Re: altruism, the individual/ society? and animal rights

[Keith Wilson <kw503@york.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Surprisingly, altruistic genes or patterns of behaviour actually survive 
better than purely selfish ones, provided that they are reciprocal; i.e. 
they are aimed at helping others who share the same genes/behaviour. Of 
course, parasites and mimics do arise to take advantage of others goodwill, 
but a population made up entirely of parasites will die out, whereas a 
population of altruists will thrive. In practice, you end up with a mixture 
of the two, with the parasites trying to improve their strategy for 
mimicking altruists and the altruists trying to improve their ability to 
spot and avoid parasites. Such is life!

Dawkins gives a very good account of this kind of genetic/memetic 
co-evolution in his book The Selfish Gene, which I'd highly recommend to 
anyone interested in such things. The Blind Watchmaker is very good too, 
but probably the best account of the emergence of altruism I've read is in 
Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine, which is essential reading for 
philosophers everywhere IMHO.

It's an interesting question as to what extent humanity functions 
altruistically and to what extent parasitically. If we become increasingly 
parasitic on the resources of the planet, we increase the chances of wiping 
ourselves out... but now I'm wandering a little far off topic...

Your point about altruism arising from empathy is a fair one. However, what 
determines whether we are able to empathise with someone/something? Isn't 
this related to what extent we feel that we have something in common with 
them? Also, altruistic behaviour exists in many non-human species where 
empathy doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps empathy is one way of determining 
whether an individual is sufficiently like ourselves to deserve to be 
treated altruistically. Of course, we can feel empathy for all kinds of 
living creatures, but that could be used as a point in favour of 
evolutionary ethics rather than against it.

I guess the basic idea here is to try give an account of how altruism 
arises in an evolutionary context, and then use this to understand our own 
idea of morality. The thesis I was trying to defend is that morality is a 
cultural adaptation of more primitive forms of altruism that have emerged 
as a means to promote the survival of the genes (and possibly memes), and 
many of the genes that we possess are common to all living creatures. 
Therefore we have a moral responsibility towards all living things.

My preference for getting a cat rather than setting mousetraps probably 
reflects a wish to avoid indiscriminate killing. At least the little 
blighters have a fighting chance against a cat (i.e. survival of the 
fittest) rather than having their backs broken as a result of simply 
nibbling on a tasty bit of cheese -- a behaviour that would be perfectly 
natural to a mouse.

I am personally against animal testing, although I guess evolutionary 
ethics would say that it is a matter of weighing up the survival needs of 
humans with those of other animals. However, there would need to be a 
pretty compelling case as to why an experiment had to be performed on an 
animal in order to justify putting its life at risk, but again it's a case 
of where you draw the line. In some cases maybe we just have to accept that 
there's no hard and fast case for whether something is morally justifiable. 
Sometimes we just have to weigh up all the available evidence and make an 
informed decision as to what is the right thing. In this sense, perhaps 
morality is continually evolving as our understanding of it and the 
consequences of our choices improves.

- Keith

(with apologies for the long e-mail... I'll try to keep it more brief in 
future!)



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm