the biology of morality

Authentic morality comes out of a realistic assessment of human nature.  Human beings are not blank slates.  We are born with moral inclinations.  Except for those of us who suffer from personality disorders, we all have innate psychological traits that not only facilitate moral behavior but also incline us to value it.  Had these genetic traits not represented a competitive advantage in the survival game, they would not have been what was produced by the evolutionary process.  I’m not going to attempt to explain the exact evolutionary mechanisms by which the human capacities for love, loyalty, and social cooperation were selected, but we can at least know that had there not been a clear evolutionary advantage to the traits and inclinations that we have inherited genetically, we would not have them.

While human beings are certainly capable of being ruthless or unscrupulous in the pursuit of their own self-interest, that is not surprising given what we know about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped our DNA.  We expect drives associated with self-preservation to be strong.  What is surprising is how common human behaviors that serve a greater good than self-interest are.  Not only is each individual born with a significant capacity for personal virtue; she also has talent for cultural creativity by which she can contribute to and participate in collective moral understandings. 

The social contract is not just a bright idea that some idealistic visionary came up with recently; it has been a matter of survival for millenia.  Human existence has always depended on a critical mass of individuals behaving in ways that contributed to the wellbeing of the whole community.  Our biology has been shaped by that reality.  For the vast majority of time human beings have been evolving, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers and absolutely depended being a part of communities.  Who we are genetically is largely the product of the evolutionary pressures that were associated with that.  Individuals who didn’t have the psychological traits that supported participation in social cooperation were not as likely to survive and pass on their DNA.

Consequently, we are genetically hardwired with the capacity to be guided by an internal ethical template somewhat along the lines of the golden rule.  The fact is that supporting the social contract is in virtually everyone’s interest.  Different cultures have different understandings of the social contract, but even though the specific moral expectations are different, the equation is basically the same.  The ability to comprehend the need for a social contract and intuitively knowing how to participate in it are innate.  That is not to say that human beings are especially virtuous.  Self-preservation is still a much stronger drive than altruism.  We have to work with rather than against our natural tendencies.  Given the basic selfishness of human nature, the most stable basis for morality is always going to be enlightened self-interest, the recognition that being a decent human being is the best long term strategy even if we are purely selfish.

Ethical choices never occur in a vacuum.  There is more to morally constructive choices than relying on an inborn sense of right and wrong.  We are capable of morality because of the best in us, but we value it because of the worst.  Moral behavior is almost always a blend of doing the right thing for its own sake and doing it because we want to avoid negative consequences.  Whatever sublime pleasure we might derive from just being good as an end in itself, most of us also find ourselves making many choices based on the recognition that behaving badly will catch up with us in the long run. 

Doing the right thing is always a blend of nature and nurture.  We are born with the capacity for making moral choices, but actual choices are always influenced by the collective wisdom that is embedded in cultural understandings.  At the intersection of individual freedom and the desire to be virtuous, there is a precarious balance between the legitimate right to pursue my own interests and the obligation to play fair.  What is best for each of us, even from a selfish point of view, is some optimal blend of the two.  The idea that what is best for us is always getting as much of what we want as we can is childish and unrealistic, but expecting people to always sacrifice for the sake of the community is not realistic.

Evolutionary biology testifies that cultural commitments that offset pure selfishness make us better competitors in the survival game; otherwise, natural selection would not have given us the many traits that support them.  Some cultures are better than others at fostering socially cooperative behaviors.  Ideally, how cultural moral understandings are shaped is a blend of conscience and intelligent, open reflection on ethical dilemmas.  The individual has a responsibility at the macro as well as the micro level and a responsibility to participate in the shaping of the collective conscience as well as the responsibility to heed it.  The collective conscience is constantly being informed by actual experience and by publicly shared reflection on that experience.  I have a responsibility to speak up when social mores are a function of small-mindedness rather than truly promoting socially constructive behaviors.

An illustration of the tension between the social contract and self-interest is a game theory application called the prisoner’s dilemma.  The prisoner’s dilemma is based on a scenario where two suspects are in two different interrogation rooms and are each offered a deal.  Each of them can win sympathy with the prosecutor by snitching on the other one.  A suspect who doesn’t snitch but is snitched on receives the greatest penalty.  A suspect who snitches but isn’t snitched on does the best for himself.  Either of them can improve her own fate by snitching on the other, but if neither snitches, they both get off relatively easy.  So the best outcome for both of them is if neither cuts a deal with the prosecutor.   Unfortunately for them though, that is an unstable solution because each of them can do better by screwing the other one, no matter what the other chooses.  It turns out that the most likely outcome is that they both snitch and thus both lose. 

