger group of highly moral people then the advantage becomes apparent. Also a larger group of moral individuals encompasses more morals and creates equality. This is discussed in Alex Rosenberg’s paper when explaining Peter Railton’s theory. It is said in the paper, “what is rational from the social point of view is what would be rationally approved of were the objective interests of all potentially affected individuals counted equally” (313). This creates equality because it allows for the views of all the members of the society to affect the social idea of morality.
When there is a social point of view instead of the interests of a couple individuals, it creates a better society who is more unified with their morals. The question that might be raised, with respect to large numbers of members in the same tribe, is how the first members came about the moral qualities. Darwin addresses this objection by discussing the probable steps that can be traced from the past. With the reasoning powers that members improved, “each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return” and when this act is repeated the moral feeling of sympathy is strengthened (156).
Sympathy is mainly due to the praise and the blame that is placed on others, and this instinct was attained through natural selection. With the love of praise and hatred of blame by members, instinctive feelings in man for glory would have some people do heroic actions like risking their life for the good of others. This act would create a wish for glory in others, overall creating a feeling of admiration (157). These probable steps proposed by Darwin explain how the first members were endowed with moral qualities, which were then adapted by other members due to the habitual nature of humans.
A society’s environment can also be a factor in natural selection. With more equality from a social point of view the society is potentially better off when adapting to its environment. This environment includes both the physical surroundings and the other societies nearby. When these societies with different morals encounter each other, survival will come to those with the moral traits that best suit the environment. One might ask how an environment can affect morals. An example is an environment with limited resources, like a desert. There are two societies in this desert.
One society believes in rationing and controlling the little water supply they have, while the other does not believe in creating and following rules. The second society is running out of water quickly because of the free-for-all in regards to water. When the second society runs out of water they will encounter the first society, who still has water, and will be forced to adapt to their rules and conform to their morals if they want to survive. The first society had morals to create rules that adapted better to the desert environment, and natural selection has the society with better morals surviving.
The previous paragraphs have mostly discussed societies of primeval man, but natural selection also affects civilized societies. With primeval man the weak and unhealthy were eliminated and those who survived were usually very healthy. Civilized nations, on the other hand, work to help the weak and slow down the process of elimination. Cooperation emerging in society is a big topic with regards to natural selection because the moral of selflessness is demonstrated with cooperation, which puts the selfless person at risk to help others, and natural selection is not thought to allow this.
As said by Rosenberg, “we expect natural selection to penalize such risk-taking, since risk-takers lower their prospects of survival and reproduction” (321). Civilized nations often perform altruistic actions, which result in the raised fitness of one organism and a decreased fitness in another. This action goes against the common idea that natural selection is survival of the fittest and shapes beings to maximize their individual fitness. When altruistic acts are reciprocated there is an emergence of cooperation because the net benefits to cooperation are greater than the pay-offs of non-cooperation.
The objection that comes about with altruism is the problem of the free-rider. Actions of altruism have opportunities for people to decline the offer to reciprocate an action and instead they get a “free ride. ” It is a free ride because someone took a risk to help another person out, but instead of reciprocating the action, they do not take any risk and instead just take the benefit of the action the other person did. Natural selection would supposedly stop the building up of altruism due to the free-rider problem se the free-rider would maximize their well-being if they did not cooperate and reciprocate the risk.
This idea that natural selection would block cooperation and altruism is not seen in society though, because both cooperation and altruism are seen in many developed nations. The reason for this and the answer to the objection refers to a microeconomics’ topic called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A basic example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a story of two criminals who were taken into custody by the police.
The police have enough evidence to convict them of the minor charge of carrying an unregistered gun, which would put each criminal in jail for a year. The police believe the criminals also committed a robbery, but do not have enough evidence to convict them. They take each criminal in a separate room and give them the same deal of if they confess to the robbery and implicate their partner then that person will not go to jail at all, but their partner will go to jail for twenty years. If both criminals confess to the crime, then they will both go to jail for ten years.
There are a couple of different results that could happen depending on what each criminal decides to do. The different results demonstrate why cooperation and altruism are seen in society. If, like the objection suggests, people are freeriders and want to only maximize their own well-being, then the criminals will decide to talk. They do this because they are looking at the benefit of not going to jail at all and getting a freeride while their partner goes to jail for twenty years. But because both criminals try to be free-riders, they both end up going to jail for ten years.
The best outcome that could occur in this situation is if both criminals do acts of altruism. By risking going to jail for twenty years, they will hopefully get the benefit of only going to jail for one year because the partner cooperates and also takes the risk. With cooperation and altruism both criminals maximize their well-being, showing that free-riding is not the best option or a problem against altruism most of the time. So while at first glance natural selection may not support cooperation, the Prisoner’s Dilemma supports cooperation and helps dismiss the free-rider problem.
In conclusion, natural selection can not only be applied to biological and physical features of humans, but it can also be applied to the moral faculties of humans. Darwin discusses many of his ideas on this topic in his writings, specifically talking about the primeval man and how natural selection can be applied to morals. Also, the social point of view on rationality is more likely to be equal and more adaptable to the surrounding environment because it encompasses the interests of all potentially affected individuals.
Primeval man is not the only thing natural selection affects, it affects civilized nations as well. Specifically with civilized nations, cooperation emerged even with natural selection being against risk-takers doing altruistic actions. This is due to the economic idea of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and how cooperation and altruism can give people the outcome that will maximize their well-being. Natural selection is usually only thought of in terms of biology, but through further analysis it can also be applied to morality in societies.