# Humans are not hard-wired for moral behavior
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 16, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802 "2011-01-16T05:45:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/21 "2011-01-16T18:41:09Z")
The empathic response is hardwired in the brain. This is a known fact. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue - that “morality” is magic. It’s not. It’s just a descriptor for how humans operate as social animals. It’s pure evolution. All primates have it. Ants have it. It’s not remarkabe.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/22 "2011-01-16T18:42:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> How is behavior shaped by an inscrutable mix of genetics and environment distinguishable from behavior with no genetic component? Or, to use skeptic language, how is the hypothesis falsifiable?
It’s not a hypothesis. It’s a known fact. We know where the empathic response lies in the brain.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/23 "2011-01-16T18:49:10Z")
In what societies do people kill large numbers of their babies without a second thought?
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/24 "2011-01-16T18:52:57Z")
Dredging up a memory from an anthropology course taken some 40 years ago, (and, hence, not susceptible to citation), I seem to recall that a survey of human societies found three specific crimes to be “universal”: murder, theft, and incest.
HOWEVER, in each society, the actions that were deemed to be murder or theft or incest diverged widely from society to society. In each case, the “crime” was determined, to a certain extent, by social definitions. Thus, killing a neighbor might be murder while killing a stranger might not. In this context, exposing a flawed baby to die might not be considered murder in a society that deemed the resources required to raise such a child and maintain that person as an adult were too scarce. Incest is universally condemned, but the definition of who is sufficiently closely related to identify as an incestuous relationship varies widely.
To me, this suggests an underlying impulse that is expressed through culture.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/25 "2011-01-16T19:13:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> How is behavior shaped by an inscrutable mix of genetics and environment distinguishable from behavior with no genetic component? Or, to use skeptic language, how is the hypothesis falsifiable?
Are you saying there’s no genetic component to human behavior at all? That seems extraordinary to me.
ETA: I’m also not sure what this has to do with the OP.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/26 "2011-01-16T19:14:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> What you’re saying, if I interpret it correctly, is that moral hard-wiring does exist and determines morality in a majority of humans but not all. However, the idea that “the rest of us” (i.e. a majority) are always disinclined to to tolerate killing and theft is untrue. I’ve already given several examples of societies where there was and still is widespread tolerance of murder. Similarly, there have been societies where theft was perfectly accepted, for instance among the native peoples of some South Pacific islands. And, as you remarked, even incest was accepted in some places.
Then one can argue that we are (well, most of us) hard-wired to self-incorporate the ethics of our societies, i.e. patterning after our parents and peers. This explains why religion and other societal norms persist - we absorb them from the surrounding culture. Of course, this calls for an a consensus of the definition of “hard-wired”. I figure a newborn is preprogrammed (or “hard-wired”) to absorb information. What that information is or how it is applied is a random consequence of when and where one is born and what cultural exposure one gets in formative years.
Naturally, a fair amount of variation in wiring tolerances exists across a population. Many will absorb cultural information without question and some will not.
> [@](#):
>
> My point is simply this. There is no universal moral rule. By which I mean, first, there is no rule accepted by all human beings, and second, there is no rule accepted in all human societies even if it’s rejected by a few individuals.
Okay, so… what’s your point?
---
### Author:  [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/27 "2011-01-16T19:14:15Z")
Your OP starts with a premise that makes it impossible for anything that follows to make sense. I sincerely do not believe you have ever met anyone who believes our moral behavior is as hard-wired as you seem to be arguing against. On the chance that I am wrong…
It would be nice if you could propose a contrasting hypothesis. This would allow us to compare the relative merits of each point-of-view
I also want to know where you are coming from in respect to some of my understanding of brain development and function. Could you answer these questions:
(1) Do you think the brain exhibits localization of function (Meaning that different parts of the brain are specialized for different tasks)?
(2) Do you believe the features of each of the neurons in the brain are dependent on what genes (which are usually translated into proteins) these neurons express? For example, does a neuron that produces dopamine need the enzymes to make dopamine?
