title: Colloquium paper: the difference of being human: morality.
abstract: In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, Charles Darwin wrote: "I fully ... subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important." I raise the question of whether morality is biologically or culturally determined. The question of whether the moral sense is biologically determined may refer either to the capacity for ethics (i.e., the proclivity to judge human actions as either right or wrong), or to the moral norms accepted by human beings for guiding their actions. I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution. Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself but as a necessary consequence of man's eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection. That is, morality evolved as an exaptation, not as an adaptation. Moral codes, however, are outcomes of cultural evolution, which accounts for the diversity of cultural norms among populations and for their evolution through time.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. fjayala@uci.edu
authors.forename: Francisco J
authors.initials: FJ
authors.lastname: Ayala
mesh_terms: D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D005075:Biological Evolution; D003466:Cultural Characteristics; D003469:Culture; D004989:Ethics; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D009014:Morals; D013045:Species Specificity
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 7;272(1560):253-8
references.pmid: 15705549
references.citation: Science. 2007 Oct 5;318(5847):107-9
references.pmid: 17916736
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 18;106(33):13870-4
references.pmid: 19666615
references.citation: Science. 1990 Dec 21;250(4988):1665-8
references.pmid: 2270480
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Jun 17;399(6737):682-5
references.pmid: 10385119
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107 Suppl 2:8993-9
references.pmid: 20445094
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107 Suppl 2:9007-14
references.pmid: 20445099
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Sep 29;437(7059):737-40
references.pmid: 16113685
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):297-9
references.pmid: 13679918
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Dec 22;273(1605):3123-8
references.pmid: 17015338
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 11;107 Suppl 2:8985-92
references.pmid: 20445092
references.citation: Science. 2007 May 18;316(5827):998-1002
references.pmid: 17510357
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2009 May;12(3):505-9
references.pmid: 19184138
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2008 Oct;9(10):749-63
references.pmid: 18802414