Morality without Religion

Jason

An interesting talk by primatologist Frans de Waal illustrating the existence of empathy and reciprocity — two of the foundational pillars of human morality — in other social species, suggesting a shared evolutionary origin to these aspects of our own psychological makeup:

Morality without Religion

I think his findings add further corroboration to Peter Kropotkin's theory that cooperation and mutual aid are factors of evolution at least as important as competition (if not more so); as well as presents a serious challenge to social, political, economic, or philosophic ideas that revolve exclusively around the importance of competition and de-emphasize the efficacy of cooperation, particularly when discussing the supposed inherent selfishness of human nature.

ozen

What social, political, economic or philosophic ideas de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit?

person

What social, political, economic or philosophic ideas de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit?

Capitalism comes to mind. I suppose you'll say that capitalism requires cooperation as well and I'd agree but the philosophical attitude of the average businessman is one of competition.

ozen

I seriously doubt we can sensibly say that the average businessman philosophizes and settles on a philosophical view that de-emphasizes cooperation. Businessmen cooperate for mutual benefit all the time. They just don't do it on the scale you may be thinking of.

Jason

What social, political, economic or philosophic ideas de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit?

Ones that view humans as essentially being selfish, greedy, and competitive in nature, and that argue only a morality of selfishness is truly moral and leads to happiness (i.e., that only actions done in one's own self interest are moral, all others being immoral). Social Darwinism immediately comes to mind as an example. Strands of Objectivism, as well. In my view, human nature is a bit more complex than that (as I'm sure most people would agree), and I think it's a fundamental error to attribute to humanity a predominately selfish, competitive nature, or at the very least, to single out our selfish/competitive aspects while essentially ignoring or de-emphasizing the cooperative aspects that tend to bring us together (e.g., reciprocity, empathy, conflict resolution, etc.).

ozen

In fact if the average businessman did philosophize the world might be in much better shape, being that philosophy leads to wisdom.

genkaku

In fact if the average businessman did philosophize the world might be in much better shape, being that philosophy leads to wisdom.

@ozen -- A lot of philosophy (love of knowledge) just leads to more philosophy. When it comes to wisdom, I suspect that a broken shoe lace can be more instructive.

ozen

In fact if the average businessman did philosophize the world might be in much better shape, being that philosophy leads to wisdom.

@ozen -- A lot of philosophy (love of knowledge) just leads to more philosophy. When it comes to wisdom, I suspect that a broken shoe lace can be more instructive.

That was an overstatement on my part and I appreciate your pointing that out. However, I would think an 'examined life' might lead to a better place than blindly sustaining the status quo.

ozen

What social, political, economic or philosophic ideas de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit?

Ones that view humans as essentially being selfish, greedy, and competitive in nature, and that argue only a morality of selfishness is truly moral and leads to happiness (i.e., that only actions done in one's own self interest are moral, all others being immoral). Social Darwinism immediately comes to mind as an example. Strands of Objectivism, as well. In my view, human nature is a bit more complex than that (as I'm sure most people would agree), and I think it's a fundamental error to attribute to humanity a predominately selfish, competitive nature, or at the very least, to single out our selfish/competitive aspects while essentially ignoring or de-emphasizing the cooperative aspects that tend to bring us together (e.g., reciprocity, empathy, conflict resolution, etc.).

Social Darwinism does not de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit. Cooperation for mutual benefit may prove superior to all previous models of social organization. Empathy itself evolves, doesn't it?

In any case, can't we say that people are basically selfish without de-emphasizing the efficacy of cooperation for mutual benefit?

Jason

Social Darwinism does not de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit. Cooperation for mutual benefit may prove superior to all previous models of social organization.

I agree with the latter, but not so much with the former.

As far as I understand it, social Darwinism, particularly its earliest incarnations, initially stemmed from Herbert Spencer's maxim 'survival of the fittest,' with proponents generally arguing that competition between individuals leads to fitter individuals and offspring, whereas interference (e.g., social welfare) leads to unfit individuals and offspring. And this idea, when eventually taken into the arena of morality and to its logical conclusion, enshrined competition and selfishness as the supreme morality.