(3) Do you believe that the features of the neurons in each of the localized structures in the brain determine how that part of the brain reacts to the stimuli that feed into it, and also determine the type of information that is output?
(4) Do you believe that the development of the brain and all its structures are genetically programmed?
(5) If you do believe all these things, why would you doubt that our propensity for moral behavior is not, to some extent, hard-wired?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/28 "2011-01-16T19:52:27Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#):
>
> Are you saying there’s no genetic component to human behavior at all? That seems extraordinary to me.
Yes, there is clearly no genetic component in human behavior. That’s why you can take any animal, raise it as a human, and that animal will act exactly as a human does.
---
### Author:  [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/29 "2011-01-16T20:26:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Yes, there is clearly no genetic component in human behavior.
I simply can’t believe that the OP would intellectually hold such a view. But it seems almost as if he is so dedicated to the idea that genetic makeup forms no part of “who we are” that he is willing to fight against a position that no one took (genetics determines _everything_ about us; we are hardwired to follow the _specific_ precepts of a _specific_ moral code).
I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this point, however, OP: what discriminates your point of view from the points of view expressed by others in this thread?
(Unrelated to the above, my previous question still stands. I’m curious what you feel about Lewis’s argument, in which he posits a universal moral law known only intuitively by everyone? This has been a tremendously successful bit of apologia – do you reject it out of hand?)
---
### Author:  [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/30 "2011-01-16T21:02:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> Some people on this board believe that humans are hard-wired to exhibit certain moral tendencies. Typically they say that humans are hard-wired to obey moral rules that contribute to social cohesion, such as rules against murder and theft. As I see it, this claim is obviously untrue, so I’m wondering if anyone can explain why they believe such a thing.
I would start by saying that there isn’t much in the way of assertions regarding specific hardwired dictate. Rather it’s the capacity to construct and comprehend systems of morality. There is no hardwired “thou shalt not murder” but rather mental software which produces that result under the right conditions. We observe who helps and who harms, and we return the favor. We punish cheaters and those who fail to punish cheating. We share when we have enough to share (and sometimes even when we don’t). We avoid unnecessary violence. We try to enforce sexual fidelity, with mixed but generally successful results. We grudgingly tolerate some form of polygamy (before you say you don’t tolerate it, consider the case of serial marriage and divorce with child support). Brother-sister incest is virtually nonexistent among children raised together. People don’t murder their own children except when circumstances are deeply dire, and even then it is not done without great remorse.
From these general tendencies can arise more detailed moral codes which make explicit dictates like “thou shalt not murder” (which inevitably are accompanied by an explicit or implicit list of predictable excuses that almost invariably describe offenses that threaten a person’s genetic survivability, such as murdering someone’s children or raping their wife). Or “turn the other cheek”, which serves to prevent accidental offenses from resulting in endless bouts of recrimination. The moral systems of the world are diversely different but on examination they seem to be generated by the same underlying principles combined with the demands of that environment.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/31 "2011-01-16T22:37:13Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> I also want to know where you are coming from in respect to some of my understanding of brain development and function. Could you answer these questions:
> (1) Do you think the brain exhibits localization of function (Meaning that different parts of the brain are specialized for different tasks)?
> (2) Do you believe the features of each of the neurons in the brain are dependent on what genes (which are usually translated into proteins) these neurons express? For example, does a neuron that produces dopamine need the enzymes to make dopamine?
> (3) Do you believe that the features of the neurons in each of the localized structures in the brain determine how that part of the brain reacts to the stimuli that feed into it, and also determine the type of information that is output?
> (4) Do you believe that the development of the brain and all its structures are genetically programmed?
> (5) If you do believe all these things, why would you doubt that our propensity for moral behavior is not, to some extent, hard-wired?
1. The brain may exhibit some localized functions, but how many and to what extent I’m not quite sure. Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield is famous for his research showing that by stimulating different places in the brain, he could produce certain mental reactions in patients, such as memories of a certain event. However, some people don’t know that Penfield was impressed mainly by the limitations of this approach and eventually concluded that certain deeper subsystems of the human mind did not appear to be affected by this approach, and thus he felt that his research pointed to a non-physical agency acting in addition to the brain.
