Morality operates along two dimensions: competition (“me first”) and cooperation
(“you first”, “we first”). Fairness could be described as the trade-off or balance
between the individual interests of all concerned, a way of maximising the benefit
and minimising the harm for each person, resulting from the interaction.
Competition is always going to be feature of social life, in some way. Natural selection
is relative, and the Healing Principle, or the pressure to thrive, survive and reproduce,
acts within each individual for the benefit of that individual (and their genes).
In social animals, this competition leads to dominance hierarchies as a way to decide
how resources are shared out: those with a greater fighting ability are able to take
what they want at the expense of those with lesser fighting ability. A dominant
position within the hierarchy becomes a “proxy” for the ability to secure food, mates,
or coalitionary partners (friends and allies).
Cooperation is an alternative strategy for thriving, surviving and reproducing, used
by humans, where in the short term at least, we usually suppress some of our own
needs for the sake of joining forces with others.
Three ways of relating to people:
Observe the following situation: Your housemate persistently leaves his dirty washing
up in the sink for other people to clean up. There are four different ways to approach
Option 1. Ignore it, do nothing and hope he stops.
Option 2. Talk to him about it, let him know you don't like it.
Option 3. Shout at him, threaten him with eviction and generally intimidate him into
Option 4. ‘Accidentally’ break his favourite mug. If he cares that much about it,
he should wash it up and put it away.
The option you choose will differ according to the kind of person you are.
1. The ‘passive person’ off-hands powers to others, steps back and allows him or
herself to be directed by other, more assertive people. Option 1. is a good example
of passive behaviour. If you choose this option, your housemate is unlikely to ever
change his habits because he has no idea how you feel about the situation. You will
simply have to learn to live with his dirty crockery.
2. The ‘assertive person’ maintains a good balance between understanding his or her
own needs, and accommodating the needs of others. Option 2. is a good example of
a fair, assertive and effective approach to the situation. If you are firm and fair,
your housemate will be more likely to listen to you, respect you and make the effort
to change his habits.
3. The ‘aggressive person’ is power hungry and ego-centric. He or she has little
or no regard for other people's desires or opinions and wishes to meet goals forcedly,
regardless of any hurt feelings. Option 3. is a good example of aggressive behaviour-
if you adopt this approach you will be likely to get what you want, but you will
also jeopardise the relationship you have with your housemate, as well as putting
yourself at risk of future retribution.
Watch how somebody behaves in a difficult situation
Our days are filled with moments (stimuli) in which we need to choose how to react
(a response). Notice how [someone] responds to those inevitable awkward moments.
For example: you’re out to dinner and the waiter brings them the wrong entrée; you’re
driving somewhere and someone cuts them off; you’re at Target and the cashier forgets
to hand them a receipt. When the "stuff" hits the fan, we can respond in one of
Fighting—getting loud, blaming, and demanding.
Fleeing—shutting down, feeling ashamed, running away, and getting walked all over.
Studying the moment—pausing, gathering ourselves together, and finding a way to stand
up for ourselves without putting others down.
For sure, all of us are prone to knee-jerk fight or flight reactions, but with relational
self-awareness, we can choose that amazing third option. We can pause, regulate
our emotions, and handle a situation in a way that we can meet our own needs without
trampling all over someone else. If [someone] has relational self-awareness, you
will see them "handle with care" that awkward moment with the waiter or the driver
or the cashier.
Chimpanzees and bonobos: strategic cooperation within a competitive environment
(the raw material for human morality)
These two species are the closest relatives of the human family line, and we may
assume, or guess, that our common ancestor shared some traits with these species.
Notwithstanding the famously, erm, “prosocial” social habits of bonobos, the social
environment of a chimpanzee or bonobo group is largely competitive with a strong
dominance hierarchy. There is almost no need for cooperation in the way that these
species obtain food: picking fruit off a tree can be done side by side with little
interaction apart from competition. It is thought that bonobos are more peaceful
than chimps because they live in areas where food is more plentiful.
Within the overall, competitive group, chimps and bonobos form long-lasting, mutually
beneficial friendships and coalitions. These mini-groups then compete for dominance
against other coalitions or individuals within the larger group as a whole. Friends
therefore tend to be chosen for their fighting ability. Friendship is cultivated
through acts of helping or sharing, such as grooming, or defending in a fight. As
in other mammals, helping also exists within family units.
It has been found in formal experiments that a chimp will help another [unfamiliar]
chimp in need, as long as the cost is not too great and there is no competition involved
over food or other resources. They are able to help, generally, in a targeted way.
Great apes have a sophisticated ability to use their knowledge, experience and observations
to make plans and solve problems in order to achieve their goals in the most efficient
way available. (They have individual intentionality.) They also understand that
others have intentions, goals, and a point of view (that others have individual intentionality).
They are adept at keeping track of the shifting politics, alliances and power struggles
within the rest of the group, as these may affect their own position.
Their communication is competitive and dominant: consisting of commands like “give
me this” or “do that”. They do not readily share information cooperatively, for
each other’s benefit, like humans do.
Chimpanzee males are known to cooperate in a loosely organised way in order to hunt
Self-regulation, inhibiting one’s immediate gratification, is a necessary ability
for cooperation. Chimpanzees have presumably learned this in the context of dominance
hierarchy, to avoid angering a more dominant individual.
In systematic experimental tests, chimpanzees have shown that they can (1) delay
taking a smaller reward so as to get a larger reward later, (2) inhibit a previously
successful response in favor of a new one demanded by a changed situation, (3) make
themselves do something unpleasant for a highly desirable reward at the end, (4)
persist through failures, and (5) concentrate through distractions. They do all
of these things at roughly the level of three-year-old human children, and at a lower
level than six-year-old children. Chimpanzees’ skills of impulse control, self-control,
emotion regulation, and executive function – as these skills are variously called
– are thus clearly sufficient for inhibiting selfish impulses in deference to others
when it is prudent to do so.
Michael Tomasello – A Natural History of Human Morality
They experience social emotions, such as social anger when one individual, especially
a friend, harms another, and can recognise them in another.
All of these abilities and motivations, which are used in chimps and bonobos within
a competitive context, are thought to form the raw materials for the evolution of
human, cooperative morality.
This preferential helping of family and friends is a major part of human morality,
but humans have gone on to extend their helping behaviour and respect to the wider
population in general. This reflects the almost total reliance of human beings upon
interdependence and cooperation.
In human societies, when cooperation breaks down, we are likely to revert to this
competitive model – individuals and coalitions competing for dominance. The pattern
we have now, of groups competing with each other, has been a feature of the human
race ever since we settled down and began farming and accumulating wealth and resources.