The pleasure of giving

Charles Darwin was interested in how morality fits the human-animal continuum, proposing in “The Descent of Man”: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts … would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed … as in man.”

Unfortunately, modern popularizers have strayed from these insights. Like Robert Wright in “The Moral Animal,” they argue that true moral tendencies cannot exist — not in humans and even less in other animals — since nature is one hundred percent selfish. Morality is just a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies. Dubbing this position “Veneer Theory” (similar to Peter Railton’s “moral camouflage”), I have fought it ever since my 1996 book “Good Natured.” Instead of blaming atrocious behavior on our biology (“we’re acting like animals!”), while claiming our noble traits for ourselves, why not view the entire package as a product of evolution? Fortunately, there has been a resurgence of the Darwinian view that morality grew out of the social instincts. Psychologists stress the intuitive way we arrive at moral judgments while activating emotional brain areas, and economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative, altruistic, and fair than predicted by self-interest models. Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves.

Chimpanzees and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to food, even if they lose part of it in the process. And capuchin monkeys are prepared to seek rewards for others, such as when we place two of them side by side, while one of them barters with us with differently colored tokens. One token is “selfish,” and the other “prosocial.” If the bartering monkey selects the selfish token, it receives a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner gets nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewards both monkeys. Most monkeys develop an overwhelming preference for the prosocial token, which preference is not due to fear of repercussions, because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous.

Even though altruistic behavior evolved for the advantages it confers, this does not make it selfishly motivated. Future benefits rarely figure in the minds of animals. For example, animals engage in sex without knowing its reproductive consequences, and even humans had to develop the morning-after pill. This is because sexual motivation is unconcerned with the reason why sex exists. The same is true for the altruistic impulse, which is unconcerned with evolutionary consequences.

From an article by Frans de Waal

Frans B. M. de Waal is a biologist interested in primate behavior. He is C. H. Candler Professor in Psychology, and Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University, in Atlanta, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. His latest book is “The Age of Empathy.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/?hp

Catch me if you can

A new study has found that gorillas react to games of tag the same way that humans would - by trying to maintain their advantage when they’ve got the upper hand. The research, published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, investigates the way that gorillas respond to unequal social situations during ‘tag’ chases and play fights.

If one gorilla hits another during a play fight, the gorilla who dealt the blow will tend to run away from the other one. The fact that the miscreants tend to run away suggests that they are sensitive to the fact that their actions result in an unfair competitive advantage. The gorillas then try to maintain this advantage by running away, allowing them to avoid a reciprocal whack from their victim.

Previous research has shown that humans will usually try to maintain their competitive advantage when they get the upper hand in an unequal social situation, but this is the first time that non-human behaviour in this context has been analysed in a natural setting rather than the laboratory.

As the authors point out, “animals experiencing unequal situations in the form of social play are better equipped to conform their actions to social imperatives in more serious situations”. Learning how to react in unequal situations such as playfights and games of chase could provide animals and humans alike with vital survival skills – and this research seems to show that humans are not the only species who can act opportunistically when they have the upper hand.

royalsociety.org