Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:4 | Cite as

The many meanings of “cost” and “benefit:” biological altruism, biological agency, and the identification of social behaviours

  • Peter J. WoodfordEmail author
Article
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

The puzzle of how altruism can evolve has been at the center of recent debates over Hamilton’s Rule, inclusive fitness, and kin-selection. In this paper, I use recent debates over altruism and Hamilton’s legacy as an example to illustrate a more general problem in evolutionary theory that has philosophical significance; I attempt to explain this significance and to draw a variety of conclusions about it. The problem is that specific behaviours and general concepts of organism agency and intentionality are defined in terms of concepts of evolutionary “costs” and “benefits,” and these terms have determined the role that agency should play in evolutionary explanation. However, costs, benefits, and agency are not only or even best conceived through evolutionary effects in a biological context. The paper proceeds as follows: first, I explain how the issue of agency relates to the evolutionary puzzle of altruism. Next, I discuss how questions about agency have figured in recent debates over Hamilton’s legacy. In the final section, I argue that Denis Walsh’s “situated Darwinism,” which attempts to return the organism to central status in biological explanation, offers a more productive route for thinking about different forms of costs, benefits, and agency. Finally, I argue that the upshot of all this is that there may be many different, and equally valid, ways to express what organisms are doing and how they are behaving based on different currencies of cost and benefit—even if these may stand in some tension. I illustrate this through returning to the case of altruism and using examples to show that even in non-humans there can be many forms of altruism, even if they are not all biological altruism as defined in the conventional evolutionary terms.

Keywords

Altruism Eusociality Inclusive fitness Kin-selection Philosophy of biology Social behaviour 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two reviewers for very insightful comments and suggestions on this article and for pointing me to helpful additional literature. I would also like to thank Tim Clutton-Brock and everyone in the Large Animal Research Group at Cambridge for discussing these issues with me.

Author contribution

All contributions to this article have been made by the author.

Funding

The author was funded by a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbot P et al (2011) Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality. Nature 471:E1–E4.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09831 (author reply E9–10) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçay E, Cleve JV (2012) Behavioral responses in structured populations pave the way to group optimality. Am Nat 179:257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1086/663691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akçay E, Van Cleve J (2016) There is no fitness but fitness, and the lineage is its bearer. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 371:20150085.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akçay E, Van Cleve J, Feldman MW, Roughgarden J (2009) A theory for the evolution of other-regard integrating proximate and ultimate perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19061–19066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen B, Nowak MA (2016) There is no inclusive fitness at the level of the individual. Behav Ecol 12:122–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allen B, Nowak MA, Wilson EO (2013) Limitations of inclusive fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:20135–20139.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317588110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anscombe GEM (2000) Intention. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Birch J (2017) The inclusive fitness controversy: finding a way forward. R Soc Open Sc 4:170335.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birch J, Okasha S (2015) Kin selection and its critics. BioScience 65:22–32.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clavien C, Chapuisat M (2013) Altruism across disciplines: one word, multiple meanings. Biol Philos 28:125–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9317-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, O’Riain MJ, Brotherton PNM, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Griffin AS, Manser M (1999) Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science 284:1640–1644.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5420.1640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins R (1989) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Dridi S, Akcay E (2018) Learning to cooperate: the evolution of social rewards in repeated interactions. Am Nat 191:58–73.  https://doi.org/10.1086/694822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29:155–174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol 7:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joyce R (2006) The evolution of morality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01540.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehmann L, Rousset F (2010) How life history and demography promote or inhibit the evolution of helping behaviours. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2599–2617.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann L, Rousset F (2014) Fitness, inclusive fitness, and optimization. Biol Philos 29:181–195.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9415-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehmann L, Alger I, Weibull J (2015) Does evolution lead to maximizing behaviour? Evolution 69:1858–1873.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liao X, Rong S, Queller DC (2015) Relatedness, conflict, and the evolution of eusociality. PLoS Biol 13:e1002098.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3489.1501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara JM, Gasson CE, Houston AI (1999) Incorporating rules for responding into evolutionary games. Nature 401:368Google Scholar
  26. Nagel T (1989) The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Nowak MA (2006) Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowak MA, Tarnita CE, Wilson EO (2010) The evolution of eusociality. Nature 466:1057–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Okasha S (2010) Altruism researchers must cooperate. Nature 467:653–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Okasha S (2013) Biological altruism. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encylopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/altruism-biological/
  31. Queller DC (1997) Why do females care more than males? Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1555–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodrigues AMM, Kokko H (2016) Models of social evolution: can we do better to predict ‘who helps whom to achieve what’? Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 371:20150088.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roughgarden J, Oishi M, Akçay E (2006) Reproductive social behaviour: cooperative games to replace sexual selection. Science 311:965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behaviour. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Tomasello M (2016) A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57.  https://doi.org/10.1086/406755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  38. Walsh DM (2016) Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Walsh D, Lewins T, Ariew A (2002) The trials of life: natural selection and random drift. Philos Sci 69:429–446.  https://doi.org/10.1086/342454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. West SA, Gardner A (2013) Adaptation and inclusive fitness. Curr Biol 23:R577–R584.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A (2007) Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. J Evol Biol 20:415–432.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lamont HouseUnion CollegeSchenectadyUSA

Personalised recommendations