Evolution and Morality

What's the best way to revive a quiescent blog? Borrow from one of your commenters, of course! Jillian has the following to say about the evolutionary aspects of human gregariousness and morality:

"In 'Primates and Philosophers', de Waal defends the human species’ inherently social nature, Aristotle’s zoon politikon. Social contract theorists have explained morality as a veneer over our violent animal instincts; humans make a rational choice to suppress their bestial tendencies for the sake of civil society. De Waal refutes this philosophical tradition with evidence from primatology and human psychology. Findings suggest that we are an obligatorily gregarious species, social and cooperative by evolution. Veneer theory, though advocated by many respected evolutionists, contains a glaring paradox. It provides no mechanism for how we form moral systems in spite of our genetic wiring. De Waal invokes primate reciprocity as evidence against veneer theory. While mutualism explains moral actions that are immediately beneficial to the involved parties, reciprocity refers to good behavior for which there is a delayed reward. The ability of primates to behave well without instant gratification undermines veneer theory’s claim that only humans can overcome selfish tendencies. Furthermore, De Waal objects to veneer theory’s claim that our genes are selfish. For an act to be selfish, there must be self-serving intent. Our genes perpetuate themselves but lack intent. Thus, human beings cannot be described as selfish solely on account of their genes.While veneer theory has an all or nothing conception of morality, De Waal presents a Russian doll model that acknowledges degrees of empathy across species. His is a three-tiered system. The innermost shell is the 'emotional contagion'— how an animal’s behavior prompts an emotional affect in another. The second shell is empathy— sympathy or personal distress over the suffering of others. The outermost shell, altruism, is observed only in social animals. The Russia doll model is a bottom-up explanation that allows consistent development from obligatory mammalian parental care to human morality. Culture and language, higher order moral functions, can shape lower order expressions of empathy. But de Waal believes that fear of anthropomorphism has led scientists and philosophers to overlook the evolutionary continuity of empathetic behavior. De Waal argues that fear of anthropomorphism is also behind intellectuals’ unwillingness to recognize Theory of Mind in apes. Behavioral observations of apes show targeted helping and consolation behavior, which require a high degree of self-awareness. According, apes are the only creatures besides humans who pass mirror self-recognition tasks. Yet even other primates recognize reciprocity and fairness. Chimpanzees show gratitude, sharing food with those who have groomed them most. Capuchin monkeys will stop participating in experiments if other monkeys receive more food for equal effort.De Waal explains that morality first developed as an “in-group phenomena”, extending only to kin. Group solidarity, often in response to outsider threat, led to community concern. What separates human moral systems from primate morality is the extension of benevolent behavior to outsiders. Neuroscientists are now discovering that we make moral judgments on emotional instinct, and rationalize after the fact (and so our revulsion to 'trolley problems'). As other animals possess degrees of empathetic capacity, it makes sense to speak in terms of evolutionary morality. De Waal defends anthropomorphism as a heuristic tool. If we observe similar behavior between species, we should invoke the simplest explanation— evolutionary parsimony. "

What are your reactions to Jillian's description of de Waal's thoughts? Do all too many analysts of human behavior avoid anthropomorphism out of a fear of seeming unscientific but at the same time ignore the existing scientific knowledge in the quest for understanding of what is the essence of human behavior? What would Socrates make of neuroscientific explanations of humanity? In the name of the finest aspect of diversity, diversity of thought, let's bring all perspectives to these issues (whether grounded in natural science, humanism or religion, or any combination).