The Origin of Morality
 |
Description
Book Introduction
Why did only humans evolve morality?
A primatologist's scientific and evolutionary interpretation of the conceptual and abstract understanding of morality.
Is morality a uniquely human trait? If so, why are morality unique to humans, and how did it evolve? Drawing on extensive experiments and data comparing great apes and human children, this book reconstructs how early humans gradually became hyper-cooperative and ultimately a moral species.
It traces how morality evolved into a uniquely human sensibility through the evolutionary challenges faced by humanity.
The author of this book, Michael Tomasello, is a world-renowned primatologist and co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.
Professor Jang Dae-ik, an evolutionary biologist at Seoul National University, asked, "How was it that Sapiens, alone among apes, achieved civilization? If there's one scientist who can answer this profound question, it must be Michael Tomasello."
“No one on Earth has looked as deeply into the subtle gap between humans and other ape species as Tomasello,” he said.
A primatologist's scientific and evolutionary interpretation of the conceptual and abstract understanding of morality.
Is morality a uniquely human trait? If so, why are morality unique to humans, and how did it evolve? Drawing on extensive experiments and data comparing great apes and human children, this book reconstructs how early humans gradually became hyper-cooperative and ultimately a moral species.
It traces how morality evolved into a uniquely human sensibility through the evolutionary challenges faced by humanity.
The author of this book, Michael Tomasello, is a world-renowned primatologist and co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.
Professor Jang Dae-ik, an evolutionary biologist at Seoul National University, asked, "How was it that Sapiens, alone among apes, achieved civilization? If there's one scientist who can answer this profound question, it must be Michael Tomasello."
“No one on Earth has looked as deeply into the subtle gap between humans and other ape species as Tomasello,” he said.
- You can preview some of the book's contents.
Preview
index
Introduction: Why did only humans evolve morality? 5
Chapter 1: The Interdependence Hypothesis.11
The well-being of others for future collaboration
Chapter 2: The Evolution of Cooperation.27
Why Human Cooperation Differs from Chimpanzee Cooperation
Foundation of Cooperation.31
Cooperation among great apes. 49
Prosociality based on kinship and friendship.74
Chapter 3_ Second-Person Morality.83
"We" excludes "free riders."
Cooperation and Help.90
Co-direction.105
Second-person action.117
Joint Dedication.128
The primal 'must'.153
Chapter 4: 'Objective' Morality.165
humanity's cultural sense of right and wrong
Culture and Loyalty.171
Group orientation.180
Cultural practices.188
Moral Self-Management.206
Primal Right and Wrong. 230
Conclusion: After the Garden of Eden. 243
Chapter 5: Human Morality Beyond Cooperation. 253
The sociality inherent in morality, a uniquely human property
Theories of moral evolution.258
Shared Orientation and Morality. 268
Role in ontogeny. 285
Conclusion_ Sometimes selfish,
But in the end, it's moral. 291
Translator's Note. 302
References 307
Find.330
Chapter 1: The Interdependence Hypothesis.11
The well-being of others for future collaboration
Chapter 2: The Evolution of Cooperation.27
Why Human Cooperation Differs from Chimpanzee Cooperation
Foundation of Cooperation.31
Cooperation among great apes. 49
Prosociality based on kinship and friendship.74
Chapter 3_ Second-Person Morality.83
"We" excludes "free riders."
Cooperation and Help.90
Co-direction.105
Second-person action.117
Joint Dedication.128
The primal 'must'.153
Chapter 4: 'Objective' Morality.165
humanity's cultural sense of right and wrong
Culture and Loyalty.171
Group orientation.180
Cultural practices.188
Moral Self-Management.206
Primal Right and Wrong. 230
Conclusion: After the Garden of Eden. 243
Chapter 5: Human Morality Beyond Cooperation. 253
The sociality inherent in morality, a uniquely human property
Theories of moral evolution.258
Shared Orientation and Morality. 268
Role in ontogeny. 285
Conclusion_ Sometimes selfish,
But in the end, it's moral. 291
Translator's Note. 302
References 307
Find.330
Into the book
“The morality of empathy is the most basic.
Because concern for the well-being of others is a prerequisite for everything moral.
Empathic concern almost certainly evolved from parental child care based on kin selection.
In mammals, this care encompasses everything from providing nourishment to the young through breastfeeding (regulated by oxytocin, the mammalian “love hormone”) to protecting the young from dangers, including predators.” --- p.14
“For the fruits of morality to become a reality, individuals were needed who were more thoroughly adapted to the essential cooperative foraging task, especially the task of selecting partners from a wide pool of potential cooperators.
Above all, early human individuals had to learn to create beneficial partnerships by evaluating and selecting good cooperative partners, anticipating others' evaluations and acting in a way that would make them more likely to be selected, and managing and controlling ongoing partnerships in a generally satisfactory manner.” --- p.115
“The fair division of spoils is therefore not a question of equality of ‘material’.
