Journal Pre-proof

The Evolution of Conflict, Compassion and The Social Contract:

A Philosophical Approach to Human Engagement

August John Hoffman

PII: S1359-1789(20)30208-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101504
Reference: AVB 101504

To appear in: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Received date: 1 November 2019

Revised date: 8 June 2020
Accepted date: 15 September 2020

Please cite this article as: A.J. Hoffman, The Evolution of Conflict, Compassion and
The Social Contract: A Philosophical Approach to Human Engagement, Aggression and
Violent Behavior (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101504

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 1

The Evolution of Conflict, Compassion and The Social Contract:

A Philosophical Approach to Human Engagement

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

August John Hoffman

Metropolitan State University
2020
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 2

Abstract
What is the essence of human nature and the behaviors that define our own existence?

Philosophers have argued and debated this topic for centuries, but little research currently

examines the relationship between the development of early philosophical theories and literature

describing human nature and potential with topics that are currently associated with evolutionary

theory (i.e., natural selection, compassion, greed and conflict). Human behaviors are complex in

of
that they can often display contradictory characteristics (i.e., prosocial and benign as well as

ro
antisocial and aggressive tendencies) to different groups of people under similar kinds of

environmental conditions. This manuscript will identify how classic philosophical theories
-p
address essential qualities of human existence such as truth, knowledge, humility and virtue and
re
how these qualities influenced and guided belief systems among individuals and group
lP

behaviors. This article will also address how the views of more recent philosophers, political

philosophers and Romanticist authors (i.e., Thomas Hobbes, Alexis de Tocqueville, Jean Jacques
na

Rousseau, John Locke and Mary Shelley) describe and rationalize human nature as biologically
ur

“brutish and savage” for essential purposes of survival that ultimately portrays human existence
Jo

into chaos and conflict. In conclusion, the article will recognize the inherent contradiction and

relationship between the evolved egoistic needs among individuals that are universal in human

nature with the responsibilities and interpersonal needs of civic engagement and cooperation as a

fundamental requirement of sustainable human existence within a democratic community.

Keywords: Evolved psychological mechanisms; mechanistic theory; altruism; compassion;

community development; forgiveness
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 3

The Evolution of Conflict, Compassion and The Social Contract:

A Philosophical Approach to Human Engagement

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little,
not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved
by science.” ― Charles Darwin, 1871

Recent descriptions within the discipline of evolutionary psychology have identified key

terms such as reproductive fitness (an individual contribution to future gene pools and survival of

of
offspring), natural selection (survival rate among species based on an interaction among

phenotypical characteristics, heritable traits and the physical demands of the environment), and

ro
cooperative alliances as central features in the process of evolution as well as necessary

-p
requirements for the continued existence of humans as a species (Buss, 2009). What you may not
re
typically see within recent publications addressing the discipline of modern evolutionary
lP

psychology are the names of the earliest philosophers, philanthropists and authors who dedicated

their entire lives attempting to understand the basic and most fundamental components of human
na

nature and the driving forces that influence both individual and group behaviors.
ur

It is interesting to note, however, that some of the earliest philosophical and literary
Jo

theories addressing the most core and basic components of human nature, motivational

influences and inherent traits (i.e., conflict, greed, compassion and altruism) are also closely

linked to human adaptation, interaction (i.e., reciprocal altruism; Trivers, 1971), contingent

reciprocity (Trivers, 1985) and evolved psychological mechanisms which comprise the

theoretical foundation found within the discipline of evolutionary psychology. For example, if

we are the recipients of some form of unsolicited cooperative or helpful behavior, typically this

interaction elicits an emotional reaction that triggers similar adaptive and cooperative behaviors

to others within our community, or what Brase (2017) refers to as positive emotions (i.e., those
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 4

typically elicited in reciprocal altruism) that have evolved as regulatory mechanisms in the

governance of cooperative group behavior. The “tit-for-tat” (Axelrod, 1984) approach has been

demonstrated as most effective in a broad range of different types of relationships involving

trust, cooperation and defection. Axelrod identified three essential features of the tit-for-tat

approach within the Prisoner‟s Dilemma:1

a. Begin your relationship by trusting your partner (i.e., never be the first to defect);
b. Retaliate if your partner is the first to defect or betray you; and

of
c. Perhaps most important in developing long-term cooperative relationships - - be
forgiving (Buss, 2015, p. 259).

ro
This manuscript will examine how some of the earliest philosophical theories addressing

-p
human nature have evolved and changed over time in describing the genesis and impetus of

human evolution, thought and behavior. We will explore how some of the earliest philosophers
re
such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have argued the need for rational thinking and virtuous
lP

behaviors and how these traits have served as primary influences that have facilitated the
na

development of civilization, control of power and limited freedoms as described in Rousseau‟s

The Social Contract. We will also describe how one Romanticist and Gothic novel written
ur

during the Victorian era attempts to describe the complex and tragic events involving the
Jo

evolution of human nature, compassion, forgiveness and the consequences of community

rejection, unrequited love and abandonment. Classic Darwinian (1859; 1882) theory rejects all

references to spiritual intervention or religious theories as playing any kind of role in the natural

selection and evolutionary processes. What makes Darwin‟s work both unique and vastly

1
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a hypothetical scenario involving two individuals accused of a crime and are
being held in separate prison cells. If both agree to cooperate (i.e., trust) each other without betrayal, they will
be released (maximum benefits to both). If one prisoner cooperates with the police (i.e., “snitch”) and the
other does not, the prisoner who maintains silence will receive a much more severe sentence. The “dilemma”
exists when rewards are surreptitiously offered to each individual as a means of betraying the other’s
confidence. For more information, see Moisan, Brincke, Murphy, & Gonzalez (2018).
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 5

influential is that it founded not only an original and new scientific discipline of study (i.e.,

evolutionary biology), but the fact that (unlike virtually all other previous disciplines), his work

was primarily historical.

Ernst Mayr (2009) has identified four (4) primary contributions that have been made by

Darwin as especially noteworthy in understanding the origins of life: The first contribution was

essentially the transitory nature of life itself. Species will continuously change and remain non-

constant as long as conditions within the environment continue to change; the second

of
contribution is the revelation of “common descent” or the characteristics that all living

ro
organisms share with each other, suggesting that the genesis of all variations and multitudes of

-p
life itself comes from a single origin; the third contribution made by Darwin was that in order for
re
evolution to be successful (i.e., reproductive fitness of organisms), the process itself must remain
lP

continuous and gradual. The final (and perhaps most remarkable) of Darwin‟s primary

contributions to evolutionary biology was the process of natural selection, where natural
na

processes identify or “select” those phenotypical traits most likely to benefit the organism in
ur

terms of survival against other threats and predators. This would include visible physical

characteristics (skin pigmentation, hair and eye color) as well as intellectual cognitive adaptive
Jo

capacities. The vast bulk of the scientific work and examination was done ex post facto – the

events, organisms and general life forms have existed long ago and thus much of Darwin‟s work

resembled that of an “ecological investigator‟, culminating vast amounts of fossilized evidence

in his quest to better understand the origins of life itself. Perhaps part of the appeal and

popularity of Darwin‟s theory of evolution and the genesis of human existence stems from the

fact that his views were both scientific and understandable for a broad range of individuals –

from the general public with limited education to subject experts within related disciplines.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 6

At the time of the publication of Darwin‟s On the Origin of the Species (1859), the

current zeitgeist (both in Europe and the United States) was a preference towards a more rational

and less religious, dogmatic and epistemological interpretation of the origins of human existence.

In short, the general public was ready for a more scientific interpretation of human evolution and

was more inclined to reject traditional religious explanations (i.e., Old Testament and Genesis)

regarding how humans came to exist. The primary emphasis and foundation of both Darwin and

his contemporaries‟ (i.e., Alfred Wallace and Thomas Malthus) views regarding the origins of

of
life stem from a more purely measurable, objective and materialistic perspective which was a

ro
radical change from earlier views influenced through Christianity regarding the origins of human

-p
life. Thomas Malthus (1789/1914) argued that a biological tendency for all living things was to
re
over populate (i.e., superfecundity) and that the overpopulation trend would only stop if the

available food supply would be limited, causing near world-wide starvation. Malthus also argued
lP

that current food production and agricultural trends will never meet the exponentially increasing
na

needs of a growing global population. As a result, limited access to vital resources such as food

and potable water would be available to the more innovative, intelligent and adaptive members
ur

of the species. The current interest in understanding a more rational, conceptual and multi-
Jo

disciplinary approach to the central topics relative to evolutionary psychology (i.e., natural

selection, biology, behavioral adaptation and kin selection) remain even more pervasive today

among the general public and institutions of higher education (Lewis, Al-Schawaf, Conroy-

Beam, Asao, & Buss, 2017).

Other important questions that will be addressed include the inherent motivational forces

that compel individuals towards conflict and aggression or cooperation and prosocial

engagement with each other. How, for example, can conflict and aggression be described
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 7

historically as traits that intentionally harm others yet also be implemented to promote social and

cooperative behaviors among groups of individuals? How can other traits such as altruism,

compassion and forgiveness improve reproductive fitness even though they typically place

individuals at risk for injury and (in some cases) even death? Recent research has determined

that the development of positive and prosocial human characteristics as well as destructive and

antisocial behaviors depend on several factors, including the physical and psychosocial structure

of environments that promote positive group contact and cooperative behaviors (Dovidio, Love,

of
Schellhaas, & Hewstone, 2017) as well as providing individuals with increased opportunities in

ro
teaching the advantages of cooperative behaviors, such as the Prisoner‟s Dilemma (Shen, Chu,

-p
Geng, Jin, Chen & Shi, 2018). Additionally, recent empirical research has identified that the

types and characteristics (i.e., “green space”) of physical space that humans have inhabited
re
throughout the ages have also been shown to play an instrumental role in not only interactive
lP

behaviors within those groups but also how individuals perceive and experience human nature
na

itself (Hoffman, 2018). A final (albeit somewhat unorthodox) component of this chapter is to

examine how the literary, allegorical and philosophical components of human nature have
ur

evolved over time and describe how these characteristics of human nature have influenced
Jo

essential human traits and emotions (i.e., aggression, cooperation and communication) and

interactive group behaviors (Hess & Thibault, 2009).

The State of Human Nature, Frankenstein, and Oskar Schindler:

Protagonist, Antagonist, or Both?

Charles Darwin understood human nature and the primary factors that are now associated

with natural selection, adaptation and the means of survival. He realized that the biological

purpose of life itself was reproduction, and the essential keys to life itself are sustained through

the continued existence of three primary evolutionary mechanisms: Genetic variation, natural
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 8

selection/heritability and reproductive success (Buss, 2015, p. 5). Darwin also realized that the

physical structure and characteristics (i.e., facial expressions) of human development as well as

emotional expressions (i.e., traits) were both evolved mechanisms that ultimately served human

adaptation under a variety of challenging and difficult circumstances (Hess & Thibault, 2009;

Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972).

Humans are not unique in their ability to experience different emotions as displayed

through a variety of facial expressions and behaviors, commonly referred to as “body language.”

of
Darwin (1872) and more recent theorists (Hess & Thibault, 2009; Panksepp, 1998) also noted

ro
common links between some emotional and facial expressions (i.e., surprise) among humans

-p
with animals. A furrowed brow, exposed teeth and snarl typically expresses anger whereas
re
smiles among humans have been identified as universal indicators of happiness or pleasure

(Ekman & Friesen, 1978). Common themes found within classic literature, science and
lP

philosophy often describe human nature and behavior as highly complicated concepts in that
na

people are often portrayed as inherently prone to violence but yet ironically are also capable of

living within small groups or clans and displaying cooperative and prosocial behaviors in their
ur

efforts to attain mutually beneficial and superordinate goals (Bruni, Panebianco, & Smerilli,
Jo

2014; Staub, 2018).

Despite the prolific impact that Charles Darwin had throughout the world in the early 19th

century with his work addressing the theories of natural selection and human evolution, he was

actually not the first person to suggest that life forms had evolved from different and more

primitive forms of life. Several other noted scholars and philosophers made the bold prediction

that life forms (in some way) had continued to change over time as a means of survival (the term

“evolution” however, was not used). Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was noted to describe similar
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 9

physical shapes and structures shared by many different organisms and species (including

humans) in their efforts to adapt to different types of physical environments (Schultz & Schultz,

2016). Aristotle also noted that the “human hand may be analogous to the wings of birds . . . and

fins of fish” (p. 103) and has observed that some human responses involving pain and suffering

are more likely to elicit specific emotions (i.e., compassion) that contribute to helping and

cooperative behaviors (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). The Italian philosopher,

physicist and tutor Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) has been considered by many researchers to be

of
the founder of modern physics and scientific thinking recognized the inherent value of the

ro
scientific method in understanding both human behavior and the natural world (Drake, 1990)

-p
with occasional oversights in his work (Simonton, 2012). Generating research hypotheses and
re
quantifying or measuring the data to verify and confirm hypotheses is a necessary but

insufficient condition of the scientific method. Galileo also examined the importance of
lP

language, theoretical and conceptual analysis in identifying false or illogical theories as they
na

apply to scientific theory and meaning of concepts (Machado & Silva, 2007).

During the late 17th century, a new philosophy was emerging in Western Europe that
ur

compared human functioning, behaviors and even thinking processes as highly predictable and
Jo

precise mechanisms, similar to that of a machine. Known as the Mechanistic Theory, humans

were considered to be highly predictable organisms whose behaviors could be measured (and

controlled) through the laws of physics, chemistry and medicine. Mechanical figures, clocks and

recording devices were very popular as human behaviors were increasingly viewed as

predictable and primarily determined by the consequences of past events (also known as

Determinism). During the Mechanistic era it was very common to review literature and scientific

publications that compared human behaviors to the functions of precise and automated
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 10

machinery (i.e., muscles serving as pulleys and levers). It was also during this period of time (the

late 16th century) that Rene Descartes introduced his famous theories describing how physical

and psychological properties are both interconnected and related (i.e., the mind-body continuum)

and that the body functioned reflexively and predictably (i.e., involuntary reflex) that he referred

to as the “reflex action theory.”

Written originally as an epistolary fictitious manuscript during the late 17th century

Romanticist movement, Mary Shelley‟s classic Frankenstein (1818/1992) describes the classic

of
contradictions and struggles of human nature, community connectedness and the interpersonal

ro
significance in achieving a sense of personal identity and self-

-p
worth. The main character in the novel (Dr. Victor

Frankenstein) attempts to bridge or “reconnect” the mortal with

re
the immortal in recreating life through the “monster”, “wretch”
lP

or “creature” (the character is unnamed in the original text).

na

The literary irony presented by Mary Shelley is that she

describes the behaviors of mortals and human nature in a highly

ur

predictable and mechanistic fashion, while the fabricated creature behaves entirely with human
Jo

emotion, sensitivity and feelings in his efforts to reunite himself with his creator. While initially

displaying behaviors that are unquestionably good, if not heroic (the monster wants to build a

relationship with his creator and even saves a child from drowning in the original text), he is still

abhorred and considered vile and evil among the community members and is wounded by one of

the townspeople of Geneva. The fact that the creature continues to be misunderstood, hated and

rejected by so many people despite his altruistic actions in saving the life a small child represents

the inherent conflict and prejudice that all social creatures face. Mary Shelley‟s description of the
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 11

creature is actually an evolutionary and universal representation of human nature as well as a

reflection of the personal struggles within her own tragic life. Mary Shelley‟s mother died

shortly after giving birth to her and as a result she developed a very close bond with her father

(William Godwin) that lasted throughout her life.

The primary character in Frankenstein (Victor Frankenstein) also happens to lose his

mother at an early age (to scarlet fever) and copes with this loss in devoting his entire career in

trying to understand the biological, electrical and chemical mechanisms (i.e., Galvinism) in

of
resurrecting life from death. The problem that Dr. Frankenstein experiences is not a lack of

ro
scientific knowledge, but rather a tremendous lack of insight in understanding the evolved

-p
psychological mechanisms that have historically facilitated group cohesion, trust and
re
cooperation. More specifically, the evolved traits involving compassion, empathy, sympathy and

humility were absent in Dr. Frankenstein, contributing to the failure of his responsibility in
lP

caring for the creature he has produced (i.e., his machine-like reproduction of human life or
na

“offspring”) (Jager, 2014).

Similar to Victor Frankenstein, Charles Darwin avoided unnecessary publicity, social

ur

interaction and actually preferred the solitude of his scientific work. He relied more on his
Jo

trusted colleagues (i.e., Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley) to disseminate the findings of his

work as the public became increasingly engrossed in his work (Desmond, 1997). A lack of

sympathy and feelings for other people (even creatures and animals) can have serious

sociological and evolutionary ramifications, and Darwin noted that sympathy (later referred to as

compassion) was one of the strongest and powerful “instincts” that humans possess and display

in social interaction and group environments (Darwin, 1871). Darwin also recognized that

without the existence of some of the most basic emotions (i.e., compassion, trust and
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 12

forgiveness), humans would have had significant problems in not only developing cooperative

relationships with others but would also be limited in maintaining longer term relationships and

involve processing basic communication including facial expressions and body language

(Ekman, 1972). Without the existence of some form of an emotion such as compassion,

sympathy or empathy, our ability to recognize and help others in distress would be limited as

would our ability to form trust in the development of cooperative relationships (Goetz, Keltner,

& Simon-Thomas, 2010). The evolution of compassion and sympathy have been identified as

of
fundamental emotions that help to bring individuals together through an enhanced capacity to

ro
identify distress, foster intergroup trust and improve relationships among both kin and non-kin

members (Axelrod, 1984).

-p
re
Common topics of interest among both philosophers and scientists address the

circumstances and variables upon which individuals are in fact more likely to display positive
lP

forms of engagement and cooperation with limited or reduced events involving conflict and
na

aggression (Dovidio, Love, Schellhaas, & Hewstone, 2017). More recent empirical research has

emphasized the need for a more comprehensive study and the need for a developed framework in
ur

understanding how various dispositional traits, culture and social ecology have evolved over
Jo

time and contributed both to the development of personality and intrinsic meaning in one‟s life

(McAdams & Pals, 2006). Philosophical works dating back to Plato and Socrates argue that the

most instrumental process that humans possess in overcoming an “unenlightened life,”

disillusionment and ignorance is through self-analysis, introspection and wisdom. Furthermore,

Socrates argued that only through a fully examined life can individuals achieve virtue that is a

necessary (but not sufficient) trait required for civic engagement, community development and

cooperative relationships that help build resilient communities (Nichols, 1987). If people are in
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 13

fact capable of displaying a broad range of behaviors (i.e., positive intergroup contact), then what

are the social and environmental circumstances that promote the healthier and adaptive behavior?

Humans can display a variety of seemingly contradictory behaviors that promote self-

preservation and survival (i.e., instrumental aggression and human exploitation) under the

bleakest of circumstances, but yet have also been documented to display highly virtuous and

even altruistic behaviors under similar conditions. Compassion has recently become a popular

topic of discussion among evolutionary psychologists because of the important function it serves

of
among groups of individuals and the potential impact it has in helping to reduce pain and

ro
suffering that is experienced by other groups of individuals (Batson, O‟Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas,

-p
& Isen, 1983; Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). Additionally, recipients of
re
compassionate behaviors are significantly more likely to reciprocate these prosocial forms of

behaviors that help establish the existence of cooperative behaviors in small group settings
lP

(Batson & Shaw, 1991; Trivers, 1971).

na

The Evolution of Compassion and Empathy: Essential Traits of The Social Contract

The famous German industrialist and war profiteer Oskar Schindler (1908 – 1974) could
ur

be considered one example of a complex individual who displayed several of these seemingly
Jo

contradictory personality traits and behaviors during the WWII era. Schindler was an admitted

member of the Nazi party who earned his fortunes by selling munitions, weaponry and

enamelware that were produced in several factories in Eastern Europe. Initially motivated

primarily by financial gain and profit, Schindler gradually gained personal and moral insight

regarding his unethical practices, and soon recognized the extent of the war crimes and human

atrocities that were committed by the Nazi party during WWII. His compassion evolved as he

saw the horrific consequences of fulfilling his narcissistic and egoistic needs. As a result of the
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 14

atrocities of war and his own personal insight, Schindler soon developed a surreptitious

campaign of bribery to high ranking Nazi officials that enabled him to transport hundreds of

Jews to safety. In January 1940, Schindler purchased the enamelware factory located in East

Poland (Cracow) primarily with the intention to protect the numerous Jewish employees working

at this location. Schindler felt that there would be less German influence and Nazi scrutiny at this

particular factory if he had been the proprietor.

It is estimated that Schindler saved the lives of over 1200 Jewish prisoners who otherwise

of
would be have been transported to German concentration camps and sentenced to die

ro
(Wundheiler, 1985). The fact that Schindler was able to use his own status and experience as a

-p
member of the Nazi Party to actually save the lives of so many Jewish prisoners who otherwise
re
would have been forced to experience imprisonment, torture and even death is a remarkable

example of the diverse potential of human behaviors that can be used to help others even when
lP

great risks are present. Current research identifies the evolutionary significance of traits such as
na

empathy and compassion as essential factors that are needed to improve the course of human

relationships, reduce bias and prejudice and overcome the bystander effect that causes much
ur

suffering within the world (Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, Houlette, Johnson, & McGlynn, 2000).
Jo

In 1993 the Israeli government cited Schindler (and his wife Emilie) for their heroic

actions and bestowed upon them the rare title: “Righteous among the Nations.” In an

unprecedented act upon his death in October 1974, Schindler (a known and admitted member of

the Nazi Party), was buried in Jerusalem on Mount Zion in recognition of his altruism in saving

the lives of so many Jews. Schindler‟s case is unique in that he was able to display such a broad

range of human compassion in helping thousands of individuals who were sentenced to be

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 15

tortured and executed, but yet he is also described as a “wheeler – dealer and con artist of sorts”

and used bribery to complete many of his business transactions” (Wundheiler, 1985, p. 334).

Perhaps part of the motivating influence that guided the noble and altruistic actions of

Oskar Schindler was not simply his desire to help victims who otherwise would have certainly

perished in German Nazi concentration camps, but rather his position in actually experiencing

and witnessing human suffering at the hands of cruel Nazi soldiers who were blindly following

the orders of an authoritarian ruler. Current definitions of compassion vary, but a more relevant

of
description that includes evolutionary components that explain the motivation to help would be

ro
the description provided by Goetz, Keltner, and Simon-Thomas (2010): “The feeling that arises

-p
in witnessing another‟s suffering and motivates a subsequent desire to help” (p. 351). Schindler
re
was motivated to intervene and help not only because he witnessed the suffering that his

employees at the munitions and enamelware factor were experiencing, but also more importantly
lP

he had the capacity and ability (perceived self-efficacy) to act on behalf of his Jewish employees
na

and save lives.

While there have been several descriptions of how compassion and related traits such as
ur

altruism, empathy and inclusive fitness may have evolved over time to kin members (see for
Jo

example, Hamilton, 1964), only recently have evolutionary theories been proposed that address

how compassion, altruism and sympathy may be extended to broader group (i.e., non-kin)

members. Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas (2010) have identified several theories describing

how complex emotions such as compassion may have evolved to facilitate human survival. One

theory addresses how the evolution of compassion may have helped establish an improved

caregiving system to rear vulnerable kin members and offspring, as well as developing traits to

help motivate kin to help others in need and act “altruistically” (p. 354). However, the most
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 16

cogent interpretation that Goetz and colleagues identify in describing how certain emotions could

have evolved among nonrelatives is through the effect or impact on human motivation and

behavior. Compassion can serve as a powerful stimulant or trigger for other related actions, such

as prosocial and altruistic behaviors among those individuals within “mutually beneficial

relationships” (p. 355). In the case of Schindler, for example, while he was the beneficiary of the

relatively inexpensive labor produced by his Jewish employees, he also vicariously experienced

the pain and suffering that his employees experienced which motivated his altruistic actions to

of
intervene and help them to escape to safety.

ro
Earlier noted philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John

-p
Locke have also commented on the dynamic capacity for humans to engage in and display
re
diametrically opposed and contradictory behaviors based on human nature. Several philosophers

and political scientists have argued that because of these seemingly contradictory traits humans
lP

must willingly relinquish some of their rights and freedoms to a sovereign form of governmental
na

control. Additionally, several theorists (Freud, 1930/1961; Shapiro, 2012) would argue that

because of the existence of mutually exclusive and incompatible traits that humans possess (i.e.,
ur

life force or Libidos versus death force or Thanatos), they are also ipso facto prone to irrational,
Jo

unconscious and highly aggressive behaviors. The prominent English political philosopher

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) portrays humans as biologically destructive and fearful creatures

who are motivated primarily through their own greed and drive for pleasure. Destructive in that

humans are biologically driven to secure resources that are necessary for their own survival

under any circumstance, and fearful in that each person is aware of the destructive potential that

exists without some form of sovereign control to assure that laws exist to maintain order and

prevent anarchy. Hobbes further argued that without some mutually agreed upon development of
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 17

rules and laws that govern the behaviors of all people through a higher sovereign power, humans

will always be at risk for their own self-destruction as well as the exploitation of others.

In what many consider his greatest work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes his

greatest fears through a country that lacks sovereign power and control and is ultimately destined

for civil war. Hobbes realized the inherent universal desire for power, control and human

capacity for destruction, and has described these traits as the central driving force for all evil that

exists within the human condition (Bobbio, 1993, p. 68). Hobbes argued that while it is true all

of
persons are born free and equal, all persons cannot remain equal if society is going to function in

ro
any prosperous manner. The existence and development of an organized society and civilization

-p
ultimately depends on a broad range of the distribution of inequitable status of individuals
re
(Bobbio, 1993). In other words, no society can exist without some differentiated economic

structure that delineates skilled labor from unskilled labor, professional or “white collar”
lP

positions from manual or “blue collar” positions. From an economic perspective according to
na

Hobbes, this also means an unequal distribution of resources (i.e., income and salary) to

individuals who comprise society based on each level of skill, training and education that
ur

persons possess. Quite the opposite of current socialistic views regarding how societies
Jo

(theoretically) can and should function, Hobbes argues that societies function best from an

inequitable basis, where individuals with different levels of skills and trades are compensated for

those skills and all behaviors are monitored through an absolute sovereign authority to exercise

control and quash dissention. The Social Contract, according to Hobbes, was really more of

acknowledgment that humans have a biologically predetermined tendency towards destruction,

self-interest and conflict. Only when people willingly relinquish their God-given rights to a
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 18

sovereign power and contribute their skills in an exchange of commerce and goods can any sense

of community develop.

According to Hobbes, as people must relinquish some of their individual rights to a

sovereign power when living within a civilized society, different economic classes will

necessarily emerge and that these differences will determine how laws within society are

developed and enforced as well as what different types of groups based on economic status (i.e.,

wealthy vs. the poor) are provided access to these essential resources. Hobbes argues that the

of
primary problem in living in a cooperative society with equitably shared resources is the inherent

ro
mistrust that people have for one another and the inevitable tendency towards violence and

-p
destruction. The causal factors that are associated with individual mistrust within society is what
re
Bobbio (1993) refers to as a lack of shared power that must be willingly relinquished to

sovereign powers such as existing governments: “If anarchy is to be avoided, sovereignty must
lP

not only be irrevocable and unlimited, but also indivisible” (p. 60).
na

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Truth vs. Shadows and Fake News
A more basic and central question that addressed how humans have engaged and
ur

interacted with one another was that of human nature and predisposition towards cooperative and
Jo

prosocial or antagonistic and destructive behaviors. The earliest philosophers such as Socrates

and Plato argued that humans are happiest only when we have truly examined our own lives and

recognize that the universal ideals such as truth, integrity and justice need constant pursuit

through self-analysis. The greatest limitation that we have, according to Plato, is that we can

only know what we have actually experienced, and that our physical senses have impeded our

ability to truly understand nature (and people) because of these limited experiences. If

individuals are only exposed to the “shadows” and false representations of the world, we are then

limited in knowing and understanding how things can and should truly exist.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 19

Henrik HØgh-Olsen (2010) has observed the perceived differences in how classic

philosophers and evolutionary biologists may describe social and interactive behaviors such as

empathy, altruism and prosocial behaviors (Hamilton, 1964; Robert Trivers, 1971). A more

traditional (i.e., drawing from Plato and Kant‟s perspectives) view regarding the existence of

altruism was that these behaviors were a uniquely differentiating feature among humans in their

capacity to display both moral and ethical behaviors in group or social environments, and the

ability to carry out and execute these behaviors is primarily dependent on rational, intelligent and

of
logical cognitive processes that are refined through advanced cultural practices. More recently,

ro
however, the altruistic and sacrificial behaviors that were once thought unique to humans are

-p
now more described as less cognitive and more evolutionary-based, or what HØgh-Olsen (2010)

refers to as “sympathetic inclinations . . . evolutionary anchored in mammalian sociality, and

re
based on pre-programmed, emotional, and neuro-endocrine feedback - operating as spontaneous
lP

„gut feelings‟ rather than pure reason” (p. 75).

na

Similar to Plato‟s (1974) allegory of the cave, humans are constantly in search of truth

and virtue (i.e., truth being equivalent to the “dazzling brightness” of natural sunlight) that is
ur

often misleading and confusing to people when identifying objects in the real world. Humans are
Jo

often limited (or entirely prevented) from understanding reality as it exists in the natural state

because it often becomes obscured and transfigured through the existence of our own bias,

hedonistic tendencies and misperceptions. These misperceptions or “shadows on the cave” that

obscure our understanding of the nature and essence of the physical world limit our ability to

accurately understand and define what reality truly represents and the value of knowledge,

justice and wisdom.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 20

Plato argues that only the Philosopher Kings are able to distinguish between reality and

the false images projected onto the caves and only through this experience can we truly

understand the limits of our knowledge. The reason why the philosopher can understand and

appreciate the distinctions between the real world, what is good and false images projected

within the cave is that they have “broken the chains that bind them to the cave” and have

experienced the “pure form” of nature, through light, in the outside world: “The sights within the

Cave are human . . . and the sights outside in the sun are Divine” (p. 17) (Ferguson, 1922). In this

of
sense, then, the Cave (as described by Plato) serves as a prison because it limits our ability to

ro
understand and appreciate how the world exists in its most truthful and natural state. We can

-p
only begin to live a truly purposeful and “examined life” when we are able to question and

recognize our own limits of knowledge (i.e., “The only real wisdom . . . is knowing that you
re
know nothing”) and venture beyond our comfortable and perceptually shackled state within the
lP

Cave.
na

Identifying the good and happiness that all individuals are capable of achieving,

therefore, is necessarily determined through moving from the comfortable ignorance and
ur

shadows of the Cave to the illuminating and bedazzling sunlight that exposes reality through
Jo

rational thinking and reason and removes us from debilitating emotions, ignorance and irrational

thoughts. It seems then that “knowing nothing” to Socrates actually means there is much to know

about ourselves (and others) if we are to avoid hubris and continuously question (i.e., self-

analyze) our own experiences within our environment. More recent work addressing the

interpretation of Plato‟s Republic has emphasized the relationship between economic class,

achievement gaps and education within the United States, where different types of educational
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 21

curricula are provided to students based on income, ethnicity and economic class (Rice & Smilie,

2014).

Even today, scholars, researchers (and more recently politicians and journalists) struggle

with the concept of “reality” and “social justice” and empirically define those events that impact

our perceptions of the accuracy of our knowledge, memory and consciousness. While it is not

uncommon for people to think that they know more than they actually do, certain personality

traits (i.e., narcissism, grandiose views and optimism) have now been identified as strongly

of
correlated with overconfidence, a term that is now referred to as the “Dunning-Kruger” effect (de

ro
Bruin, Kok, Lobbestael, & de Grip, 2017). Eyewitness testimony has recently become

-p
questioned as being reliable forms of evidence given recent evidence that now identifies the
re
limitations of recall and bias that negatively impact accuracy of what we think we have

experienced (Zhang, Pan, Kai, & Guo, 2018). We know, for example, that how our memories
lP

function and process information can become highly vulnerable when we are also exposed to
na

misinformation after an event has occurred and the related problems that are associated with

increased technology and divided attention (Hyman, Boss, Wise, McKenzie & Caggiano, 2010).
ur

We can also become confused in our efforts to better understand events within our world by what
Jo

Plato describes as “shadows on the wall” and perceived shadows and images as reality.

Additionally, as we are exposed to higher levels of inaccurate or misinformation (i.e.,

proliferation of “fake news” or self-expression within the media), individuals become

increasingly more skeptical of the credibility of narratives that they have been exposed to as well

as their own memory accuracy of things that they have personally experienced (Pena, Loftus,

Klemfuss, & Mindthoff, 2017).

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 22

How individuals experience and sustain personal levels of happiness can change over

time as well. Similar to Plato‟s allegory of the Cave, people can often misunderstand their own

level of personal happiness (or depression) simply out of fear or an inability (or unwillingness) to

experience change that provides something new within their own lives. They remain fearful of

what they may discover about themselves and thus tolerate their own unhappiness by remaining

chained to their own “Caves” and avoid what the sunlight provides – knowledge and personal

insight. In a recent study that examined how quickly people adapt to things that typically provide

of
happiness to them (i.e., “comfort foods”, earning a predictable income or treating themselves to a

ro
small gift), researchers found that reported happiness levels quickly subsided as consumption

-p
satiation increased whereas prosocial activities, acts of kindness distributed to others (i.e.,
re
community service activities and volunteerism) resulted in sustained and continued happiness

(O‟Brien & Kassierer, 2018). In other words, the volunteers who escaped the shadowy confines
lP

of temporary pleasures that the Cave had provided them found new sources of long-term and
na

sustainable personal happiness (i.e., “daylight”) and identified meaning in their lives through

efforts that were devoted to helping others and building relationships within their communities.
ur

The biases that we all share in experiencing events that exist within the world (i.e.,
Jo

politics, economics, personal judgments, etc.) as well as judgments of personal character become

increasingly problematic by preventing individuals to distinguish and differentiate events in the

world as they truly exist, or what Wessels, Biesanz, Zimmerman, and Leising (2018) refer to

“positivity bias” in person perception. Human nature tends to be both inherently and subjectively

biased, in that the more people tend to like a particular individual the more likely they will

experience and describe that individual in a positive manner, “irrespective of the target‟s actual

characteristics” (p. 4). As Plato recognized centuries earlier, due to our own sensory limitations,
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 23

experiences and inherent bias (i.e., “chained to the wall of the cave”), we remain limited in our

ability to truly understand the world and our relationships with others as they exist in their true

and natural state. Humans can only speculate and understand the true meaning of our experiences

through “shadows” that exist as reflections of reality from the “dazzling brightness” from the

sun.

Hence, Socrates would argue that an “unexamined life” is one where individuals are still

living within their own “Caves” and have not yet ventured into “daylight” through their own

of
analysis of what truth and how it impacts their own lives. They have not yet determined and

ro
understood both justice and virtue within their own lives because they confuse a “purposeful

-p
life” with simplicity and the pleasures that are typically provided by living an ignorant or
re
unexamined life. Both Socrates and Hobbes argued that ignorance itself existed as a primary
lP

problem for groups of people living within a community in that it prevents individuals from

living a more virtuous life. Because human nature tends to be misguided and misdirected
na

through traits such as greed and conflict, certain laws must exist in society as a means to govern
ur

human behaviors. While Socrates argued that enlightened governors or Philosopher Kings were

essentially the only people appropriate to govern or rule over others, society can still grow
Jo

together as a community if certain basic principles were upheld. The Philosopher Kings were

described by Socrates as those individuals who were able to free themselves from the limitations

of confined living (i.e., The Cave) and accurately distinguish between appearances and illusion

with the true representations of living an examined life. The driving force that motivates

individuals should be their quest for knowledge and virtue and to not be misguided by things like

materials wealth or possessions. A “true community” according to Socrates, is only achievable

when individuals acknowledge their own limitations and work collaboratively in sharing their
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 24

acquired knowledge and recognize the value of compatibility, trust and friendships (Brickhouse

& Smith, 1990).

Similar to the Socratic belief that the drive for a virtuous and just life (and not

materialistic wealth or possessions) eventually leads to wisdom, both Hobbes and Rousseau

argue that true wisdom lies in the sobering knowledge of the devastating potential that people

have for one another in their striving for their own self-preservation. In these efforts to maintain

some degree of control and order as a basis of the inherent greed that all humans possess, a

of
contract or agreement (i.e., The Social Contract) must exist that provides a mechanism for people

ro
to knowingly give up or relinquish some of their individual rights so that the broader spectrum of

the rights of all people are recognized. -p

re
The Evolution of Cooperation and the Social Contract: Building a Foundation of Community
lP

In what many individuals consider one of the greatest essays portraying the unique
na

balance between human rights, community development, volunteerism and individualistic

ideologies, Democracy in America (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859) described the necessary

ur

features that he believed defined civic engagement, community service and the virtues of
Jo

volunteerism (Jankovic, 2016). In this famous essay, Tocqueville recognizes what several earlier

philosophers have identified as the inherently uncivil and potentially savage nature that all

persons possess and the need for communities to provide civic and voluntary associations that

help individuals build strong bonds of trust and engagement that are essential in any society.

Here Tocqueville makes a strong argument that people collectively need to take an active role in

the development of laws within their communities and that the balance and distribution of

property often determines how power and control are maintained and structured within society.

Additionally, Tocqueville was highly critical of opportunism and individualism and believed that
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 25

these ideologies were the antithesis of civic engagement, social capital, community development

and improving the quality of life for all citizens.

According to Tocqueville, a vibrant democracy meant focusing less on one‟s individual

needs and recognizing the greater needs of the group itself. According to Tocqueville, people can

live and work together despite their egoistic tendencies provided that laws and civil codes could

be created and implemented within a democratic process. Similar to more current or modern

views regarding the role of government‟s influence in private businesses, Tocqueville argued

of
that governments should interfere as little as possible as a means of stimulating individual

ro
growth and commerce that is vital to stimulate economic growth and development (Elster, 2009).

-p
Perhaps most noteworthy was the fact that Tocqueville was intrigued with the American
re
culture and way of life because it was so different from the European (i.e., French) culture that
lP

he had grown accustomed to. Tocqueville had wanted to send the message that a new type of

democracy was emerging in the west, one that combined community development, democracy
na

and economic development that was available for all persons, regardless of class. In the United
ur

States, for example, economic class was not necessarily defined by birth, family lineage or
Jo

aristocracy and even the poor were motivated in the belief to achieve a more legitimate and

better way of life was made possible through the formation of community support, higher

education and social capital. Economic disparities and inequality in terms of access to resources

provided the motivation among all people, of all classes, to work for a more equitable existence

because their belief was that it was possible for most people to attain (with some exceptions, see

Hochschild, 2006, for example).

His views regarding oppression and inequality were highly pragmatic in that they could

only make a society and community weaker and more vulnerable to tyranny (i.e., less capable of
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 26

defending itself) when individuals consider some of their peers only as “almost equal.”

Tocqueville (1848) describes his views regarding the importance of equality as being “ardent,

insatiable, eternal and invincible” among the American people (cited in Hochschild, 2006, p. 43).

His impression with American life was that both freedom and the privileges that are commonly

experienced within democratic society helped shape our relationships with others and needed to

be experienced through civic engagement and voluntary activities. People from all walks of life

and economic status could actually realize their full potential and strive for advancement within

of
their communities because (unlike Tocqueville‟s peers who were still living in an aristocratic

ro
society in Europe), autonomy and self-improvement was possible for all persons living in

-p
America. Tocqueville recognized the inherent value and relevance of The Social Contract in that
re
a society and community can only exist when all persons realize the inherent potential for

conflict within our human nature and subsequently they must surrender some of their natural and
lP

inalienable rights to a sovereign power. Additionally, Tocqueville has further identified the
na

fundamental need among all persons (regardless of economic class) to engage in stewardship and

civic engagement activities that strengthen the fiber of society build supportive and cooperative
ur

relationships with other civic-minded community members.

Jo

The development of diverse opportunities that enable individuals to work collectively and

to associate within voluntary associations have been noted as central experiences that build

human trust, social capital and community development (Putnam, 2000). Although Thomas

Hobbes and Tocqueville were not contemporary scholars in the development of their manuscripts

which influenced the formulation of The Social Contract theory (Hobbes published Leviathan in

1651 and Tocqueville published Democracy in America much later in 1835), both expressed dire

fear and concern regarding what they believed were violent and savage traits typically found in
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 27

human nature (McClure, 2014). Hobbes (even more so than Tocqueville), believed that humans

ultimately were predestined to live a life of destruction, strife and anarchy, and that all those who

wish to live within any type of community comprised of law and order must be prepared to

defend their laws ultimately with their own lives if necessary (Hobbes, 1994a; 1994b).

Notwithstanding these bleak forecasts of human destruction and anarchy associated with

human nature, Tocqueville argued that one way to overcome these problems was in giving all

community members an opportunity to participate in political activities and civic engagement

of
that helped build both resilience within the community and empowered individuals in their belief

ro
that a better way of life was within their reach and possible if all people agreed to share their

-p
skills and relinquish some of the rights to a sovereign power. The Social Contract, then, was
re
recognized by several political philosophers (i.e., Rousseau, Locke and Tocqueville) as a
lP

mechanism that recognized the conflicting qualities commonly found in human nature such as

the natural tendency towards violence and conflict but also recognized the potential that people
na

have in sharing their skills for the common good of all people through the practices of
ur

community development and volunteerism.

Jo

The previous discussions addressing human nature and evolved psychological

mechanisms such as compassion, altruism and aggression describe a variety of human traits that

can either enhance or strengthen small groups and communities or essential destroy them by

focusing on individual needs perpetuated through greed and conflict. The earliest philosophers

recognized the great variability that humans possess and the great potential we have in building

stronger communities when we agree on certain rules or laws that govern all behavior. In Jean-

Jacques Rousseau‟s The Social Contract, several references are made regarding the need for the

development of laws that govern the behaviors of all individuals primarily because of the
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 28

inherent brutish and savage nature found among all individuals. The essence of community,

according to Rousseau, is that we must recognize the universal need to give up certain

fundamental and “God given” rights that we have in order to achieve a greater good to be shared

by all. The Social Contract, then, is an agreement among all persons (i.e., the General Will) who

live in a society or community that recognizes a sovereign form of government capable of

establishing both order and control among its inhabitants. Similarly, both Rousseau and Locke

also recognize the potential dangers in the development of a sovereign power, and thus stipulated

of
that all individuals who make up the community under sovereign control do so willingly and not

ro
under duress. If the sovereign power or government is no longer capable of protecting the

-p
citizens of their basic and inalienable rights as determined by the General Will (i.e., freedom and
re
democracy), then they are also at liberty to withdraw from this sovereign power by any means,

including violence (Rousseau, 2002).

lP

If we consider the important contributions made by the political philosophers and British
na

Empiricists such as John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, we see some
ur

important philosophical similarities that influenced how they perceived people can best live

together in a healthy and productive community given the limitations of human nature. We have
Jo

stated throughout this paper that humans have evolved and adapted to the different demands of

the environment as described by Charles Darwin, Thomas Malthus and Alfred Wallace. Through

highly competitive environments, those individuals that developed key traits over time that

helped them adapt and secure vital resources tended to survive, reproduce and pass on these traits

to future generations. The capacity of reproductive fitness ensured that enough offspring would

survive and carry on genetic traits over extended and indefinite periods of time. In addition to the

physical properties of evolution, evolved psychological mechanisms or traits developed over

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 29

time because they helped solve a particular type of problem that impacted how humans

communicated and interacted with each other. Examples of evolved psychological mechanisms

might facilitate how individuals interact and communicate with strangers, for example, and

determine what types of facial expressions, sharing or cooperative behaviors, body positioning,

and even types of eye contact are either trustworthy and friendly, or hostile and aggressive. Buss

(2015) has identified several other different types of evolved psychological mechanisms

involving social interaction, such as methods in selecting (and keeping) ideal or preferential

of
mates as opposed to undesirable mates, different types of parenting strategies, and the use of

ro
aggression as a means of obtaining limited resources.

-p
Although the earliest philosophers did not refer to certain types of traits, emotions or
re
dispositions as “evolved psychological mechanisms”, they did clearly understand the magnitude
lP

and importance of certain key traits that helped to shape civic engagement and community

growth. Perhaps even more importantly, the earlier philosophers such as Socrates and Plato
na

argued living an honest and virtuous life was only possible through our ability to question our

own behaviors through the process of self-analysis. A “life worth living” is one that has first
ur

been vetted, analyzed and justified within the context of a social group or community. It is not
Jo

surprising, therefore, that Socrates argued that freedom of speech is closely linked to our

freedom to think in an unoppressed manner a prerequisite to live a virtuous life. A life well-lived,

therefore, is one where an individual has examined their conscious and evaluated the impact of

their behaviors on other people. When we engage in behaviors that have not been fully

examined, we potentially lead a “false life” that contributes to destruction, fraud and conflict

within society.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 30

More recent philosophers, such as John Locke and Rousseau (2002) have argued that

because of the universal human tendency for individuals to engage in egoistic and opportunistic

behaviors that often result in conflict, communities need to construct a social contract where

people willingly relinquish some of their individual rights to ensure that all people may coexist

in a society. A community is most efficient and productive when it provides a mechanism for all

people to contribute and share their skills in promoting a greater sense of connectedness with

each other. Additionally, cooperative behaviors are more likely to evolve and develop when

of
communities provide residents with diverse opportunities to share their experiences in the

ro
development of civic engagement and community service programs that provide rewards for

-p
participants (Bruni, Panebianco, & Smerilli, 2014). Given the number of philosophers that have
re
identified the potentially destructive nature (i.e., greed, aggression and self-preservation)

universally found among humans, a community that provides opportunities for people to not only
lP

share their goals but engage in different forms of positive contact with each other can help
na

reduce violence and the negative stereotypes that have been identified as precursors to violence

(Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, Houlette, Johnson, & McGlynn, 2000).

ur

Concluding Thoughts
Jo

Psychologically evolved mechanisms such as compassion, empathy, and forgiveness are

essential human traits that have historically served as important bonding mechanisms in bringing

people together despite their inherent potential for conflict and greed. Without the existence of

these traits, it is doubtful that humans as a species would have had the capacity to survive given

the magnitude of challenges (natural and human-related) that they faced (and continue to face)

during their evolutionary history. Communities that provide individuals with various types of

opportunities to interact and participate in voluntary activities such as neighborhood meetings,

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 31

block organizations and civic engagement programs have reported higher levels of collective

self-efficacy, community connectedness and increased social capital (Alaimo, Reischl, & Allen,

2010). As Jean Jacques Rousseau noted in The Social Contract in 1792, the best way to

overcome common problems involving human greed, conflict and violence is through an

intentional development of a “true community” where all residents share the same rights,

freedoms and responsibilities in the continued maintenance and prosperity of their own

community. Because of the diverse natural resources that existed in the United States, there was

of
a greater opportunity for democracy to develop through the needs and skills of a diverse people.

ro
Alexander Jech (2013) has also described the impact that the American culture and environment

-p
had on Tocqueville and his views of regarding human nature and political philosophy: “The land

in America makes it difficult to establish an aristocracy because although it is fertile … it is not

re
fertile enough” (p. 87).
lP

Community development, civic engagement and service activities also provide important
na

opportunities for specific groups of individuals (i.e., youths and adolescents) to learn the basic

principles of democracy through discourse and exchanges of diverse views, opinions and
ur

attitudes (Flanagan, 2015; Riley, 2013). Societies that also teach youths about the value of civic
Jo

engagement, caring and respect can reduce the impact of violence and oppression through

principles of what Staub (2013) refers to as “active bystandership.” Active bystandership refers

to people standing up for human rights and becoming a voice for the underserved and

marginalized communities - - whether this occurs among school children on a playground or

through political leadership in developing laws that protect vulnerable and historically oppressed

groups. Finally, civic engagement, volunteerism and community service activities are necessary

in that they not only provide the mechanisms for teaching youth the underlying principles of
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 32

democracy and civic responsibility, but perhaps more importantly by design they have evolved

over time to provide essential opportunities for all groups of people to discover how to live

cooperatively, respectfully and compassionately among one another.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 33

References

Alaimo, K., Reischl, T. M., & Allen, J. O. (2010). Community gardening, neighborhood

meetings, and social capital. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(4), 497-514.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: toward a pluralism of prosocial

motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107-122.

of
Batson, C. D., O‟Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-

ro
-p
reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.

re
Bobbio, N. (1993). Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition. The University of Chicago
lP

Press, Chicago.
na

Brase, G. L. (2017). Emotional reactions to conditioned rules of reciprocal altruism.

ur

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(4), 294-308.

Jo

Brickhouse, T. C., & Smith, N. D. (1990). Socrates on Trial. Oxford University Press.

Bruni, L., Panebianco, F., & Smerilli, A. (2014). Beyond carrots and sticks: How cooperation

and its rewards evolve together. Review of Social Economy, 72(1), 55-82.

Buss, D. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary

psychology. American Psychologist, 64(2), 140-148.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 34

Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (5th ed.). Pearson

Publishers.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection. London: John

Murray.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, John

of
Murray.

ro
Darwin, C. (1882). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (2nd ed.). London, John

Murray.
-p
re
Desmond, J. (1997). Huxley: From devil‟s disciple to evolution‟s high priest. Reading: MA:
lP

Addison-Wesley.
na

de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J. & de Grip, A. (2017). The impact of an online tool

for monitoring and regulating learning at university: Overconfidence, learning strategy,

ur

and personality. Metacognition Learning, 12, 21-43.

Jo

de Tocqueville, A. (1966/1848). Democracy in America. Harper and Row, New York.

Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias

through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606-620.

Drake, S. (1990). Galileo: Pioneer scientist. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto

Press.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 35

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole

(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971 (Vol. 19, pp. 207-283). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for

research and an integration of findings. New York: Pergamon Press.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the

of
Measurement of Facial Movement. Palto Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

ro
-p
Elster, J. (2009). Alexis de Toqueville: The first social scientist. New York: Cambridge
re
University Press.
lP

Ferguson, A. S. (1922). Plato‟s simile of light, Part II. The allegory of the cave (continued). The

Classic Quarterly, 16(1), 15-28.

na

Flannigan, C. (2015). Youth finding meaning through a larger sense of community. American
ur

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(6), S70-S78.

Jo

Freud, S. (1930/1961). Civilization and its Discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

publishers.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. f., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A.

(2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization,

recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and

Practice. 4(1), 98-114.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 36

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis

and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351-374.

Hamilton, D. (1964). The genetic evolution of social behavior, I and II. Journal of Theoretical

Biology, 7, 1-52.

Hess, U., & Thibault, P. (2009). Darwin and emotion expression. American Psychologist, 64(2),

of
120-128.

ro
Hobbes, T. (1994a). Human Nature and De Corpore Politico. Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford

University Press.
-p
re
Hobbes, T. (1994b). Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
lP

Hochschild, J. L. (2006). Ambivalence about equality in the United States or, did Tocqueville get
na

it wrong and why does it matter? Social Justice Research, 19(1), 43-62.

HØgh-Olsen, H. (2010). Human nature: A comparative overview. Journal of Cognition and

ur

Culture, 10, 59-84.

Jo

Hyman, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., Mckenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see

the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 597-607.

Jager, B. (2014). Mary Shelly‟s Frankenstein and the fate of modern scientific psychology. The

Humanistic Psychologist, 42, 268-282.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 37

Jankovic, I. (2016). Das Toqueville Problem: Individualism and equality between „Democracy in

America‟ and Ancient Regime. Perspectives on Political Science, 45(2), 125-136.

Jech, A. (2013). “Man simply”: Excavating Toqueville‟s conception of human nature.

Perspectives on Political Science, 42, 84-93.

Lewis, D.M.G., Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary

of
psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72(4), 353-473.

ro
Machado, A., & Silva, F. J. (2007). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of

-p
conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62(7), 671-681.
re
Malthus, T. (1789/1914). Essay on the principle of population. New York: Dutton.
lP

Mayr, E. (2000). Dawin‟s influence on modern thought. Scientific American, 238(1), 78-83.
na

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative
ur

science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204-217.

Jo

McClure, C. S. (2014). War, madness, and death: The paradox of honor in Hobbes‟ Leviathan.

The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 114-125.

Moison, F., Brincke, R. T., Murphy, R. O., & Gonzalez, C. (2018). Not all Prisoner‟s Dilemma

games are equal: Incentives, social preferences and cooperation. Decision, 5(4), 306-322.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 38

Nichols, M. P. (1987). Socrates and the Political Community: An Ancient Debate. Suny Press.

O‟Brien, E., & Kassirer, S. (2018). People are slow to the warm glow of giving. Psychological

Science, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618814145

Oosterhoff, B., Kaplow, J. B., Lanyne, C. M., & Pynoos, R. S. (2018). Civilization and its

discontented: Links between youth victimization, beliefs about government, and political

participation across seven American presidencies. American Psychologist, 73(3), 230-

of
242.

ro
Orians, G. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C.

-p
Penning – Rowsell & D. Lownethal (Eds.), Landscape meaning and values (pp. 3-25).
re
London: Allen & Unwin.
lP

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions.
na

New York: Oxford University Press.

ur

Pena, M. M., Loftus, E. F., Klemfuss, J. Z., & Mindthoff, A. (2017). The effects of exposure to
Jo

differing amounts of misinformation and source credibility perception on source

monitoring and memory accuracy. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and

Practice, 4(4), 337-347.

Plato. (1974). The Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis, IN. Hackett.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Touchstone.
 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 39

Rice, S., & Smilie, K. D. (2014). In Plato‟s Shadow: Curriculum differentiation and

comprehensive American high school. Educational Studies, 50, 231-245.

Riley, K. A. (2013). Walking the leadership tightrope: Building community cohesiveness and

social capital in schools in highly disadvantaged urban communities. British Educational

Research Journal, 39(2), 266 – 286.

Rousseau, J.-J. (2002). Introduction: Rousseau‟s Political Triptych. In S. Dunn (Ed.), The Social

Contract and The First and Second Discourses (pp.4-10). Yale University Press.

of
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2016). A history of modern psychology (11th ed.). Cengage

ro
Learning, Boston, MA.

-p
Shapiro, B. (2012). Civilization and is discontents. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 32, 559-569.
re
Shelly, M. (1992). Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. London, England: Penguin Classics.
lP

Shen, C., Chu, C., Geng, Y., Jin, J., Chen, F., & Shi, L. (2018). Cooperation enhanced by the

coevolution of teaching activity in evolutionary prisoner‟s dilemma games with voluntary

na

participation. PLoS ONE, 13(2), 1-8. Retrieved from

ur

http://mtrproxy.mnpals.net/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
Jo

&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=psyh&AN=2018-15723-001&site=ehost-

live&scope=site.

Simonton, K. D. (2012). Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How

sighted were Galileo‟s telescopic sightings? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the

Arts, 6(3), 243-254.

Staub, E. (2013). Building a peaceful society. American Psychologist, 68(7), 576-589.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 40

Staub, E. (2018). Preventing violence and promoting active bystandership and peace: My life in

research and application. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(1), 95-

111.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-

57.

Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin / Cummings.

of
Wessels, N. M., Biesanz, J. C., Zimmerman, J., & Leising, D. (2018). Differential associations of

ro
-p
knowing and liking with accuracy and positivity bias in person perception. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000218

re
Wundheiler, L. N. (1985). Oskar Schindler‟s moral development during the Holocaust.
lP

Humbolt Journal of Social Relations, 13(1-2), p. 333-356.

na

Zhang, Y., Pan, Z., Kai, L., & Guo, Y. (2018). Self-serving bias in memories: Selectively
ur

forgetting the connection between negative information and the self. Experimental
Jo

Psychology, 65(4), 236-244.

 Journal
Evolutionary Psychology and Philosophy Pre-proof 41

Highlights:
 This manuscript highlights how Jean Jacques Rousseau‟s The Social Contract still has

importance relevance today in building both community development and increased

community connectedness as effective qualities in reducing conflict;

 This manuscript explains how prosocial behaviors and compassion have evolved over

time and are necessary traits that contribute to civic engagement and community growth

and development;

of
 This manuscript examines both philosophical and evolutionary theories in describing how

ro
human traits (both prosocial and antisocial) have evolved over millennia and contributed

to psychological well-being.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo