Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Better Ape: The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How it Made us Human Victor Kumar full chapter instant download
A Better Ape: The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How it Made us Human Victor Kumar full chapter instant download
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-judgment-how-accurate-is-it-
and-how-can-it-get-better-1st-edition-john-wilcox/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-spaces-between-us-a-story-of-
neuroscience-evolution-and-human-nature-michael-s-a-graziano/
https://ebookmass.com/product/squeezing-minds-from-stones-
cognitive-archaeology-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind-
karenleigh-a-overmann/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-parrot-in-the-mirror-how-
evolving-to-be-like-birds-made-us-human-antone-martinho-truswell/
A Story of Us: A New Look at Human Evolution Lesley
Newson
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-story-of-us-a-new-look-at-human-
evolution-lesley-newson/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-evolution-of-moral-progress-a-
biocultural-theory-allen-buchanan/
https://ebookmass.com/product/mind-shift-how-culture-transformed-
the-human-brain-john-parrington/
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-it-works-book-of-the-human-
body-19th-edition-jacqueline-snowden/
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-it-works-book-of-the-human-
body-19th-edition-imagine-publishing/
A Better Ape
A Better Ape
The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How It Made Us
Human
VICTOR KUMAR AND RICHMOND CAMPBELL
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same
condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Kumar, Victor, 1980– author. | Campbell, Richmond, author.
Title: A better ape : The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How It Made Us Human /
Victor Kumar, Richmond Campbell.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021045016 (print) | LCCN 2021045017 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197600122 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197600146 (epub) |
ISBN 9780197600153 | ISBN 9780197600139
Subjects: LCSH: Ethics, Evolutionary. | Human evolution. |
Behavior evolution. | Human behavior.
Classification: LCC BJ1311 .K86 2022 (print) | LCC BJ1311 (ebook) |
DDC 171/.7—dc23/eng/20211221
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021045016
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021045017
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197600122.001.0001
For our children and our children’s children
“There is grandeur in this view of life . . .”
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species
Contents
Preface: Origins
Introduction: Morality
I. MORAL APES
1. Altruism
2. Emotions
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Index
Preface: Origins
***
We exist, alongside every other living human, because our ancestors
found a way to sustain a wide range of interdependencies. They
became moral. Deep within our family tree, feelings of kinship
expanded in scope. Our ancestors left surviving descendants by
caring consistently for one another. But this was only the beginning.
Humans became intensely cultural creatures, capable of
transmitting prodigious amounts of adaptive information through
language and observation rather than only by replicating genes.
Through cultural evolution, human bands inherited and refined moral
rules and reasons for reducing conflict and sustaining cooperative
ventures.
Eventually, complex culture accumulated and gave rise to
elaborate social institutions like politics and religion that fostered
dramatic revolutions in knowledge, technology, and social
organization. What’s more, by scaling up morality, social institutions
allowed humans to live in societies that were large, diverse, and
unified—albeit often at the price of devastating violence and
oppressive social hierarchy.
None of this was the result of intelligent design. Like the simplest
cells that founded life on Earth, human morality is a product of slow
but ceaseless evolution by natural selection.
Morality is a bio-cultural adaptation. Its evolved function is to
resolve problems of interdependent living and preserve collective
unity. And so, morality promises, for better or worse, to bring about
the next major evolutionary transition in the history of life.
***
We’re going to tell a story about the evolution of morality, one
supported by empirical research in a wide range of scientific fields.
We’ll explain how morality evolved. More than that, though, we’ll
explain how morality was vital to many other breakthroughs in
human evolution.
It’s morality that enabled one group of cooperative animals to
evolve incredibly complex social structure; morality that led to the
evolution of their capacious intelligence and extensive knowledge.
Morality isn’t simply one facet of human nature. It’s why humanity
grew out of nature.
