Murder, unkindness, rape, rudeness, failure to help the injured,
fraud, racism, war crimes, driving on the wrong side of the road,
failing to leave a tip in a restaurant, and cheating at sports. What
do they have in common? A moral philosopher might say that
they are all examples of immoral behavior. But they are also
things we would not normally brag about on a first date, and
things we would not wish an established sexual partner to find out
that we had done. The philosopher's answer sounds serious and
mine sounds flippant. But the philosopher's answer does not
identify any selection pressure that could explain the evolution of
human morality Mine does: sexual choice.
Most evolutionary psychologists have viewed human morality
as a question of altruism, and have tried to explain altruism as a
side-effect of instincts for nepotism (kindness to blood relatives) or
reciprocity (kindness to those who may reciprocate). I think
human morality is much more likely to be a direct result of sexual
selection. We have the capacity for moral behavior and moral
judgments today because our ancestors favored sexual partners
who were kind, generous, helpful, and fair. We still have the same
preferences. David Buss's study of global sexual preferences found
that "kindness" was the single most important feature desired in a
sexual partner by both men and women in every one of. the 37
cultures he studied. It ranked above intelligence, above beauty,
and above status.
Oscar Wilde's play An Ideal Husband recognized the role of
sexual choice in shaping human morality. The drama's theme is
that men and women are under very strong pressure to make a credible show of high moral stature to their lovers and spouses.
The drama centers on this: will the highly principled Lady
Chiltern still love her husband after learning that he acquired his
fortune by selling a government secret? Wilde put his finger on an
evolutionary pressure for morality that has not yet received
sufficient attention in evolutionary psychology: good moral
character is sexually attractive and romantically inspiring.
Conversely, liars and cheats are sexually repulsive—unless they
have other charms that compensate for their flawed character. In
the play, Sir Robert Chiltern retained his wife's affection only by
making a parliamentary speech against an investment swindle—a
public moral display which, due to the threat of blackmail by the
swindlers, he believed would cost him his career.
sexual
attractiveness alone is sufficient to explain the evolution of many
traits. One does not always have to seek a survival function.
Many theorists have tried and failed to trace human morality to
various survival benefits for the individual or the group. I shall
argue that some of our most valued moral virtues had no
survival benefits, but they did have strong courtship benefits.
Sexual selection enables us to explain a class of moral behaviors
and moral judgments much broader than those considered by
most philosophers and evolutionary psychologists. A sexual
selection perspective allows us to explain sympathy,
agreeableness, moral leadership, sexual fidelity, good parenting,
charitable generosity, sportsmanship, and our ambitions to
provide for the common good. The importance of sexual choice
in the evolution of human morality, generosity, magnanimity,
and leadership has also been analyzed by biologist Irwin
Tessman, anthropologists Kristen Hawkes and James Boone,
and primatologist Frans de Waal. I draw on many of their ideas
in this chapter.
Human morality, in my view, includes any behavior that
displays good moral character. It is not limited to altruism, which
is the conferral of a benefit on someone else at an apparent cost to
oneself. Displays of altruism can be among the most potent
displays of moral character, but they are not the only such displays. As with most reliable fitness indicators, the point of
moral displays is not so much the benefit conferred on others, but
the cost imposed on oneself. Morality is a system of sexually
selected handicaps—costly indicators that advertise our moral
character.
fraud, racism, war crimes, driving on the wrong side of the road,
failing to leave a tip in a restaurant, and cheating at sports. What
do they have in common? A moral philosopher might say that
they are all examples of immoral behavior. But they are also
things we would not normally brag about on a first date, and
things we would not wish an established sexual partner to find out
that we had done. The philosopher's answer sounds serious and
mine sounds flippant. But the philosopher's answer does not
identify any selection pressure that could explain the evolution of
human morality Mine does: sexual choice.
Most evolutionary psychologists have viewed human morality
as a question of altruism, and have tried to explain altruism as a
side-effect of instincts for nepotism (kindness to blood relatives) or
reciprocity (kindness to those who may reciprocate). I think
human morality is much more likely to be a direct result of sexual
selection. We have the capacity for moral behavior and moral
judgments today because our ancestors favored sexual partners
who were kind, generous, helpful, and fair. We still have the same
preferences. David Buss's study of global sexual preferences found
that "kindness" was the single most important feature desired in a
sexual partner by both men and women in every one of. the 37
cultures he studied. It ranked above intelligence, above beauty,
and above status.
Oscar Wilde's play An Ideal Husband recognized the role of
sexual choice in shaping human morality. The drama's theme is
that men and women are under very strong pressure to make a credible show of high moral stature to their lovers and spouses.
The drama centers on this: will the highly principled Lady
Chiltern still love her husband after learning that he acquired his
fortune by selling a government secret? Wilde put his finger on an
evolutionary pressure for morality that has not yet received
sufficient attention in evolutionary psychology: good moral
character is sexually attractive and romantically inspiring.
Conversely, liars and cheats are sexually repulsive—unless they
have other charms that compensate for their flawed character. In
the play, Sir Robert Chiltern retained his wife's affection only by
making a parliamentary speech against an investment swindle—a
public moral display which, due to the threat of blackmail by the
swindlers, he believed would cost him his career.
sexual
attractiveness alone is sufficient to explain the evolution of many
traits. One does not always have to seek a survival function.
Many theorists have tried and failed to trace human morality to
various survival benefits for the individual or the group. I shall
argue that some of our most valued moral virtues had no
survival benefits, but they did have strong courtship benefits.
Sexual selection enables us to explain a class of moral behaviors
and moral judgments much broader than those considered by
most philosophers and evolutionary psychologists. A sexual
selection perspective allows us to explain sympathy,
agreeableness, moral leadership, sexual fidelity, good parenting,
charitable generosity, sportsmanship, and our ambitions to
provide for the common good. The importance of sexual choice
in the evolution of human morality, generosity, magnanimity,
and leadership has also been analyzed by biologist Irwin
Tessman, anthropologists Kristen Hawkes and James Boone,
and primatologist Frans de Waal. I draw on many of their ideas
in this chapter.
Human morality, in my view, includes any behavior that
displays good moral character. It is not limited to altruism, which
is the conferral of a benefit on someone else at an apparent cost to
oneself. Displays of altruism can be among the most potent
displays of moral character, but they are not the only such displays. As with most reliable fitness indicators, the point of
moral displays is not so much the benefit conferred on others, but
the cost imposed on oneself. Morality is a system of sexually
selected handicaps—costly indicators that advertise our moral
character.
No comments:
Post a Comment