2. While the chemical behavior of a neuron may be driven by genetics, what a neuron actually accomplishes is determined by the axons that connect it to other neurons. These axons are constantly in flux. New ones are forming and old ones be created or changed throughout human life. It was previously thought that neural connections were static, but recent research has established they are not. The phenomenon is called [neuroplasticity](http://memoryzine.com/2010/07/02/introduction-to-neuroplasticity/)
3. The neural connections determine what input each neuron gets and what output it produces.
4. That’s a big question. The brain obviously always has a cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem, and various lobes and regions within each. How much of the detail is determined by genes, I don’t know.
5. Since I didn’t fully agree with 1-4, this question is moot for me.
---
### Author:  [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/32 "2011-01-16T23:07:23Z")
Well, I know this: most older infants and young children will literally give you the food out of their mouths and otherwise exhibit empathy towards others.
And in many reported cases, people have risked their lives to save strangers (jumping into dangerous waters or rushing into burning structures) and later reported they never paused to think about the risk to themselves…they just reacted from the gut. Some went so far as to say that HAD they stopped to think, they would NOT have done it.
While I think we are, to some degree, hard-wired and conditioned to look out for number one, we are also highly social creatures for whom co-operation has been imperative to our survival and are hard-wired to some degree to look out for others.
---
### Author:  [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/33 "2011-01-17T01:08:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. While the chemical behavior of a neuron may be driven by genetics, what a neuron actually accomplishes is determined by the axons that connect it to other neurons.
Actually not true, if you examine how the axon works. Every single aspect of how axons transmit information is governed by the activity of proteins embedded in its membrane or secreted into the synapse (neurotransmitter proteins, ion pump proteins, receptor proteins, the proteins that build these proteins, not to mention the proteins involved in actually constructing, growing, and shaping the axon). There is nothing important that happens in any cell that isn’t heavily governed by its protein makeup, and this is especially true in an electrochemically dynamic cell like a neuron.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. The neural connections determine what input each neuron gets and what output it produces.
Only partially true.. it is not just the physical arrangement of connections but also heavily dependent on the production and regulation of the proteins I outlined above. If this weren’t true, psychoactive drugs wouldn’t work.
---
### Author:  [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/34 "2011-01-17T13:52:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> In what societies do people kill large numbers of their babies without a second thought?
Religious ones?
[QUOTE=Psalm 137]
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
[/QUOTE]
> **[Psalm 137 KJV](https://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/137.htm)**
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/35 "2011-01-17T17:35:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> In what societies do people kill large numbers of their babies without a second thought?
[India and China](http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html), for starters. That’s in the present time, and I’ve also given several examples of ancient societies already.
> [@guizot](#):
>
> Are you familiar with Paul Bloom’s recent work at Yale’s Infant Cognition Center related to this?
An interesting study, to be sure, but like every study that I’ve ever seen purporting to prove that a certain behavior is produced by genes, it doesn’t actually mention genes. It just documents the existence of a behavior and assumes that genes are responsible. One cannot leap to that assumption, since babies are in a social world from birth and by the time they reach that age, adult have already started to give them moral lessons.
One might also wonder, if the behavior is in the human genome, then why did 80% of the babies choose the ‘helpful’ toy but the other 20% presumably chose the ‘unhelpful’ one? One might respond that we’re hard-wired for morality but the 20% somehow broke free of that constraint. But then how do we know that it isn’t the 80% breaking free instead.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/36 "2011-01-17T18:09:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> [India and China](http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html), for starters. That’s in the present time, and I’ve also given several examples of ancient societies already.
> [@](#):
>
> Rummel adds: "Instances of infanticide … are usually singular events; they do not happen en masse.