Introduction: Morality
2. Darwinian Explanations
If nature is “red in tooth and claw,” then it may seem impossible for
morality to be a product of Darwinian evolution.5 On first blush, it’s
true that natural selection demands only ruthless competition. Upon
more careful reflection, however, it’s clear that cooperation can be
adaptive. Cooperation is what fueled major evolutionary transitions
in the history of life, as simple cells became complex, single cells
merged into multi-cellular organisms, and individuals formed tight-
knit groups.
Millions of years ago, our ancestors were just another group of
cooperative animals. They lived in groups to defend themselves from
external threats. They shared resources, energy, and affection. In
these respects, they weren’t much different from present-day
wolves, dolphins, or chimpanzees. Everything changed when the
earliest humans evolved and intelligence took its first great leap.
Humans engaged in complex forms of collaboration that rested on
broad divisions of labor. An extensive web of interpersonal
relationships helped our ancestors to hunt more daunting prey; to
prevent would-be tyrants from dominating comrades; to manage
sometimes violent, sometimes peaceful relationships with
neighboring bands; and to feed, protect, and apprentice precocious
offspring through a prolonged childhood and adolescence into
adulthood. Human intelligence evolved in tandem with this complex
social structure. So did morality.
The central driving force of human evolution is interdependence.
In a demanding and fluctuating environment, nature cultivated
friendships and alliances. Those humans who were sufficiently
benevolent and trustworthy to give and repay favors were preferred
by natural selection because they were able to reap the benefits of
cooperation. Living free of social bonds meant dying off.
Differences between humans and other cooperative animals
mounted once our ancestors began to accumulate culture and
evolved social norms. Norms are shared rules about how we should
and shouldn’t behave. They are also backed by sanctions against
individuals who violate them. Culturally transmitted norms offered
more precise and flexible tools for cooperation. Humans evolved
distinctively moral norms entwined with moral emotions. Equipped
with an open-ended plurality of emotions and norms, humans also
evolved a capacity for moral reasoning to reduce moral uncertainty,
resolve conflict, and coordinate behavior.
The bio-cultural evolution of emotions, norms, and reasoning set
the stage, inadvertently, for the cultural evolution of social
institutions. These intricate cultural adaptations bound small bands
together into large tribes and thereby set human history on a new
and radically divergent course. Ever since humans gained cumulative
culture, Darwinian selection began to emphasize the success of
groups in competition with other groups, sometimes at the expense
of individuals within them.
We’ve just given you an initial sketch of the Darwinian
explanation of morality offered in this book. However, some
evolutionary narratives are guilty of telling tales. A “just-so story” is
a Darwinian explanation for a trait that is seemingly plausible but
lacks the empirical evidence needed to back it up. Not all human
traits are adaptations, notwithstanding the eager availability of just-
so stories hungry to explain them. Some traits are capricious effects
of random evolutionary drift, or by-products of developmental
constraints, or acquired through experience and learning.
The scientists most often accused of telling just-so stories are
evolutionary psychologists who theorize about gender differences.
One common trope is that men are innately more promiscuous than
women because they had a higher upper limit on their reproductive
fitness. Women can bear children no more than once a year, while
men can potentially breed much more often.6 However, it is at least
as likely that relative promiscuity depends on a patriarchal culture
that enhances men’s privilege while limiting women’s safe options.
Because it’s often easy to tell a just-so story, even for traits that
aren’t truly adaptations, the initial likelihood of any given one is low.
Darwinian explanations are inescapable, however, for traits that
exhibit “adaptive complexity,” like the cardiovascular system, visual
perception, or any number of other biological systems. Adaptively
complex traits are composed of a set of interlocking mechanisms
that could not exist except for the fact that they perform a crucial
function—because they contributed one way or another to
evolutionary fitness.7
The moral mind, we’ll show, is also adaptively complex. Despite
much cultural diversity, humans share a bio-cultural core: moral
emotions, moral norms, and moral reasoning. These three core
elements of the moral mind do not operate in isolation from one
another. As will emerge in the first half of this book, the moral mind
is an interlocking set of affective and cognitive capacities that
perform a crucial function. The original function of morality, in the
broadest sense, was to resolve problems of interdependent living.
Morality therefore begs to be seen in a Darwinian light.
Since the moral mind is adaptively complex, it is very likely a
product of natural and cultural selection. But that doesn’t mean that
any old Darwinian explanation is good enough. Empirical evidence is
necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish
scientifically credible Darwinian explanations from fanciful just-so
stories. Our next task in this introduction is to explain the
methodology that will enable us to develop a credible Darwinian
explanation of human morality in the rest of the book.
3. Evolutionary Science
The most plausible theories of human evolution are informed by a
wide range of evidence from many scientific fields: primatology,
comparative animal cognition, genetics, developmental psychology,
cognitive psychology, social psychology, behavioral economics, game
theory, formal modeling, paleontology, anthropology, and
archaeology.
These scientific fields can be used to construct a credible case
about our remote past. Plausible theories of human evolution draw
an “inference to the best explanation,” as philosophers of science
often put it. A theory is the best explanation only if it explains
diverse scientific evidence culled from disparate sources. The aim is
to triangulate.
This book is an attempt to triangulate from the triangulators.
We are philosophers, not scientists. We don’t run experiments in
the lab or conduct fieldwork in the wild. But we are avid and critical
consumers of science. Well-confirmed scientific theories are our
data. We sift through multidisciplinary evolutionary science, find
ideas that are empirically robust, cast aside ideas that are
unsupported or clouded by bias, build on what’s left, and construct a
single, coherent picture of human evolution.
As philosophers, we seek the best explanations of all relevant
evidence. Trained to think about abstract ideas and logical
coherence, we also root out unseen implications of existing theories
and explore the ethical and political ramifications of science. In sum,
then, this book develops a scientifically grounded narrative about
morality by searching for the best thought on human evolution,
weaving it into a coherent web, and extending it into unexplored
spaces.
Scientists and philosophers sometimes say they only want to
explain how morality and Darwinism are compatible in principle. That
is, they wish to explain “how-possibly” morality evolved. On the
contrary, however, we think that Darwinism doesn’t merely tolerate
morality: it richly explains it.
By drawing on convergent evidence from many different sources,
our evolutionary hypotheses about the moral mind in Parts I and II
of this book aspire to “how-probably.” But we’ll be clear when, by
contrast, we’re offering a more conjectural “how-maybe.” For
example, to explain the cultural evolution of pre-historic institutional
moralities in Part III, we project from empirically well-grounded
theories, since direct empirical evidence happens to be scarce.
Nonetheless, our evolutionary hypotheses and conjectures are
plausible because they issue from a new framework that offers the
best explanation of a wide range of evidence.
Books on human evolution often explore One Big Idea. For
instance, Richard Wrangham argues that humans evolved because
they managed to tame fire.8 Sarah Hrdy, another central figure in
the science of human evolution, argues that humans evolved
because they found a way to raise offspring collaboratively.9 It’s
exceedingly likely that several such theories of human evolution are
true. There is no single, fundamental force in human evolution, no
“magic bullet.” Fire and cooperative parenting, for example, were
both critical. Each credible theory provides one piece of the larger
puzzle of human origins.10
This book also explores One Big Idea. Our theory is designed to
be synthesized with ideas from Wrangham, Hrdy, and others. But it
also unifies Darwinian theories of human cooperation under a bigger
picture. Our Big Idea is that morality helped drive human
evolution.11 Humans exist because of a recurring evolutionary
dynamic between three broad factors: morality, intelligence, and
complex sociality. This dynamic shaped not just our family, genus,
and species before and during the Pleistocene, but also our tribes
and societies in the Holocene and Anthropocene.
Our ancestors survived in new environments, both natural and
artificially constructed, because they developed a complex and
interdependent social structure. Nature selected for individuals who
were smart enough to navigate increasingly complex social
environments. But complex sociality was possible only because
humans had moral feelings and thoughts that stabilized the social
relationships within their communities. Without morality, complex
sociality and intelligence would have collapsed. Morality is thus one
central character in a tangled co-evolutionary story that culminated
in you and us and everyone we know.
As we’ll see, the co-evolution of morality, intelligence, and
complex sociality helps explain the accumulation of human
knowledge and the institutional structure of our societies. Yet, our
principal focus in this book lies with morality itself. We want to
understand how this co-evolutionary process created our moral
minds and then continued to re-shape them. Groups of clever
humans were capable of wide-ranging and flexible cooperation
because they evolved a series of increasingly complex moral
adaptations—in feelings and behavior, rules and reasoning,
institutions and ideology. We’ll integrate the most credible scientific
and philosophical work in multidisciplinary evolutionary theory to
develop a rich and novel moral psychology, one that explains how
human societies arose in the first place and how they continue to
evolve.
4. Moral Psychology
Are humans purely selfish or are they sometimes altruistic? What
motives lead people to do the right thing? Is emotion the master of
moral behavior and reason only its servant? Do societies have
fundamentally different moralities?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER V.
EXPELLED.
“He has not awoke since, has he?” asked the anxious mother, as,
fully an hour later, she reappeared with a bundle and a basket.
“No”—with a sigh of relief—“I see he is sound,” laying down her load
as she spoke. “And now to begin at the very beginning, and to tell
you everything, Laurence,” opening the basket and producing a
bottle. “Here is some good port wine; I’ve carried it most carefully, so
as not to shake it. You must have a glass at once—that is to be the
beginning.”
“Oh, Maddie, what extravagance! When you——”
“Hush! please to listen,” exhibiting as she spoke a hunch of
grapes, six fresh eggs, a jar of Bovril, and a packet of biscuits from
her seemingly inexhaustible store, and laying them on the table.
“Then you are not going!” exclaimed her husband, in a tone of
deep disapproval.
“Oh yes, I am,” she answered promptly, now opening the bundle,
and shaking out a dress that she had pawned, and regarding it with
an expression that showed it was an old and favourite friend. “Here
is an A B C guide. I go to-night when I have left you comfortable, and
baby asleep. Mrs. Kane’s niece has promised to look after you to-
morrow, and to-morrow night I return, all being well.”
“Then they gave you a good price for the miniature and the
medals.”
“Price!” she echoed indignantly. “They turned the miniature over
and over, and sneered at it, and said they had no sale for such like;
but they could not say that it wasn’t real gold and pearls, and they
gave me eighteen shillings, and said it was more than it was worth,
and ten shillings on the medals. Medals are a drug in the market.”
“Then how—where did you get money for your journey?” asked
her husband, in a tone of amazement bordering on impatience.
“See here!” holding up both her bare hands. Very pretty hands
they were, but now a little coarse from hard work. “Do you miss
anything, Laurence?” colouring guiltily.
“Yes, your—wedding-ring—and keeper,” after a moment’s pause—
a pause of incredulity.
“You won’t be angry with me, dear, will you?” she said coaxingly,
coming and kneeling beside him. “It makes no real difference, does
it? Please—please don’t be vexed; but I got a sovereign on them,
and they are the first things I shall redeem. You must have
nourishing food, even if I had to steal it; and I would steal for you!”
she added, passionately. “I shall only take a single ticket—third
class. Mrs. Harper will surely lend me a few pounds, and I will be
able to leave ten shillings for you to go on with.”
“How can I be angry with you, Maddie?” he replied. “It is all my
fault—the fault of my rashness, thoughtlessness, selfishness—that
you have had to do this, my poor child! Oh, that snowy night was a
bad one for you! I ought to have left you, and walked back.”
“Such nonsense!” cried his wife, whose spirits were rising. “I won’t
hear you say such things! It’s a long lane that has no turning. I think
—oh, I believe and pray—that I do see the end of ours! And now
there is a nice roast chicken for your dinner. I left it with Mrs. Kane
downstairs. She asked me if I had come in for a fortune? A fortune,
indeed! It was only three and three-pence, but I told her that I
believed that I had. Oh dear, oh dear, I hope my words will come
true!”