Evolutionary and Psychobiological

Evolutionary and Psychobiological

This essay aims to compare the biological and evolutionary psychology in relation to morality. Morality can be described as a way of living, by a set of rules or by code of conduct. Some of these rules are universally within human society and referred to as laws, these laws comprise of acts such as rape, murder and theft which are deemed as immoral or selfishness. This is because it is perceived to give an advantage to the immoral individual, at the expense of moral individuals (Broom, 2006). All religions have a moral code, which are articulated in the commandments. The commandments if adhered to, encourage guidance for good honest behaviour in individuals and discourage cheats and unscrupulous behaviour (Broom, 2006).

An excellent golden rule that embraces human behaviour is highlighted by de Waal (2006) which is treat other people, how you would expect them to treat you. An example of this would be a neighbour requesting that another individual looks after their child for a few hours; this is of no immediate advantage to the individual concerned. But, at a later date the individual may ask the neighbour to reciprocate the favour.

According to Alexander (1982) several philosophers have intimated that morality is conveyed in the activities of some individuals as a belief, or quest and not something that is actually accomplished. Alexander, on the other hand believes that from an evolutionary biology approach, morality delivered through the behaviour of one individual to another, promotes altruism that may produce no reciprocal benefit to the altruist. Dawkins (2006) concurs with Alexander that due to evolutionary biology all individuals are born with genes that instruct them to be selfish. As man is exclusively subjugated by cultural beliefs, it is these influences that are learned and are passed on to the next generation.

An altruistic deed is defined as any behaviour that seemingly benefits another individual at the detriment or threat to the altruist (Brand, 1992). However, Dawkins (2006) and Gross, McIlveen, Cooligan, Clamp and Russell (2000) suggest that some altruistic performances look sincere, to give the appearance that the altruist may possibly die, hence, giving the facade that the recipient has a higher chance of survival. Consequently, the apparent altruistic action is really concealed selfishness. An example of a selfish deed as expressed by Dawkins (2006) refers to the Black headed gulls, when born other adult black headed gulls, wait until a mother leaves the nest in search of food. At a given opportunity the neighbouring gull swoops down on the small, vulnerable unprotected chick and swallows the chick whole, and in the process has obtained a nutritious meal without leaving its own nest unguarded.

Reciprocal altruism is based on the notion of �you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours’. In experiments conducted by de Waal (2006) he observed captive chimpanzees to ascertain whether or not social grooming of a chimpanzee with food, would increase the likelihood of the groomer(s) receiving a share of the food from the groomed chimp. Also, in a similar experiment performed by Wilkinson (1986) social grooming was observed in common vampire bats, in which the researcher discovered a correlation between social grooming and regurgitation of blood frequency.

A truly altruistic action would consist of sacrificing one’s life to protect another. An extreme example of this unselfish act is represented by the worker bee, whom in a bid to protect its colony’s food supply, uses its defence mechanism of stinging. But by doing so, rips out its own vital internal organs and dies shortly afterwards, thus unable to benefit from this courageous feat (Dawkins, 2006). In evolutionary terms, the costs and benefits are measured by the number of genes being passed successfully on to the next generation. The problem with this type of self-sacrifice is that only selfish individuals are able to contribute their genes into the next generation (Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett, 2002). Dawkins (2006) suggests, if just one selfish rebel was prepared to exploit the morality of altruistic individuals, each of their children would be predisposed to inherit the selfish traits. After numerous generations the selfish individuals would have succeeded by contaminating the decent morality of the altruistic groups.

According to Darwin’s struggle for existence, altruism in group members is paramount for the benefit and survival of the group. Individuals within these groups do not compete against each other instead they pool resources, thus benefiting the group. All individuals are expected to do be unselfish, and this may explain the desire to live within social groups, and why some individuals