The video features an interview with Hannah Sauer, a philosophy professor at the University of Utrecht, who specializes in the evolutionary basis of morality. The discussion revolves around understanding virtues and vices through the lens of evolutionary theory, and whether right and wrong can be seen as a function of our adapted natures.
Sauer emphasizes the importance of incorporating an evolutionary perspective when studying morality, viewing it as a modern approach to Nietzsche's project of tracing the genealogy of morality. She argues that understanding the origins of our norms and values can inform judgments about their desirability and whether they should be embraced or abandoned. Evolutionary theory, she suggests, provides a powerful framework for this genealogical project, offering scientific evidence and tools to understand the roots of morality.
Addressing initial resistance to applying evolutionary theory to morality, Sauer notes that some believed it painted a grim picture of ruthless competition, making altruism and kindness seem impossible. However, she explains that a deeper understanding of evolution reveals that this conflict is merely apparent. The concept of the "selfish gene," despite its often misunderstood title, helps illustrate how altruism can arise. Genes, as copy-making entities, drive organisms to care for relatives who share their genes, leading to basic forms of altruism.
Sauer further explores the question of self-sacrifice, such as giving one's life for others or an abstract cause. While some instances may be maladaptive, others can be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, such as saving one's offspring. She introduces the idea of "misfiring," where traits evolved for a specific function are triggered even when that function cannot be fulfilled, such as sexual arousal even with contraception. This concept can potentially explain extreme acts of self-sacrifice like suicidal bombings, where the trait of heroism for the group may generalize to situations where it no longer provides reproductive benefits.
The discussion transitions to the role of culture in shaping morality. Humans are unique in their capacity for cumulative culture, where each generation builds upon the knowledge and skills of the previous one. This process, combined with our aptitude for social learning, creates a co-evolution between cultural and genetic inheritance. Cultural behaviors can influence who reproduces, favoring traits like storytelling or language skills. Sauer illustrates this with the example of cooking, which led to smaller guts and the development of larger brains.
Regarding virtue ethics, Sauer argues there's ample room for individual virtues like honesty within an evolutionary framework. Honesty is vital because humans depend on accurate information from others, making trustworthiness a crucial trait. She posits that the internal perspectives articulated in moral philosophy are ultimately reflections of rationales that can be examined from an evolutionary standpoint.
Sauer touches upon the anthropological distinction between guilt cultures and shame cultures. Shame cultures, common in smaller-scale interactions, emphasize personal reputation, while guilt cultures, often seen in larger, more complex societies, focus on specific actions.
Finally, Sauer addresses the historical preoccupation of moral codes with sex. She suggests that the moralization and policing of sex stems from its existential importance, intertwined with power structures, wealth, and technology. Norms regarding sexuality can vary widely across societies, indicating the flexible interaction of sexual behavior with broader social structures. Polygynous societies, for instance, contrast with the norm of normative monogamy, which ultimately proved beneficial for both men, women and children through a more consistent nurturing environment, fostering enhanced social learning in turn accelerating cultural evolution.
In conclusion, Sauer challenges the notion that morality requires suppressing our "base" instincts. She argues that this is a distorted view, driven by Christian traditions of self-negation. She suggests that the demands of morality are typically in harmony with our nature and self-interest. There are times when there is delayed gratification, discipline and impulse control required, but mostly conflict between human nature and virtue is largely illusory. While discipline and foresight are essential, the idea of a fundamental conflict between human nature and virtue is largely incorrect.