Selfishness is not a proper function

This is my answer to those who claim rationality is always self directed amd who promote naive versions of moral nihiism

Humans were not designed by evolution to be selfish.

Instead, evolution has equipped us with a suite of motivations that tend to promote the persistence of our genes. These motivations are directed towards ourselves, our kin, the cooperative societies we inhabit, and the ecological and cultural conditions on which those societies depend.

Humans are unusual because we have evolved mechanisms that make cooperation stable beyond kinship. We reward cooperators, punish defectors, build reputations, enforce norms, and create institutions that discourage free-riding. These mechanisms shift the costs and benefits of behaviour so that cooperation is often the expected outcome.

Individuals can sometimes benefit from exploiting cooperative systems, through free-riding or deception. However, these strategies succeed only when they are rare, because human societies actively detect and discourage them through reputation, reciprocity, punishment, and social norms.

The claim that human nature is simply self-interest confuses what is possible with what humans are adapted to do. We possess selfish impulses, but also equally fundamental motivations for fairness, reciprocity, loyalty, empathy, and stewardship. These are not constraints on human nature but part of its evolved structure.

Human motivation is therefore not defined by selfishness but by participation in cooperative social systems, alongside kin-directed and self-directed motives, all of which belong to the same psychological architecture.

1 Like

I quibble when I say the word “design” is inappropriate but agree with the gist of the post.

After Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene”, I think many people started to interpret this incorrectly in that the organism as a whole would be selfish, which of course coincides nicely with typical political ideologies and personal philosophies that focus on individualism. But it actually explains well how altruism developed.

There’s a good Veritasium video on this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX7PdJIGiCw

1 Like

A lot of folks make variations of this argument and I think I have too from time to time. This account provides a plausible explanation of why humans possess particular motivations and why cooperative behaviour has been evolutionarily successful. But it still leaves open the normative question of why we ought to act in accordance with those motivations rather than ignore or override them. As many people do.

Sure, evolution might explain why we care about fairness, reciprocity, cooperation, but explanation is not the same as justification. Why ought we privilege these motivations over competing desires we also possess? In other words, the argument explains why we have moral sentiments without fully explaining why they generate moral obligations.

The perfect example is likely a beehive, where the worker bees are in full cooperation mode, dedicating their entire lives to the queen and her grubs. The queen uses an ingenious cocktail of pheromones to keep the workers in line. Some human communities have already progressed to the hive stage, but of course the queen in our case is a male. The arrangement is a bit yin-yang in that the workers have to be altruistic but the queeng can be the very personification of egomaniacal selfishness.

Yes you are right. Human behaviour is the comsequence of a random process of evolution which gives rise to the impreesion of design but design and proper functions are commonly used shorthands for that

Its such an important point. We need a separate thread.

I think that the terms fact and ought are “fuzzy” and overlap. Thats not a complete answer but I joined the forum to learn more. However it is important to be clear what the facts are and what types of philosophical statements they do and don’t support

Yes in the case of bees the workers and the queen are genetically identical [revised closely related] so their evolved motivations are closely aligned and their psychologies are attuned to live in the hive.

The “queen” is a misnomer because she just breeds. If and when she stops breeding the bees remove her from the hive

We are not bees but they are useful for philosophy.

That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bees,"
Marcus Aurelius Meditations

I think that’s fair. For me, the interesting aspect of morality isn’t finding a foundation. The big question isn’t so much how you answer, but why anyone should follow it? Morality tends to be about oughts and shoulds, and it’s intriguing to ask where these might come from. I don’t think anyone is going to say, “I won’t steal from this Walmart because humans are a tribal, social species and we evolved toward reciprocal altruism.” How do we answer questions like whether capital punishment, abortion, stem cell research, trans rights or homosexuality are right or wrong? Religions can’t do it. Their foundation for morality turns out to be as shaky as any secular system. Even within the same religion, people can’t agree about these issues. I can see how the teleological approach in Aristotelian morality makes sense to people.

2 Likes

This is the basic point, I think. An evolutionary explanation may explain why altruistic (or any other) behaviors emerged (for the good of the species, supposedly), but it doesn’t answer the ethical question that you and I and everyone else wants answered: What is that to me? Why in the world should I care about the species? And even if I do, isn’t that yet another “ought” or “should” that I have to endorse, presumably on the grounds that evolution designed me that way?

All this seems incredibly far removed from my own ethical experiences.

1 Like

It’s the complete opposite. We’re hardwired to be sharing. In fact, you must care for others to be moral.

No one here is talking about the good of the species. The species isn’t a unit of natural selection and I am not aware of any maknstream philosphers who argue that peoples default motivations extend to the good of the species.

Mmm. What is the complete opposite of what.

Selfishness is less likely than care-giving.

Yes, I agree with the general slant of this post. Humans are BOTH selfish and co-operative too. As for so many other topics, it’s not a binary X or Y, it’s some mixture of both, maybe including a host of other factors too. The Law of the INCLUDED Middle applies strongly here, I think.

1 Like

OK. Make that “promote the persistence of our genes” and see if my and @Tom_Storm 's point makes sense.

1 Like

Its certainly a very respectable opinion. Im not sure whether Im entitely persuaded by it. Will ponder further

Of course, not all of us are bees. True that bees share their DNA - they’re sisters. Makes bee-like behavior in humans all the more strange and mysterious. I mean bees are so tiny and humans are so big, this evolutionary resemblance is uncanny.

Selfishness is not the problem. We’re all selfish and to believe that we’re not is simply a psychological illusion, it makes us feel better about ourselves: I’m not in your organization because of the money, it’s the family atmosphere, the wonderful personalities, the love and respect we have for each other, etc. The OP is terribly misguided IMHO. :slightly_smiling_face:

Marcus Aurelius? Wasn’t he a Roman emperor? I think he penned the meditations. Wasn’t his life a tragedy? His knowledge of bees didn’t help him huh? Rather unfortunate I must say.

Maybe, maybe not. But it seems they were definitely designed to philosophise, and ask that question. Also, the question whether being selfish is right or wrong, and then also the question whether the first two questions are inter-dependent.

I mean, I say that, but I wonder it, anyhow. How early in history or prehistory did people differentiate ought from is?

The amount of scrutiny selfishness requires, is more than the amount of scrutiny care-giving requires.

Selfishness requires more effort than care-giving.