Why humans are not naturally nasty and more likely to be kind than cruel
By Julian Gavaghan
Study 'debunks myth' that morality is modern idea
It was long assumed prehistoric man was brutish and – away from this state of nature - his modern equivalent had only a veneer of morality.
Yet new research show that we are actually more likely to be kind than cruel - and claims to debunk the myth that we have evolved into aggressively competitive beings.
‘Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies,’ said Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta.
He claims that research shows that there is a biological basis for cooperative behaviour because otherwise it would be much harder to reproduce and pass on our genes.
Dr de Waal said his research disproved the view espoused by 19th century biologist Thomas Henry Huxley that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans.
He also said common assumptions that this view was promoted by Charles Darwin were also wrong, he said.
The father of social evolution theory wrote that animals that developed ‘well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience’.
At a meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, Dr de Waal showed the audience a series of videos of how animals in nature can have empathy.
One revealed a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap.
Such research shows that animals are prone to ‘reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation,’ Dr de Waal told Discovery.com.
‘Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.’
However, he admitted that our softer sides are unlikely to come out in a big world full of competition.
‘Morality’ developed in humans in small communities, added the author of The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society.
‘It's a challenge... it's experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk//science...humans-naturally-nasty-likely-kind-cruel.html
By Julian Gavaghan
Study 'debunks myth' that morality is modern idea
It was long assumed prehistoric man was brutish and – away from this state of nature - his modern equivalent had only a veneer of morality.
Yet new research show that we are actually more likely to be kind than cruel - and claims to debunk the myth that we have evolved into aggressively competitive beings.
‘Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies,’ said Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta.
He claims that research shows that there is a biological basis for cooperative behaviour because otherwise it would be much harder to reproduce and pass on our genes.
Dr de Waal said his research disproved the view espoused by 19th century biologist Thomas Henry Huxley that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans.
He also said common assumptions that this view was promoted by Charles Darwin were also wrong, he said.
The father of social evolution theory wrote that animals that developed ‘well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience’.
At a meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, Dr de Waal showed the audience a series of videos of how animals in nature can have empathy.
One revealed a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap.
Such research shows that animals are prone to ‘reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation,’ Dr de Waal told Discovery.com.
‘Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.’
However, he admitted that our softer sides are unlikely to come out in a big world full of competition.
‘Morality’ developed in humans in small communities, added the author of The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society.
‘It's a challenge... it's experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk//science...humans-naturally-nasty-likely-kind-cruel.html
