Human Nature

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Man is descended from
a hairy, tailed quadruped,
probably arboreal in its
habits.
Charles Darwin, Descent
of Man, 1871

Question 1:

What theory does Dawkins defend?

A. The theory of group selection
B. The theory of individual selection

The Great Chain of Being

The great chain of being (Latin scala
naturae, literally ladder or stair-way of
nature), is a classical Judeo-Christian and
Western medieval concept detailing a strict,
hierarchical structure of all matter and life,
believed to have been decreed by God.

The chain starts from God and

progresses downward:
angels, demons (fallen
angels)
kings, princes, nobles, men
wild animals
domesticated animals
trees
other plants
precious stones
precious metals
other minerals, etc.

A Little Lower than the Angels

5. For thou hast made him a little lower than
the angels, and hast crowned him with glory
and honour.
6. Thou madest him to have dominion
[mashal] over the works of thy hands; thou
hast put all things under his feet.
(Psalms 8)

Man Made in the Image of God

And God said, Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion [radah] over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and
female created he them. (Genesis 1: 26-28)

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Intelligent life on a planet comes of
age when it first works out the
reason for its own existence. If
superior creatures from space ever
visit earth, the first question they will
ask in order to assess the level of our
civilization, is: "Have they discovered
evolution yet?" Living Organisms had
existed on earth, without ever
knowing why, for over three
thousand million years before the
truth finally dawned on one of them.
His name was Charles Darwin. (IP
423)

 Today the theory of evolution is about as

much open to doubt as the theory that the
earth goes around the sun, but the full
implications of Darwins revolution have yet to
be widely realized (IP 323)
Philosophy and the subjects known as
humanities are still taught almost as if
Darwin had never lived (IP 323)

Man = Animal
Greeks (Aristotle): man is a rational animal
(anthropos zoon logon echon)
Nietzsche: We no longer derive man from
'the spirit' or 'the deity'; we have placed him
back among the animals (IP 387).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv91Pa3jgs

Ethics
any animal whatever, endowed with wellmarked social instincts would inevitably
acquire a moral sense of conscience, as
soon as its intellectual powers had become
as well, or nearly as well developed, as in
man.
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871

Descent of Man (1871)

Darwin argued that the higher animals exhibit
social behavior which provides the foundation for
human moral values. Social behavior is governed
by instincts, and natural selection can act upon
the variations in such instincts to promote useful
behavior patterns.

Difference in Degree Not Kind

Darwin provides evidence for similar mental powers
and characteristics in certain animals, focusing
especially on apes, monkeys, and dogs for his
analogies for love, cleverness, religion, kindness, and
altruism.
Nevertheless the difference in mind between man
and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one
of degree and not of kind (Darwin, Descent of Man).

Sociobiology
Following Darwin, many biologists and social
scientists believe that morality arises naturally in
our species.
Foundations:

Group Selection
Kin selection
Reciprocal altruism
Maternity

 For Darwin, the apparent existence of altruism

presented a special difficulty, which at first
appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my
whole theory.

Group Selection
However, he also suggested a solution selection
might favor traits that decreased the fitness
(survival probability) of the actor if they increased
the reproductive success of the group.

Darwin on Group Selection

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of
morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual
man and his children over the other men of the same tribe,
yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and in
increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly
give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There
can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who,
from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism,
fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always
ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves
for the common good, would be victorious over other tribes;
and this would be natural selection. (Darwin 1871, 166)

 In other words, a group selection works, if an

individual's character is beneficial to the
survival of the group to which he/she belongs,
although it is not beneficial to the survival and
reproduction of the individual himself/herself.

Problem as Stated by Dawkins

Even in the group of altruists, there will almost certainly be a
dissenting minority who refuse to make any sacrifice. If there
is just one selfish rebel, prepared to exploit the altruism of
the rest, then he, by definition, is more likely than they are
to survive and have children. Each of these children will tend
to inherit his selfish traits. After several generations of this
natural selection, the 'altruistic group' will be over-run by
selfish individuals, and will be indistinguishable from the
selfish group. Even if we grant the improbable chance
existence initially of pure altruistic groups without any rebels,
it is very difficult to see what is to stop selfish individuals
migrating in from neighboring selfish groups, and, by intermarriage, contaminating the purity of the altruistic groups.
(IP 427)

Kin Selection
However, Darwin was on the right track . . . selection
will tend to favor traits that while they may decrease
the fitness of the actor actually increase the
reproductive success of more or less close relatives
This form of selection, which takes into account the
fitness benefits to relatives is kin selection.