Of course, while Charles Darwin did find the term 'survival of the fittest' accurate and convenient when talking about natural selection — the principle "by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved" — his use of the term in relation to what he himself called the "struggle for existence," which he stressed was used in a broad and metaphorical sense, was certainly more holistic than many made it out to be (emphasis mine):

I should premise that I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. (On the Origin of Species)

Darwin, then, saw cooperation as an important aspect of evolution even though he didn't fully understand its role, as did many others. However, there was a large movement that, especially in the late 1800s-early 1900s, attempted to apply biological concepts to sociology, and in doing so, focused predominately on competition due to its perceived importance in natural selection. It latched onto the term 'survival of the fittest,' which was originally used in reference to how traits are passed on and variations able to evolve over time, and applied it to human society as a whole—hence the idea that competition between individuals leads to fitter individuals and offspring, and consequently, unfettered competition leads to a better society because its populated by fitter individuals.

As a result of this emphasis on individual competition, things like cooperation and social welfare were often de-emphasized or denigrated by many social Darwinists and early capitalists, and social Darwinism enjoyed popularity as a biological and ethical justification for the laissez-faire capitalism of the Gilded Age, as well as things like eugenics later on. Against this movement, however, were critics like Peter Kropotkin, whose focus on cooperation rather than competition in works like Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution was a much-needed counter to the social Darwinism popular at the time, and helped reintroduce cooperation back into the conversation.

That's my limited understanding of it, at any rate.

ozen

Social Darwinism does not de-emphasize the effectiveness of cooperation for mutual benefit. Cooperation for mutual benefit may prove superior to all previous models of social organization.

I agree with the latter, but not so much with the former.

How can you agree with the latter but not the former. 'Survival of the fittest' de-emphasizes what is not the fittest, right? Evolution is continual so we don't know, or care?, what will prove most successful in the future. The most successful society in the future could be the one that is most cooperative for the mutual benefit of all it's inhabitants (which could include other species and the sounding environment).

As far as I understand it, social Darwinism, particularly its earliest incarnations, initially stemmed from Herbert Spencer's maxim 'survival of the fittest,' with proponents generally arguing that competition between individuals leads to fitter individuals and offspring, whereas interference (e.g., social welfare) leads to unfit individuals and offspring.

You are literally talking about "individuals." Social Darwinism is about societies or groups. Social welfare programs in a society might lead to a more successful society, for whatever reason. Of course not everyone might agree on what constitutes a successful society.

And this idea, when eventually taken into the arena of morality and to its logical conclusion, enshrined competition and selfishness as the supreme morality.

It's not a logical conclusion, which makes me think it's manipulative in nature, or rationalizing.

Of course, while Charles Darwin did find the term 'survival of the fittest' accurate and convenient when talking about natural selection — the principle "by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved" — his use of the term in relation to what he himself called the "struggle for existence," which he stressed was used in a broad and metaphorical sense, was certainly more holistic than many made it out to be (emphasis mine):

I should premise that I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. (On the Origin of Species)

Darwin, then, saw cooperation as an important aspect of evolution even though he didn't fully understand its role, as did many others. However, there was a large movement that, especially in the late 1800s-early 1900s, attempted to apply biological concepts to sociology, and in doing so, focused on competition for the most part due to its perceived importance in natural selection. It latched onto the term 'survival of the fittest,' which was originally used in reference to how traits are passed on and variations able to evolve over time, and applied it to human society as a whole—hence the idea that competition between individuals leads to fitter individuals and offspring, and consequently, unfettered competition leads to a better society because its populated by fitter individuals.

Again I don't think that's the idea behind social darwinism. A superior society may be populated by physically weaker and less intelligent individuals, by some measure at least. But again we have to define what a "superior society" is. Many of our values come from the society in which we live. At this point a superior society could mean a society that is merely sustainable, I'm afraid.

As a result of this emphasis on individual competition, things like cooperation and social welfare were often de-emphasized or denigrated by many social Darwinists and early capitalists, and social Darwinism enjoyed popularity as a biological and ethical justification for the laissez-faire capitalism of the Gilded Age eugenics, etc. Against this movement, however, were critics like Peter Kropotkin, whose focus on cooperation rather than competition in works like Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution was a much-needed counter to the social Darwinism popular at the time, and helped reintroduce cooperation back into the conversation.

One thing I've understood about the subject is that in any cooperative system there will always be what is sometimes referred to as "freeloaders." Not beggars or lazy people necessarily but simply agents that take advantage of the cooperative system for their own benefit, rather than the group. These freeloaders could be and often are the leaders or most influential people in the group. When this inevitably happens and the freeloaders reach a critical mass the group is forced to reinvent itself or 'evolve'. Social Darwinism in a cooperative society.

zenff

Nice subject.
Another aspect of our psychological makeup is imitation and group behavior.
People don’t just act on the basis of instincts like self-preservation on the one hand or empathy and reciprocity on the other; they often simply do what the majority of their social group does.

