Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T09:10:13.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The Evolution and Function of Third-Party Moral Judgment

from Part IV - Group Living

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Will Reader  and
Sara Hughes
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

There has been much recent research activity on the evolution of morality (Chapters 10 and 11, this volume; Haidt, 1993; Hauser, 2006; Krebs, 2011; Kurzban & DeScioli, 2009; Ridley, 1996; Wright, 1994), with most tending to focus upon the paradoxical behavior in situations in which a moral actor incurs a personal cost in order to help nonrelatives. This is paradoxical because, from an evolutionary point of view, any genes that produce a behavior that benefits nonrelatives at the expense of the individual in which those genes reside should find themselves at a fitness disadvantage and therefore would die out. In short, such behaviors should not evolve. This is, of course, a familiar problem, one that was discussed at length by Trivers (1971) under the guise of the evolution of altruism.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 150 - 157
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, R. D. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bucher, B., Chijiiwa, H., et al. (2017). Third-party social evaluations of humans by monkeys and dogs. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 82, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arvan, M. (2013). Bad news for conservatives? Moral judgments and the Dark Triad personality traits: A correlational study. Neuroethics, 6(2), 307–318.Google Scholar
Bartholomew, J. (2015). The awful rise of “virtue signalling”. Spectator, April 18.Google Scholar
Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(7105), 912–915.Google Scholar
Bowles, S., & Choi, J. K. (2003). The first property rights revolution. Presented at: “Workshop on the Co-evolution of Behaviors and Institutions,” Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
Bowles, S., Choi, J. K., & Hopfensitz, A. (2003). The co-evolution of individual behaviours and social institutions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 223(2), 135–147.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1986). The Nature of Social Laws: Machiavelli to Mill. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. (2012). The Yanomamo. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636–640.Google Scholar
Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In Shackelford, T. K. & Hansen, R. D., eds., The Evolution of Morality. New York: Springer International, pp. 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60, 1.Google Scholar
Cushman, F., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Finding faults: How moral dilemmas illuminate cognitive structure. Social Neuroscience, 7(3), 269–279.Google Scholar
de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112(2), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological bulletin, 139(2), 477–496.Google Scholar
DeScioli, P., Gilbert, S. S., & Kurzban, R. (2012). Indelible victims and persistent punishers in moral cognition. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 143–149.Google Scholar
Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3) 550–573.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I., & Spoors, M. (1995). Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature, 6(3), 273–290.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavrilets, S. (2015). Collective action and the collaborative brain. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(102), 20141067.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, M., & Keller, L. (2010). What you did only matters if you are one of us: Offenders’ group membership moderates the effect of criminal history on punishment severity. Social Psychology, 41(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101–124.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 613–628.Google Scholar
Hardy, I. C. (1997). Possible factors influencing vertebrate sex ratios: An introductory overview. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 51(3–4), 217–241.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2009). Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276, rspb20091061.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (1979). Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(1), 13–40.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2011). Mothers and Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Sugaring o’er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule-breaking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 141–149.Google Scholar
Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (2011). The many faces of rebels. In Jetten, J. & Hornsey, M. J., eds., Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance. New York: Blackwell, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 572–576.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1999). Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, R. C. (2000). Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, D. L. (2011). The Origins of Morality: An Evolutionary Account. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., & Davies, N. B., eds. (2009). Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1917). The superorganic. American Anthropologist, 19(2), 163–213.Google Scholar
Langergraber, K., Schubert, G., Rowney, C., et al. (2011). Genetic differentiation and the evolution of cooperation in chimpanzees and humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, rspb20102592.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H., & Watson-Jones, R. E. (2015). The evolution and ontogeny of ritual. In Buss, D. M., ed., The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The “black sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgements. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(4), 331–352.Google Scholar
McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(2), 79–82.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Meer, T. V. D., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478.Google Scholar
Nitzschner, M., Melis, A. P., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Dogs (Canis familiaris) evaluate humans on the basis of direct experiences only. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e46880.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.Google Scholar
Rebers, S., & Koopmans, R. (2012). Altruistic punishment and between-group competition. Human Nature, 23(2), 173–190.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (1996). The Origins of Virtue. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Schaller, M., & Duncan, L. A. (2007). The behavioral immune system: Its evolution and social psychological implications. In Forgas, J. P., Haselton, M. G., & von Hippel, W. Evolution and the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Cognition. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 293–307.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloan-Wilson, D., Sloan, M., & Price, M. (n.d.). Is there a universal morality? Introduction and overview of responses. This View of Life. The Evolution Institute. https://evolution-institute.org/is-there-a-universal-morality-introduction-and-overview-of-responses.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., et al. (2012). Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 53(6), 673–692.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.Google Scholar
van der Meer, T. (2015). Care is required when making assertions about the relationship between diversity and social cohesion. Democratic Audit Blog. March 9. www.democraticaudit.com/2015/03/09/care-is-required-when-making-assertions-about-the-relationship-between-diversity-and-social-cohesion.Google Scholar
van Prooijen, J. W. (2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 715–726.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (1987). African apes: The significance of African apes for reconstructing human social evolution. In Kinzey, W. G., ed., Evolution of Human Behavior: Primate Models. New York: SUNY Press, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Wright, R. (1994). The Moral Animal. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×