Hamiltons Rule

William Hamilton (1964) developed a genetic model

showing that an altruistic gene could increase in
frequency if the following condition is satisfied:
Br - C > 0
Where B is the benefit to the recipient and C is the cost to
the actor, both being measured in units of surviving
offspring, and r is the coefficient of relatedness (or
relationship) between actor and recipient

Inclusive fitness
Hamilton introduced the concept of inclusive
fitness:
direct fitness + indirect fitness
Direct fitness is personal reproduction.
Indirect fitness is the additional reproduction
of relatives that is made possible by an
individuals actions

Some coefficients of relatedness

Parent to offspring,
Full sibs,
Half sibs,
First cousins,
Grandparent to grandchild,
Aunt or uncle to niece or nephew,

r = 1/2
r = 1/2
r = 1/4
r = 1/8
r = 1/4
r = 1/4

Reciprocal altruism
Reciprocation is offered to explain altruism between unrelated
individuals.
The necessary conditions for reciprocal altruism to evolve are:
The fitness cost to the actor must be the fitness benefit to the recipient
Non-reciprocators must be punished in some way (otherwise alleles that
caused cheating would displace alleles for altruism)

Conditions that favor the evolution of reciprocal altruism are:

Stable social groups (so that individuals are involved in repeated
interactions with one another)
Lots of opportunities for altruistic interactions during an individuals
lifetime
Good memory
Symmetry of interactions between potential altruists

Trivers, R. L. (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.

Vampire bats
Vampire bats are one of the rare mammals
that exhibit altruism, in this case sharing food
at cost with recipient bats with no directly
apparent benefits.

Empathy Hypothesis
"I've argued that many of what
philosophers call moral sentiments
can be seen in other species. In
chimpanzees and other animals, you
see examples of sympathy, empathy,
reciprocity, a willingness to follow
social rules. Dogs are a good example
of a species that have and obey social
rules; that's why we like them so
much, even though they're large
carnivores."

 We assume that empathy probably evolved

in the context of parental care, which is
obligatory in mammals (Waal, Primates and
Philosophers, 24)

Dawkins on Maternity
The commonest and most conspicuous acts of animal
altruism are done by parents, especially mothers, towards
their children. They may incubate them, either in nests or in
their own bodies, feed them at enormous cost to themselves,
and take great risks in protecting them from predators. To
take just one particular example, many ground-nesting birds
perform a so-called distraction display when a predator such
as fox approaches. The parent bird limps away from the next,
holding out one wing as though it were broken. The predator,
sensing easy prey, is lured away from the next containing the
chicks. Finally the parent bird gives up its pretence and leaps
into the air just in time to escape the foxs jaws. It has
probably saved the life of its nestlings, but at some risk to
itself (IP 426).

Oxytocin
A mammalian hormone that acts primarily as a
neurotransmitter in the brain. Sometimes referred to
as the love hormone.
Best known for roles in female reproduction
released in large amounts after distension of the cervix
and uterus during labor
role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social
recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors.

 In studies it has been shown that participants

infused oxytocin engaged in a blinded, oneshot decision on how to split a sum of money
with a stranger that could be rejected. Those
on OT were 80% more generous than those
given a placebo. This indicates that generosity
is associated with both altruism as well as an
emotional identification with another
person.

Speciesism
Discrimination in favor of one species, usually
the human species, over another, esp. in the
exploitation or mistreatment of animals by
humans.

Obligations to (Non-human) Animals?

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire
those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the
hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of
the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress
to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that
the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the
os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive
being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable
line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a
full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as
a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a
month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail?
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they
suffer? (Jeremy Bentham, Introduction the Principles of Morals and
Legislation)