It is easy to see the how the prisoner’s dilemma game parallels real social situations.  Putting aside the fact that the characters in the scenario are criminals who are presumably involved in antisocial behavior, choosing to not snitch can be seen as socially cooperative behavior.  It is more beneficial to the other guy than it is for me.  Most of the time any one of us can improve our short term gain by being selfish mercenaries.  The curious fact though is that, in real life, socially cooperative behaviors happen anyway.  In order to more adequately model actual social cooperation, game theorists have expanded the prisoner’s dilemma game to a serialized format known as the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game.  It turns out that if the players know that snitching in one round will likely be punished in a subsequent round, they are less likely to snitch.  The take-home lesson is that the most stable basis for social cooperation seems to be an approach that combines enlightened self-interest with a means of holding each other accountable. 

Truly moral behavior is a blend of the following elements:

·         I have a basic sense of the difference between right and wrong, and I care.  In other words, I have a conscience.  All other things being equal, I generally prefer right over wrong. 

·         I am willing and able to be honest as I reflect on the ethical implications of my decisions, commitments, and actions.

·         My self-interest is enlightened by my understanding of ultimate consequences.  Getting what I truly want in the long run usually involves acting in good faith along the way.

·         I am committed to the social contract for consciously selfish as well as virtuous reasons.

·         I want to have a reputation for being decent, trustworthy, and fair.

·         I participate actively in the shaping of the collective conscience, and I make ethical decisions in the light of collective wisdom.

·         I resist the pressures of groupthink and speak up when the collective conscience becomes small-minded condemnation of those who are marginalized.

·         I guard with special care the rights of minorities because their voice is a crucial corrective to blind spots of the majority perspective in the process of collective discernment, and how I treat those who can’t push back is the truest reflection of my own ethical commitments.

·         I value the rule of law because without it the strong devour the weak and there is no justice.

·         I am supportive in word and deed of formal and informal retributive justice as a deterrent (though I guard against getting carried away by reckless vigilantism).

·         I support checks and balances on power.  This includes public servants, law enforcement personnel, teachers of children, authority figures, religious leaders, experts, persons who enjoy wealth and privilege, and demagogues.

·         When I find it necessary to dissent, I am guided by an understanding of the principles of civil disobedience.

This is not a foolproof process that guarantees positive outcomes.  It is a deliberative process that is characterized by struggles, uncertainty, and failure, but it is a more sound and realistic strategy than any version of traditional morality.  It is an eyes-wide-open approach to moral choices.

accountability

Most of us recognize that a well-functioning society depends on people doing the right thing even when it goes against what is strictly in their own personal interest. No one practices that perfectly. Some violate it with impunity. And there is profound disagreement as to exactly what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

The greatest source of disagreement has mainly to do with the question of authority. By what authority is right and wrong determined? To what or to whom are we accountable? What are we obligated to do or not do? The most significant fault line is that which runs between those who believe that adhering to traditional morality is what is most important and those who believe that having an eye toward actual consequences is what is most important.

The vast majority of traditional morality is quite sound. It is hard to imagine a society functioning without understandings of right and wrong being passed down from one generation to the next. However, certain appropriations of traditional morality don't make sense in our culturally and religiously pluralistic society.

Being smugly indifferent to actual consequences (and sometimes even seeming to enjoy inflicting pain on other people) clearly reflects a perverse understanding of morality.  Christians who claim to hold to traditional morality would do well to pay attention to what their own tradition says: "Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen." (1 John 4:20 NRSV)

If what this biblical passage is talking about weren't a common tendency that its author believed needed to be fought, it would never have been considered necessary to include it in the Bible. And even though those who are most guilty of it deny their own culpability, it is still a problem today. They say that they "hate the sin, but love the sinner", but their actions speak louder than their words.

fully and fruitfully human

Recovering humanity encompasses the full range of human experience – fallibility, frailty, and fickleness as well as brilliance, courage, and gritty determination. It calls for a comprehensive engagement on every front, engagement of our whole selves, engagement of the highs and lows that make life rich and interesting, engagement of the challenges that disturb our complacency when we dare to dream, engagement of our unquenchable thirst for freedom as well as of our inescapable dependence on the goodwill, fair-mindedness, and cooperative spirit of others, and engagement in the discipline of intelligent, honest reflection by which we can learn from our experience. It is about being in touch with our deepest longings, being inspired by our highest aspirations, keeping our wits about us, and staying on our toes, aloft but alert, buoyant but with feet still touching the ground. Enlivened by our hearts, compassionate, and truly kind, but also mindful in every sense of the word – aware, attentive, thoughtful, sensible, reality-based, actively practicing self-examination, welcoming feedback, we establish a sturdy foundation strengthened by humility.

Stepping up to the challenge of being fully human is not an undertaking for the faint of heart. When we stake our reputations, security, and wellbeing on interdependence, on daring to imagine what we can accomplish if we work together, on kindling, nurturing, and on encouraging our own and each other’s surprisingly complementary peculiarities, we rouse a sleeping giant. Unleashing raw, unbridled humanity can be a roller coaster ride. Stirring up ardent likes and dislikes; calling forth unrefined, uncensored responses; and emboldening unwieldy forces that are latent within the human heart can be risky. What is most obvious about being human are the many ways that we miss the mark. We are afflicted by bad judgment, fall short of what we sincerely and earnestly intend, or get swept away by incendiary emotionalism. Having been burned in the past by misplaced trust, we are wary of letting our guard down and opening ourselves up to being taken advantage of. Our perceptions are distorted by past trauma, resentment, and fear. We are touchy, suspicious, defensive, cruel, or passive-aggressive. We withdraw into our shells, stonewall, or overreact with hair trigger nastiness or unmerited condemnation. We are easily manipulated by unscrupulous charlatans and demagogues who the flames of an already perilous mob mentality. Nevertheless, the very fact that our humanity is a mixed bag is all the more reason to cherish, cultivate, and count on abundant human goodness and to pursue a full embodiment of that which makes us human – heart and head, vulnerabilities and strengths, the depths of our despair, the heights of our triumphs, and the breadth of our imagination – the entire package.

Unless we show up, come together, do what it takes to follow through, “keep it real”, refuse to pull any punches, and decline dumbing down the truth, we are contributing to the problem by perpetuating the apathy, cynicism, factionalist enmities, and free floating rage that have gotten us where we are. Recovering humanity is about having the courage to put aside the defense mechanisms that get in the way, to let go of the excuses that hold us back, and to leave behind accumulated baggage like wounded pride, jealousy, and retaliatory spitefulness. We thereby approach rather than avoid, advance rather than retreat, and live our way into lives that are characterized by:

●     the robust buoyancy that comes with tapping into the wellspring of innate generosity and goodwill deep within each of us

●     having a solid relationship with evidence-based reality

●     being deftly guided by consideration in two senses of the word: being considerate and considering the facts at hand

●     routinely stepping back, taking a deep breath, and allowing time for circumspection, thereby averting whatever tendencies we might have to be carelessly swept away by emotionalism or impulsiveness

●     benefiting from a big picture perspective

●     using strategic, collaborative intelligence to solve difficult problems

●     playing well with others

●     fostering win/win interpersonal dynamics

●     welcoming the complementary strengths that come with diversity

●     surfacing unsuspected inner resources 

●     recognizing previously unimaginable opportunities

●     accumulating experiences of effectiveness that strengthen self-confidence and increase personal empowerment

●     profiting from ongoing learning

collective action

On the one hand, I am as frustrated as anyone with the intractable, deadly conflicts around the promotion of purportedly untainted universal truths that would bring everybody together if only “all those other people would just come to their senses and accept what is obvious to us”. I’m not going to pretend that that I’m OK with manipulative public pulpiteering or that there is nothing wrong with cynically invoking ostentatiously spiritual sentimentality to promote political agendas. I will not go along with willfully ignorant denial of factual reality or condone reckless self-deception with my silence. On the other hand, it is cruel and unnecessary to pull the rug out from under anyone who relies on religion for comfort, security, unconditional love, worthy and meaningful purposefulness, encouragement, and/or a sense of connection with other people and with something larger than themselves. Disparaging those who are doing the best they can to get by does not make the world better or us seem smarter. It only pits us against each other, gets us unnecessarily bogged down in a counterproductive side issue, and takes up energy that could be directed toward common goals. 

The possibility of working together toward a more promising future is not a ridiculously idealistic fantasy. Pursuing it takes us down a brightly-lit, broad highway that has led the greater human community to many historic breakthroughs, surprising victories, and revolutionary accomplishments. Those who have preceded us on that venerable highway didn’t know any better than to challenge set ideas about what is possible. Considerable obstacles notwithstanding, finding solutions to the most difficult problems the global human community faces is not complicated. What we need to do to move forward is as obvious as first grade arithmetic because the main requirement is to get in touch with our commonality, and by definition, commonality is common. While it would be unrealistic to aim for unanimity, if we can translate what we largely share in common with each other into a nonpartisan commitment to the common cause of building up social, political, and economic institutions that foster freedom, fairness, opportunity, personal responsibility, and the common welfare, we can find a rallying point that would bring us together around a shared vision for a society that is more hospitable to basic human decency. There are enough of us who are capable of experiencing a deep mutual affinity that is firmly grounded in our common concerns, our common interests, and our ability to identify and empathize with each other. We can achieve critical mass, unite behind the goal of encouraging sustainable economic growth, and promote a more broadly prosperous global human community through a large scale collaborative effort.

What stands in the way is not a shortage of talent, brainpower, or resources; instead, we are defeated at the very outset by our fear, our short-sightedness, and our cynicism. Whoever first observed that it is amazing what people can accomplish if they don’t care who gets the credit deserves more credit than he or she was probably looking to receive, but actually, what is even more amazing is how many of our worst problems would simply evaporate if we could see the attention-grabbing and the ostentatious self-importance that we take for granted for what they are, a sad charade of one-upmanship produced by childish insecurity. In recent centuries, humanity has come to recognize that the earth is not the center of the universe; most of us however have not outgrown the tendency to view the universe though anthropocentric, ethnocentric, or egocentric eyes. Our skewed perspective distorts reality, crowds out empathy, humility, respect, and trust, and severely limits our ability to work through conflicts, to appreciate our complementary differences, and to foster meaningful unity, impactful solidarity, and productive collaboration. We trade in hope, confident wellbeing, and goodwill for social rituals that perpetuate an endemic pattern of wasted talent, misused time, and misdirected energy. The considerable good that ordinary people have to contribute is driven out of the process or buried by greedy, aggressive pursuits of power prestige and ugly displays of territorialism which are like the dance that dogs do with fire hydrants, often under a thin veil of sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority. 

Consequently, who we are becomes shaped by a paranoiac need to protect ourselves against real and imagined adversaries and against any troubling circumstance, intrusive idea, or uncomfortable awareness that would topple the houses of cards that pretend to offer security and places to hide. A bunker mentality sets in. We hide inside our fortresses of discontented obliviousness, surrounded by stockpiles of yesterday’s distractions, anxiously guarding sentimentalized versions of reality, elaborate museums of what never was, shrines to what will never be, mausoleums of foreclosed possibilities, and hollowed out spaces that accusingly echo and amplify our regrets. We become trapped in a vicious circle of fear, hoarding, and scarcity. As with someone dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean, what we need is abundant but tragically unavailable. Even more tragic, our deprivation is self-inflicted. The situation we are in is akin to the hell described in an old parable known as the allegory of the long spoons. In the parable, everyone in Hell is perpetually hungry because the only means of eating is with spoons that are too long. They are incapable of getting any food into their mouths because of their aversion to feeding each other. In the real world, being in a situation in which the simple willingness make choices that would bolster a rising tide that lifts all boats is too weak to overcome the warranted fear of being taken advantage of is what is known as a collective action problem. The solution is obvious; however, it involves cooperation, intelligent pooling of resources, and trust that others are going to follow suit, and because of costs, risks, and insufficient incentives at the level of the individual, what happens instead is a cascading race to the bottom. Dreams of what could be sit on the shelf collecting dust, producing a return on investment equivalent to hiding our life savings under the mattress.

Recovering humanity, playing on two meanings of the word humanity, humanity as a set of personal characteristics we all share in common and humanity as a collective entity of which we are each inescapably a part, is about the natural reciprocal relationship between the vulnerability that is inherent in humanity at the individual level and the strength that emerges when we gather seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces drawn from our fragmentary understandings and our disparate perspectives and combine them into something resembling a unified whole. As each of us stokes the glowing embers of human sympathy that smolder in our hearts, we augment our bond with the humanity that all of us together instantiate. And coming from the other end, as we recover a communal bond with the humanity arrayed around us, we enrich our connection with the humanity within that is our birthright. We find new connections by looking inward at our own restlessness and incompleteness, looking outward for companionship, similarities that we can identify with, and for ways to belong and participate, looking inward again for stirrings of our most authentically human responsiveness, and looking outward again toward possibilities beyond our own limited reach as separate individuals. If we accept the challenge, dare to care, venture out from the cozy cocoons within which we smugly insulate ourselves, reawaken our imagination, dredge up our buried dreams, bring to the table underutilized talents and untapped strengths, replace unverifiable suppositions with human-centered actualities, and cultivate optimism and openness through mutual encouragement and trust-building, our hopeful gamble will be rewarded over the long haul, if not always in the near term.

