SEPT 17

7: SEP 17.

Assigned

• Tomasello – “The Origins of Human Morality” SciAm – (5) – Key Concepts: Logic of interdependence, obligate collaborative foraging, cultural norms, outgroups.
• Tomasello - "Human Morality as Cooperation Plus" (135-143); 8) - Key Concepts:
• Sapolsky C13 – “Morality and Doing the Right Thing – (488-492; 4) – Context and social intuitions, Trolley fMRI research, intentionality.

Tomasello – “The Origins of Human Morality” SciAm – (5)

• 400,000 y ago. Collaborative hunting and gathering starts process toward sense of obligation.

• Two lines of research to explain origin of morality: 1. “inclusive fitness” or kin selection and 2. Reciprocal altruism.

• But we need to explain “sense of obligation” - Logic of interdependence.

• The Role of Collaboration

• How chimps and bonobos forage - only partially collaborative.

• Key environmental change around 2 million y. Ago - global cooling and drying led to proliferation of terrestrial monkeys. Selection pressure on homo ergaster. Much later, 400,000 y ago, how heidelbergensis engaged in collaborative foraging. Collaboration became obligate (compulsory).

• Partner choice - puts pressure on homo who can communicated well and less aggressive (note overlap with Wrangham).

• Evidence - Some from historical record. Some from study of cognitive adaptations of young children and compared to primates.

• Logic collaborations - roles independent of individuals, dev of role specific standards and expectations (Values!), roles interchangeable, equality of partnership. Part of our commitment to roles would be acceptance of fault on failure. Even guilt or self-condemnation. Result:

• Second-person morality - understanding of self and other as equal partners in collaborative enterprise. Entails equal respect and fairness.

• The Birth of Cultural Norms

• 2nd step starts about 200,000 y ago - competition among human groups. Leads to collective group identity. (“We” instead of the “you” of 2nd person morality). Pressure to conform (note overlap with Wrangham). Identity based on shared practice of the group.

• The People of We

• With culture, we need to worry about what the group thinks of me, and what I think of my behavior in light of group expectations.

• Them v Us. This environment fostered strong out group dis-preference. (Hatred)

Tomasello - "Human Morality as Cooperation Plus" (135-143; 8)

• Theories of origins of morality focus on group processes, but evidence from moral psychology suggests dyadic relationships were important. Eye contact, voice direction, body language all part of partner behaviors. From there, we developed a group identity in culture.

• Two parts of the theory: second personal morality from dyadic experience and group morality from collective cultural experience. Pattern in both: 1. Ecology changes creating food competition; 2. Cooperative behaviors increase to meet challenge; 3. Shared intentionality and new social, cooperative skills, as well as self-regulation.

• Theories of Evolution of Morality

• Three kinds of theorizing:

• 1. Evolutionary ethics theories focus on reciprocity and social exchange. Boehm’s theory of transition to from dominance to egalitarianism (Wrangham too); Baumard’s focus on reputation gossip in maintaining values. “Most cost-effective way to secure a good reputation would be to be a good person.”

• Tomasello et al agree with these theories, but think there is a specific logic of collaboration that links dyadic and collective values. Interdependence is a kind of symbiosis. Sense of “we” and “self—other equivalence” missing from other theories.

• 2. Moral psych theories - focus on proximate psychological mechanisms - judgements of harm, Trolley problem, prominent role for emotions and intuitions. Haidt exemplary. For him, reason is ad hoc, system 2, comes later. Moral foundations theory. CFLAS. Pro sociality creates more effective groups. Relies on MLS.

• 3. Cultural explanations of morality - Theorists like Schweder give cultural a more dominant role and de emphasize universal accounts of child morality. But other cultural evolutionist like Richerson and Boyd suggest cultures create competition that creates objective selection pressures for imitation of successful individuals and conformity to successful practices. Tomasello thinks this sort of explanation can only work over the last 12,000 years or so, with highly developed culture and writing.

• Tomasello’s theory. Claims to be more comprehensive. Two step process from dyadic logic of interdependence to cultural level. Specific account of how these process created adaptations. Finally, gives account of “cooperative rationality” (in dyadic relationship) and “cultural rationality” (collective intentionality).

Sapolsky C13 – “Morality and Doing the Right Thing – (488-492; 4)

• Context: Neuroscience of the Trolley Problem and "Intuition discounting"

• dlPFC (focused on reasoning) in lever condition and vmPFC (focused on emotional information processing) in bridge condition. Correlation of vmPFC activation with likelihood of not pushing the guy of the bridge.
• Greene's hypothesis: not so much because it is "up close and personal" as we speculated, but in lever condition the killing of the one is a side-effect. In bridge condition, its because of the killing. Different kinds of intentionality. Ok for most people if you push someone out of the way on your way to the lever. Not intentional killing. [Note how Wrangham's theory independently arrives at a similar view about the "biases" we use to decide whether something is right or wrong. This makes philosophers happy!]
• Why this is so cool: This research helps us think about the particular cognitive adaptation we have about killing. It's not just something that excites the brain because "it's up close and personal", it seems to involve a concept of intentionality, and hence Theory of Mind is somehow instantiated in our brains. Coincides with the baby-puppet studies.
• Loop condition -- you know you have to kill the person on the side track, should be like bridge condition, but test subjects match lever condition, roughly.
• Hypothesis: Intuitions are local; heavily discounted for time and space. (Think of other examples of this.) Stories in which your reaction to something changes when you learn where it happens. Can you see the value of this in evolutionary terms?

• Related point about proximity - leave money around vs. cokes. Cokes disappear. One step from money and the rationalization is easier. (Also in Ariely research) Singer's pool scenario vs. sending money for absolute poverty relief.

• Priming study on cheating involving bankers. 492 - shows "intuition discounting" when primed to think about work identity. more cheating the more primed about "role" - "It's not me"...

• But this circumstance is different...

• Under stress subjects make more egoistic, rationalizing judgments regarding emotional moral dilemmas.
• [this is not mentioned in the text, but it is what he is talking about: the Fundamental Attribution Error - neuro-evidence for the Fundamental Attribution Error [1]
• Short version: We judge ourselves by internal motives and others by external actions. Our failings/successes elicit shame/pride while others' elicit anger and indignation. The FAE suggests that we explain our own failures more generously than the failures of others. We offer ourselves excuses (inner lawyer) but are biased toward inferring bad intent from others. (Think of fitness advantage for this bias.)

SW1 Evolved Morality (800 words)

• Stage 1: Please write an 800 word maximum answer to the following question by Saturday, September 21st, 11:59pm.

• Topic: In this first unit of the course, we have been studying ways in which our natural history has shaped behaviors and capacities in us that might explain the origins of morality. In the first 400-500 words of your answer, summarize the most important facts and theory from our biology and evolutionary history that bear on the origin of morality. How do the ideas from authors Sapolsky, Churchland, Hare and Woods, and Wrangham fit together? Then, in the last 300-400 words, let's assume that these explanations hold up to future evidence. What insights or practical value you can find in this understanding of morality? Does it help us understanding our moral experience better?

• Advice about collaboration: Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate. I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes, verbally. Collaboration is also a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs in the class. The best way to avoid plagiarism is to NOT share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer. Keep it verbal. Generate your own examples.

• Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way. Please follow these instructions:

1. To assure anonymity, you must remove your name from the the "author name" that you may have provided when you set up your word processing application. For instructions on removing your name from an Word or Google document, [click here].
2. Format your answer in double spaced text, in a typical 12 point font, and using normal margins. Do not add spaces between paragraphs and indent the first line of each paragraph.
3. Do not put your name in the file or filename. You may put your student ID number in the file. Always put a word count in the file. Save your file in .docx format with the name: EvolvedMorality.
4. To turn in your assignment, log into courses.alfino.org, click on the "1 - Points" dropbox.

• Stage 2: Please evaluate four student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the Assignment Rubric for this exercise. We will be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by Thursday, September 26th, 11:59pm.

• To determine the papers you need to peer review, you will receive an email from me with your animal name and a list of animals in this assignment. Find your animal name on the list and review the next four animals, looping to the top of the list if necessary.

• Use this Google Form to evaluate four peer papers. Submit the form once for each review.

• Some papers may arrive late. If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up. If it does not show up, go back to the list and review the next animal's paper, continuing until you get four reviews. Do not review more than four papers.

• Stage 3: I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Assuming the process works normally, most of my scores probably be within 1 point or so of the peer scores, plus or minus.

• Stage 4: Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [2]. Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino. You must do the back evaluation to receive credit for the whole assignment. Failing to give back-evaluations unfairly affects other classmates.

• Back evaluations are due TBD, 2024, midnight.