Interesting talk on the concept of morality in animals and man (differentiating him from the other animals as we egocentric humans tend to do)...
Speaker: Frans de Waal, the dutch primatologist.
He presents two theories of morality :
1) As formulated by Huxley and renamed as the veneer theory which says that humans are basically immoral at the core but they put on a veneer of morality to achieve their selfish interests. Being social animals humans tend to be "good" to achieve their selfish interests.
2) the second theory as proposed by Darwin himself, says that evolution has provided a built in framework for morality, empathy, honesty, righteousness, cooperation etc. Thus, he says that we and other primates have evolved to be moral beings and that our actions are governed by emotions more than the anticipation of a physical reward.
I did not find much of a difference between the two theories and so I decided to drop in an email to the speaker, without quite expecting a response.
The following are the contents of my email to Dr De Waal which is followed by his response to it... (Yes, he did reply !! I guess, i got lucky !!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My email:
"Dear Dr Frans de Waal,
I am a post doctoral fellow at the Salk institute and was lucky enough to be present for your the Crick lecture that you delivered last week at the Institute. First of all, I must say that it was a great lecture - delightful, fact-based, thought provoking, insightful and sharp.
At the end of it, i did have a lot of thoughts to ponder about. However, despite a lot of deliberation i do seem to have some reservations about the two concepts of morality - one as propounded by Huxley and one, as presented by Darwin. While the veneer theory, as you call it, suggests that humans are inherently "bad" and self centered individuals who seem to resort to empathy, generosity and righteousness out of a selfish/ materialistic need. The other theory as was advocated by Darwin, seems to suggest that evolution has programmed a moral framework in humans and in other mammals. While you pointed to radical differences between the two theories, i seem to feel that there is not much of a difference between the two ideologies. Let me clarify..
While, Huxley says that humans maintain a veneer of morality to attain their selfish ends, the fact is that it is true. All our actions are geared to an end point, even altruistic acts: there may be a tangible, materialistic goal for some but for some it is an emotional high. We feel good, righteous and happy when we do the right thing and when we act moral and a burden of guilt when we are astray. All our acts, including charity and altruism can be traced to these "emotional" components one way or the other. I dont seem to be able to come up with an example of people acting moral despite feeling terrible (physically and emotionally) after committing the act. I guess, the evolutionary principle of "survival of the fittest" has selected for a rather self centered streak within us, although our social propensities have ensured that this streak is kept in check through the modulation of our emotions and feelings.
As for Darwin's view, well, i do agree that we have an evolutionary built sense of morality and it has evolved like the other parts of humankind. I also do not disagree that other animals (primates and other mammals) could have a sense of morality (atleast the building blocks of empathy, generosity, problem solving etc).
So, I hope that at the end of this rambling from me, you will be able to sense my quandary. I will appreciate if you share some of your thoughts on these points.
I would also like to know how you chose to define morality (because you still shy away from calling mammals like chimpanzees as moral !). Also, on a more fundamental aspect what do you see as the difference between religion and morality (if you think morality is our ability to work in a social framework) ?
I hope I do hear from you,
Thanks and regards,
Suvasini"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for contacting me.
Yes, all behavior serves an end, but the difference is that Huxley didn't see how evolution could have produced morality whereas Darwin did. The problem is that if we call everything selfish (me helping you or me walking away from you in need) then the word selfish has become meaningless and doesn't help us distinguish between acts. But you're right, doing good makes us feel good, which means that nature has offered us a built-in incentive to be so, in the same way it has offered such an incentive for eating, sex, nursing and other things we need to do in order to survive.
A good introduction into the issues is perhaps my discussion with philosophers in Primates and Philosophers (Princeton UP).
All the best,
-- Frans de Waal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the title, he has only answered some of the questions that i have raised in my email which is still appreciable since he has taken the time out to answer someone who has no standing in the subject.
Coming back to the subject at hand, I find a theory which is a compromise between that of Darwin and Huxley's viewpoint most acceptable.
"While evolution has built in a moral framework of sorts making animals more cooperative, honest, altruist etc... these evolutionary frameworks are not devoid of self interest. We are good because we get an emotional high by doing the right thing. Material reward is not the only reward and in that light there is not much of a distinction between the two schools of thought."
Something for you to ponder about... !!!
No comments:
Post a Comment