Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?

Nicholas Wade | Sept 18

NYT -

Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?

In a series of recent articles and a book, “The Happiness Hypothesis,” Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia, has been constructing a broad evolutionary view of morality that traces its connections both to religion and to politics.

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) began his research career by probing the emotion of disgust. Testing people’s reactions to situations like that of a hungry family that cooked and ate its pet dog after it had become roadkill, he explored the phenomenon of moral dumbfounding — when people feel strongly that something is wrong but cannot explain why.

Dumbfounding led him to view morality as driven by two separate mental systems, one ancient and one modern, though the mind is scarcely aware of the difference. The ancient system, which he calls moral intuition, is based on the emotion-laden moral behaviors that evolved before the development of language. The modern system — he calls it moral judgment — came after language, when people became able to articulate why something was right or wrong.


Tina September 18, 2007 - 8:48am
( categories: News | Science )

Suppose a third choice were presented; throwing oneself on the tracks to save those in the train. I suspect that you'd get a result somewhere between the two situations described in the article.

This is, after all, what makes the military tick on the lowest levels. One doesn't perform heroic acts in battle to save oneself, but rather to save one's fellows. Falling on a grenade is heroic; tossing a compatriot on one to achieve the same end will likely end in court-martial.

It's also the opposite of what makes the military tick on the highest level. Commanders come to believe that their own individual preservation is just as important as the preservation of those they command. So they order their subordinates thrown on grenades and are promoted for it.

Petronius September 18, 2007 - 11:06am

German minister backs downing hijacked planes

Kate Connolly in Berlin
Wednesday September 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Germany's defence minister faced calls for his resignation today after he signalled his readiness to shoot down hijacked aircraft at the risk of killing innocent civilians in order to avert a wider disaster.

The comments of Christian Democrat Josef Jung have unleashed a passionate debate across the parties and an emotional session in the Bundestag.

"In cases of common danger or danger to free and democratic basic order" it would be possible to shoot down a plane, Mr Jung had said.

His stance goes against the decision by Germany's federal constitutional court last year to throw out a law allowing the shooting down of civilian aircraft.

The government is in the throes of trying to agree new legislation on the issue, but the coalition is split and does not want to ignore the 70% of Germans who are against shooting down passenger planes.

Mr Jung's ideas have also prompted some in the military to issue a direct threat to revolt.

"Anyone who shot down a plane would immediately find himself in the dock accused of manslaughter," said Bernhard Gertz of the Association of the Armed Forces. He has also called on fighter pilots to refuse to carry out such an order.

Mr Jung has responded by saying that pilots who showed "100% willingness" to carry out the task would be picked.

Germany has been debating the issue for six years, since the attacks of September 11 2001 in the United States. While other countries have formed concrete strategies - in Britain the prime minister has to give his backing to any order to shoot, while in France fighter pilots are able to intervene at short notice without government approval once they have been given an order - Germany has yet to come up with a plan.

more

Tina September 19, 2007 - 1:40pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.