questions of morality 3: from ancestors to neighbors

The basis for morality can actually be seen emerging out of the conditions introduced with the advent of social groups among animal and bird populations. When species began developing social connections, the social community itself became a secondary environment with its own set of benefits and pressures. Just as different physiological characteristics result in both advantages and disadvantages for existing in the physical environment, different emotional, psychological, and relational characteristics provide advantages and disadvantages in social environments.

If living in social groups gives an evolutionary advantage to populations, then any conditions which strengthen the social bonds will provide additional advantages for dealing with the pressures of the physical environment. Similarly, conditions which damage social bonds will disadvantage the group in coping with the pressures of the physical environment.

Social groups have developed in many species. Some function on a simple basic instinctive level of group interaction, while more highly evolved species have developed complex social relationships involving increasing levels of communication and cognitive mapping. The complexities of social relationships within populations can be seen extending across a wide spectrum from unconscious to more conscious group interactions.

In populations of social species with more highly developed social relationships, the actions of individual members create psychological and emotional effects on the entire group. Actions can both strengthen and weaken the social bonds of the group, influencing the social environment for the group as a whole. These conditions would have led to the gradual generation of what might be considered unconscious social agreements or expectations among members of social populations.

Violation of group social agreements damages the social bonds of the group; maintaining social agreements strengthens social bonds. The group as a whole puts pressure on individuals to adhere to the group's shared social agreements.

Actions which can damage the social bonds of a group would include stealing from others inside the group, murder (killing within one's own group), adultery (sex outside the group's agreed patterns), and deception. Because these actions would weaken the bonds of the group there would have been strong social pressures to minimize these types of actions. Different species and populations within species can be seen developing different methods to strengthen social bonds and limit activity that weakens those bonds.

We can see the development of social groups leading to social expectations with respect to actions that affect the bonding and cohesion of social populations. As cognitive mapping developed to more sophisticated and complex levels in some species, along with the generation of more highly developed mental concepts and increased communication, these rudimentary unconscious social agreements would have begun to be expressed more clearly and consciously.

The difference between human morality and the social expectations of pre-human species is simply one of degree, and the fact that we began to apply language to a greater and greater extent in our coping strategies with the uncertainties and difficulties of life.


So much for the pre-human part; what about human morality? As you can expect I’ve got some thoughts about that as well – see the next blog