On the natural side of things, I have seen documentaries and studies where outside pressures or stress leads the parent to kill their offspring. In the human cases I can say that I understand why it happens, but it has to be clear that I do not approve.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> An interesting study, to be sure, but like every study that I’ve ever seen purporting to prove that a certain behavior is produced by genes, it doesn’t actually mention genes. It just documents the existence of a behavior and assumes that genes are responsible. One cannot leap to that assumption, since babies are in a social world from birth and by the time they reach that age, adult have already started to give them moral lessons.
>
> One might also wonder, if the behavior is in the human genome, then why did 80% of the babies choose the ‘helpful’ toy but the other 20% presumably chose the ‘unhelpful’ one? One might respond that we’re hard-wired for morality but the 20% somehow broke free of that constraint. But then how do we know that it isn’t the 80% breaking free instead.
> **['Selfless' genes attract mates, psychologists find](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101013083322.htm)**
>
> There is genetic evidence that selfless or altruistic behavior may have evolved because it was one of the qualities our ancestors looked for in a mate, psychologists in the UK report.
> [@](#):
>
> Statistical analysis of their responses revealed that genes influenced variation in both the subjects’ preference towards a mate and their own altruistic behaviour – an indication that sexual selection might be at work.
>
> Interestingly, there was also a genetic correlation between the two. This suggested that, in our evolutionary past, those with a stronger mate preference towards altruistic behaviour mated more frequently with more altruistic people, thus further supporting a link with sexual selection.
>
> Tim explained: “These results are consistent with a link between human altruism towards non-relatives and sexual selection and throws an exciting new light on the puzzle of altruistic behaviour – which appears, at first sight, to be at odds with evolutionary theory.”
>
> “The expansion of the human brain would have greatly increased the cost of raising children so it would have been important for our ancestors to choose mates both willing and able to be good, long-term parents. Displays of altruism could well have provided accurate clues to this and so led to a link between human altruism and sexual selection.”
And like that, there are other studies pointing to a strong genetic basis of altruism.
[http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/28/scan.nsq083.full](http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/28/scan.nsq083.full)
---
### Author:  [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/37 "2011-01-17T18:18:07Z")
An analogy might be dog breeds, bed for certain instinctual traits. These breeds have behaviour genetically hardwired into them, and it can be difficult to train them out of those impulses. A border collie, for example, will try to herd - despite nobody ever telling it what herding is. A golden retriever will rarely be aggressive, and tend to be great around kids - with a hardwired desire to - well, retrieve.
If animals can have hardwired behavioural traits, why can’t humans?
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/38 "2011-01-17T18:27:15Z")
What is your hypothesis, **ITR champion**?
That the brain is a blank slate, or just WRT morality?
And emotions?
---
### Author:  [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/39 "2011-01-17T18:31:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. The brain may exhibit some localized functions, but how many and to what extent I’m not quite sure. Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield is famous for his research showing that by stimulating different places in the brain, he could produce certain mental reactions in patients, such as memories of a certain event. However, some people don’t know that Penfield was impressed mainly by the limitations of this approach and eventually concluded that certain deeper subsystems of the human mind did not appear to be affected by this approach, and thus he felt that his research pointed to a non-physical agency acting in addition to the brain.
Penfield did some great stuff that is with us to this day. It is funny how I never learned of the “non-physical agency” hypothesis in school. I am guessing that this was more of a comment on emergent properties in the brain. I only learned about the work in epilepsy. You are aware of the literally thousands of lesion studies in nonhuman animals and studies of specific brain damage in humans that show selective deficits in behavior, including [moral behaviors](http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/2/84.full) (this is the full text and I strongly recommend you read the introduction for many other examples of both lesion and imaging studies)? You know of the over-discussed example of [Phineas Gage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage#Brain_damage_and_mental_changes) (I should pit myself for mentioning it). The debate these days is over the distribution of these functions and their organization.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. While the chemical behavior of a neuron may be driven by genetics, what a neuron actually accomplishes is determined by the axons that connect it to other neurons. These axons are constantly in flux. New ones are forming and old ones be created or changed throughout human life. It was previously thought that neural connections were static, but recent research has established they are not. The phenomenon is called [neuroplasticity](http://memoryzine.com/2010/07/02/introduction-to-neuroplasticity/)
**Cosmic Relief** has addressed this. You also completely agree with myself and **Cosmic Relief** - please give a single example of a neuron’s activities, including the formation of connections, that is not “chemical behavior” (hint they all are chemical behavior). Please then give an example of a chemical reaction in the human body that does not involve the input of an enzyme. Since you won’t be able to do that, please give an example of an enzyme that is not coded for by a gene (You also will not be able to do that).
The point is that all the chemical reactions that are necessary for neuroplasticity are influenced by enzymes and other proteins, and the structure and function of these proteins are encoded in genes. If you accept that our behavior is described completely by our nervous system’s response to the environment then it is nonsensical to argue against the influence of genes.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. The neural connections determine what input each neuron gets and what output it produces.
Handled by **Cosmic Relief**. I would like to add since the initial development of these connections is a chemical process, modifications of these connections is also a chemical process and all chemical processes in the human body are under regulation by gene-encoded enzymes, then we are left with genes being extradordinarily important to the development of the brain and its functions.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. That’s a big question. The brain obviously always has a cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem, and various lobes and regions within each. How much of the detail is determined by genes, I don’t know.
All the connections are regulated by genes and the interactions of neurons with other neurons and glia which we all agree have chemical behavior that is regulated by genes.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> 1. Since I didn’t fully agree with 1-4, this question is moot for me.
Since I have supplied facts on 1-4 that you can easily verify or just easily agree with based on your knowledge of the subject, can you answer now?
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> An interesting study, to be sure, but like every study that I’ve ever seen purporting to prove that a certain behavior is produced by genes, it doesn’t actually mention genes. It just documents the existence of a behavior and assumes that genes are responsible. One cannot leap to that assumption, since babies are in a social world from birth and by the time they reach that age, adult have already started to give them moral lessons.
Could not have said it better myself. Except I would say that of course genes are involved, I mean if they didn’t have human genes their eyes might point to the side and the little puppets wouldn’t even be in their field of vision. A lot of other animals would view two eyes staring them down as something dangerous.
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> One might also wonder, if the behavior is in the human genome, then why did 80% of the babies choose the ‘helpful’ toy but the other 20% presumably chose the ‘unhelpful’ one? One might respond that we’re hard-wired for morality but the 20% somehow broke free of that constraint. But then how do we know that it isn’t the 80% breaking free instead.
If you ignore everything else I ask of you it would be ok, but I really want to know why you think this is a fundamental test of the hypothesis of genetic influence on human behavior. I could get it if being hard-wired were the issue but nobody argues that. Nobody.
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802/40 "2011-01-17T18:40:14Z")
We are our genes.
Our moral codes and practical behaviours derive from the way we are hard-wired; our intellect (also hard-wired) layers upon those genes a complexity that results from our ability to be introspective about our belief systems.
There are two competing drivers hardwired into our genes that underlie what we call “morality.”
The first is a drive for personal survival. Call this the “narcissism” gene.
The second is a drive for group survival. Call this the “altruism” gene.
Obviously they are not single “genes” but you get the idea.
These two behaviours frequently (though not always) compete. The altruism gene might drive a behavioural code not to kill you, but the narcissism gene might let me over-ride such a code.
Humans are not “hard-wired for moral behaviour” but they are hard-wired, and their gut instinct for what they have come to call “moral code” is a consequence of those genes. The specifics of such a moral code may vary from group to group (although some specifics are remarkably constant such as parental bonds) but consider that the mere existence of codes at all reflects a remarkably consistent pattern. I can’t think of any groups who behave completely at random. It seems to be a requirement for survival to develop “moral” codes, and those codes are a consequence of our need for both personal and group survival.
PS: The “take care of the Queen Ant” gene drives our behavioural codes for leadership…
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humans-are-not-hard-wired-for-moral-behavior/567802.md?page=3)