the importance of a strong middle class

Being able to maintain a basic sense of human decency while doing what it takes to have a reasonably prosperous life shouldn't be a luxury. It should be the norm. What that means is that economic policies that build up the middle class need to be a priority. There are other reasons for ensuring a stable middle class besides the benefits that are experienced at a personal level. An economy that fosters a large middle class is a healthy economy and an essential ingredient of a healthy society. One of the main features of politically and/or economically oppressive countries is that they don't have much of a middle class. They simply don't offer any opportunity for individuals to, through honest means, improve their socioeconomic status. And when there are few people who have much money to buy products, the economy remains stagnant and depressed. In addition, when there are few people who are not either in a desperate struggle for survival or among those who benefit from a corrupt political process that supports economic and social injustice, human rights and governmental accountability inevitably go by the wayside.

living large

Human social instincts are paradoxical. On the one hand, it is quite natural and common for human beings to make sacrifices for others. On the other hand, the very biological traits that predispose us to loyalty and kindness can turn us into ruthless killers if we believe that people we care about are threatened. The true spirit of a warrior is less about hatred of the enemy than it is about love for his own tribe or nation. Some of the worst wars ever fought were waged in the name of a loving god.

If we examine the paradox of our social instincts more deeply, we discover an even greater paradox than that love for one's own can translate into murderous hatred of everybody else. Human altruism is paradoxically selfish at its core. That might sound cynical, but the take-home point is not about diminishing the nobility of altruists; instead, it is a useful insight by which we can construct a realistic and sustainable rationale for morally virtuous choices and thereby strengthen the human capacity for benevolence. The question shifts from how to find the right balance between selfishness and unselfishness toward how to pursue both in a way that enhances each of them.

In general, win/win solutions are more likely to succeed and are more stable than win/lose approaches that pit our own interests directly against those of others in a zero sum competition which allows us to win only to the exact extent that someone else loses. Asking people to be noble and support win/lose choices that involve setting aside what they want for themselves and for the people they care about for the sake of some abstract good inspires healthy skepticism, but inviting them to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the common welfare from which they tangibly benefit can tap into a deep well of extraordinary largess.

Most of us, at least in moments when fear is not driving the bus, welcome opportunities to enlarge our worlds. We don't want to view the world through the lens of fear and pessimism. We want to be defined by what we love and by what we have to offer rather than by our hatred or our cruel indifference. Deep down, we know that our greatest happiness does not come from the possessions we pitifully cling to; instead, it comes with feeling like what we do makes a positive difference. Wanting that happiness is the ultimate selfishness.

toward a more compassionate culture

At any given time, there are three groups of people. First, there are those who mostly want to do what's best even if it involves some degree of personal sacrifice. Second, there are those who default to selfishness. And third, there are the fence-sitters. There are no clear lines that divide the groups. The distribution is actually along a spectrum. Each of us, with the exception of the most extreme narcissists and sociopaths, is a blend of altruism and selfishness.

The relative size of each group and the direction the middle group is generally tipped toward are influenced by the cultural context. Some cultural contexts are more encouraging of altruism than others. In the more altruistic cultures, the group of those who default to altruism is larger, and the middle group tends to be more altruistic.

My guess is that most people would prefer living in a society that rewards trustworthiness, fairness, generosity, and loyalty. The obvious question is what any of us can do to move the needle even a little bit toward the society we want to be a part of. How do we build up "social capital"? It's easy to sabotage, undermine, or erode the social and cultural fabric that makes it possible to have a reasonable degree of trust that other people are going to live up to their commitments and aren't going to stab us in the back. All we have to do to pull that off is follow the line of least resistance. It is far more difficult to be conscientious and to care about long term consequences of our choices.

What is especially difficult is resisting entrenched political and economic currents that are driven by greed and a lust for power. Very few of us have anything to gain over the long haul by going where those currents inevitably take us, but none of us can singlehandedly overcome the political heft that deep pocket money can buy. It takes enough of us standing in solidarity with each other to counterbalance the natural power inequity. The good news is that a broadly representative democratic movement can achieve critical mass and create a rising tide that lifts all boats by prioritizing the common welfare.