This aspect, I think is even more connected to politics. Politicians can appeal to instincts like self-preservation or empathy, but when they do, they also should remember that they are leaders of the herd. The direction they picture the group is taking, is going to be the direction the group is taking. They shape society as much as they respond to it.

Jason

How can you agree with the latter but not the former. 'Survival of the fittest' de-emphasizes what is not the fittest, right? Evolution is continual so we don't know, or care?, what will prove most successful in the future. The most successful society in the future could be the one that is most cooperative for the mutual benefit of all it's inhabitants (which could include other species and the sounding environment).

How? Well, to begin with, I agree that cooperation for mutual benefit may prove superior to all previous models of social organization. It's quite possible. That said, from what I've read about the subject, as well as things written by many of the so-called social Darwinists such as Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer, William Sumner, etc., early social Darwinism fetishized competition, and did indeed de-emphasize the efficacy of cooperation. The general attitude of contemporary proponents of social Darwinism may be different, however.

You are literally talking about "individuals." Social Darwinism is about societies or groups. Social welfare programs in a society might lead to a more successful society, for whatever reason. Of course not everyone might agree on what constitutes a successful society.

While primarily dealing with groups within society, social Darwinism also addresses the conduct of individuals within groups, particularly competition between individuals. As for social welfare programs, I agree that they might lead to a more successful society; it's certainly a possibility. But social Darwinists like Francis Galton (who also coined the term 'eugenics') argued against social welfare programs on the grounds that "welfare allowed the poor and inferior to subsist and reproduce, thus hindering human evolution and threatening civilization with massive economic and public health burdens" (Eugenics in Alabama). Spencer had similar ideas, as well.

It's not a logical conclusion, which makes me think it's manipulative in nature, or rationalizing.

How so? If one assumes that competition (which itself is assumed to arise out of self-interest) between individuals leads to fitter and superior individuals and offspring, and consequently to a fitter and superior society, then how is the perceived moral superiority of selfishness and competition not a logical outcome of this assumption? This type of social Darwinian thought, when applied to ethics, essentially leads to a type of rational egoism, where competitive acts in one's own self-interest are the only moral acts. It's one of the reasons social Darwinism was so popular among the laissez faire capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Again I don't think that's the idea behind social darwinism. A superior society may be populated by physically weaker and less intelligent individuals, by some measure at least. But again we have to define what a "superior society" is. Many of our values come from the society in which we live. At this point a superior society could mean a society that is merely sustainable, I'm afraid.

I don't know about now, but it certain was at the beginning. Early social Darwinists had a very Eurocentric idea about superiority and tended to be racist, for example, thinking Europeans superior to no-Europeans, and hence whites superior to non-whites, due to what they perceived to be their own superior advancements in culture and technology, which they saw as demonstrating their intellectual (as well as evolutionary) superiority. And this idea was further bolstered in their minds by non-Europeans' general inability to compete as effectively in the burgeoning global marketplace. So while I'd agree with you that "a superior society could mean a society that is merely sustainable," the movement that eventually became known as social Darwinism assumed something quite different at its onset.

One thing I've understood about the subject is that in any cooperative system there will always be what is sometimes referred to as "freeloaders." Not beggars or lazy people necessarily but simply agents that take advantage of the cooperative system for their own benefit, rather than the group. These freeloaders could be and often are the leaders or most influential people in the group. When this inevitably happens and the freeloaders reach a critical mass the group is forced to reinvent itself or 'evolve'. Social Darwinism in a cooperative society.

All I'll say is that I think your ideas on the subject are far more enlightened than many of the pioneers of what became known as social Darwinism. I realize, of course, that many of their ideas and values were influenced by the society in which they lived, just as some of mine are undoubtedly conditioned in the same way. Nevertheless, I can't help but remain extremely critical of many of their ideas and the terrible things they motivated or were used to justify (e.g., eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, etc.).

genkaku

Interesting how logical conclusions -- even those agreed to by lots of oh-so-logical minds -- have a way of going off the rails in actual-factual human existence.

ozen

That may be because actual-factual humans are not rational critters.