An evolutionary mechanism for the origin of moral norms; towards the meta-trait of culture
- 12 Downloads
It is claimed that a social group of unrelated individuals specialized in performing different tasks is specifically human and has no analogy in the animal kingdom. Among animals only some insects of two orders, Isoptera (termites) and Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) live in social groups of individuals performing specialized tasks, but those, individuals are related. For all social groups of individuals specialized in tasks, average fitness drops close to nil when the group disintegrates. It is not, however, a continuous decrease of fitness leading to smaller but still high values when the group disintegrates but rather a discrete switch of the average fitness; from a high value to close to nil.
In groups consisting of related individuals maximization of inclusive fitness constitutes a mechanism sufficient to support the existence of such groups. Only in the case of the human (unrelated) group, to maintain the group and high fitness of its individuals, a non-reciprocal altruistic approach of an individual had to be displayed to all members of the group (regardless of relatedness). Since strategies resulting from the altruistic approach contradicted the genetically programmed strategies, moral codes were introduced to suppress the latter.
This non-reciprocal altruism to any member of the group is in fact equivalent to the reciprocal “altruism” to an abstract entity called system group and is unique to the human.
Altruism is considered here as a component of the meta-trait of culture.
Key WordsCulture sociobiology theory of games system altruism reliability moral norms educability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alexander R.D., 1979.Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
- Barash D.P., 1977.Sociobiology and Behaviour. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
- Bertalanffy von L., 1984. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
- Bielicki T., 1987.Sociobiology and the problem of «The principal distinction» between man and animal. Int. Symposium Biological Evolution (V.P. Delfino, Ed.), Adriatica Editrice, Bari, pp. 293–303.Google Scholar
- Boyd R. &Richerson P.J., 1985.Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Brockmann H.J., 1984.The evolution of social behavior in insects. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (ed. Kreb, J.R. and Davis, N.B.). Sinauer Ass Inc., pp. 340–61.Google Scholar
- Brown J.L., 1975.The evolution of behavior. W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York.Google Scholar
- Campbell D.T., 1978.Social Norms as evidence of conflict between biological human nature and social system requirements (G.S. Stent, Ed.). In Morality as a Biological Phenomenon, pp. 75–92. Berlin: Dahlem Konferenzen.Google Scholar
- Crook J.H., 1970.The socio-ecology of primates. Social behaviour in birds and mammals (ed. J. H. Crook). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
- Daly M. &Wilson M., 1978.Sex, evolution and behavior. North Scituate, Mass: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
- Dobzhansky T., 1950.The genetic nature of differences among men. New Haven: Stow Person's Evolutionary Thought in America. Yale University Press, pp. 86–155.Google Scholar
- Dobzhansky T., 1951.Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 308.Google Scholar
- Dobzhansky T., &Ashley-Montagu, 1947.Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind, 106: 587–590.Google Scholar
- Durham W. H., 1978.Towards a coevolutionary theory of human biology and behavior. The sociobiology debate (A.L. Caplan, Ed.), pp. 428–448. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Fialkowski K., 1987.Maximization of fitness through limited number of offspring in evolution of Homo Sapeins. Human Evolution, 2: 437–443.Google Scholar
- Iederberg J., 1969.Health in the world of tomorrow. Third PAHO/WHO lecture in the biomedical sciences. Pan American Health Organization/WHO, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
- Lumsden C. &Wilson E.O., 1981.Genes, mind, and culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith J., 1972.On Evolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith J., 1982.Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McCulloch W.S., 1960.Reliability of biological systems. Proceedings of interdiscipoinary conferences on self organizing, systems, pp 358–380. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Newman M., 1975.Nutritional adaptation in man (A. Damon, Ed.). Physiological Anthropology, pp. 210–259. London, Toronto: O.U.P.Google Scholar
- Pilbeam D., 1984.The descent of hominoids and hominids. Scientific American 3: 60–69.Google Scholar
- Pulliam H.R. & Caraco T., 1984.Living in groups: is there an optimal size? Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (ed. Kreb, J.R. and Davis, N.B.). Sinauer Ass Inc., pp. 122–47.Google Scholar
- Rossi I., 1985.Predicting technological, innovation through a dialectic reinterpretation of the four-function paradigm Neofunctionalism (J.C. Alexander Ed.), pp. 773–95, Beverly, Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sahlins M., 1976,Culture and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Urbanek A., 1980.No granicy biologii i socjologii. Nauka Polska 3–4: 115–135.Google Scholar
- Wilson D.S., 1980.The Natural Selection of Populations and Communities. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
- Wilson E.O., 1971.The insect societies. Belknap Press. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Wind J., 1986.Comments on Rindo's paper «The evolution of the capacity for culture: sociobiology, structuralism and cultural selectionism». Current Anthropology 27: 328–29.Google Scholar