It's a question of equality of respect.
That's why I'm not just disappointed that I received less than you, I'm actively resentful.
So, our shared commitment raises the stakes when it comes to sharing the spoils of our cooperative efforts.
Partners who make a joint commitment don't simply prefer that we share equally.
“Sharing equally is a responsibility to one another.” --- p.143~144
“The fundamental change that separated us from other great apes was that early human individuals became increasingly dependent on others, just as others became increasingly dependent on them to produce the resources necessary for sustaining life.
They became increasingly interdependent.
So far we have argued that the resulting moral psychology is true morality.
This is because individuals often have as their proximate goals helping others and treating them fairly, as they deserve.
This new moral attitude became a decisive force in forming a new form of rationality, namely cooperative rationality.
This cooperative rationality allowed early human individuals to understand the new cooperative world before them and make appropriate behavioral decisions about how best to navigate it.” --- p.154
“Modern humans, as competent cultural actors, have needed to create and maintain an identity.
That is, one had to become a 'person' belonging to a particular group by behaving in a conventional way, reprimanding those (including oneself) who did not behave in a conventional way, cooperating with in-group members and excluding out-group members in everything from finding food to defending the group, and generally acting in a way that showed special concern for one's in-group mates and the group as a whole." --- p.205
“Overall, it is important to recognize the complexity, and even the inevitable contradictions, that exist within human morality.
Given the complexity and unpredictability of human social life, the multiple sources and layers of human morality cannot be applied consistently to all situations.
If I feel empathy for my starving co-op partner, I might give him more than half of the loot, but that would contradict my general tendency to divide the loot equally.
"There may be a social norm against stealing someone else's food, but what if my child or friend is starving? And what about situations where different social norms apply equally? Human morality is not a monolith, but a motley construct pieced together from many different sources at different times in human evolution over millions of years, under different ecological pressures." --- p.241-243
“Morality is not a single, standardized module (whatever that means), but rather the complex result of many different processes, each with its own evolutionary history.
Human morality is the way humans interact with one another within the context of certain cognitive insights about how the world works, including acts of revenge.
Treating others as equals in dividing resources fairly, or reprimanding oneself in the same way as one reprimands others for breaking social norms, reflects a true morality that arises from an impartial perspective, a perception of oneself as equal to others with appropriate respect.” --- p.283
“Still, we are sometimes selfish.
Yes, that's right.
It is a miracle that we are moral, and we did not have to be this way.
Overall, it's just a coincidence that people who make generally more moral decisions tend to have more children.
And so, strange as it may seem (and Nietzsche notwithstanding), we should simply marvel and celebrate the fact that morality—at least so far—seems to be a good thing for our species, our culture, and ourselves.”
Because concern for the well-being of others is a prerequisite for everything moral.
Empathic concern almost certainly evolved from parental child care based on kin selection.
In mammals, this care encompasses everything from providing nourishment to the young through breastfeeding (regulated by oxytocin, the mammalian “love hormone”) to protecting the young from dangers, including predators.” --- p.14
“For the fruits of morality to become a reality, individuals were needed who were more thoroughly adapted to the essential cooperative foraging task, especially the task of selecting partners from a wide pool of potential cooperators.
Above all, early human individuals had to learn to create beneficial partnerships by evaluating and selecting good cooperative partners, anticipating others' evaluations and acting in a way that would make them more likely to be selected, and managing and controlling ongoing partnerships in a generally satisfactory manner.” --- p.115
“The fair division of spoils is therefore not a question of equality of ‘material’.
It's a question of equality of respect.
That's why I'm not just disappointed that I received less than you, I'm actively resentful.
So, our shared commitment raises the stakes when it comes to sharing the spoils of our cooperative efforts.
Partners who make a joint commitment don't simply prefer that we share equally.
“Sharing equally is a responsibility to one another.” --- p.143~144
“The fundamental change that separated us from other great apes was that early human individuals became increasingly dependent on others, just as others became increasingly dependent on them to produce the resources necessary for sustaining life.
They became increasingly interdependent.
So far we have argued that the resulting moral psychology is true morality.
This is because individuals often have as their proximate goals helping others and treating them fairly, as they deserve.
This new moral attitude became a decisive force in forming a new form of rationality, namely cooperative rationality.
This cooperative rationality allowed early human individuals to understand the new cooperative world before them and make appropriate behavioral decisions about how best to navigate it.” --- p.154
“Modern humans, as competent cultural actors, have needed to create and maintain an identity.
That is, one had to become a 'person' belonging to a particular group by behaving in a conventional way, reprimanding those (including oneself) who did not behave in a conventional way, cooperating with in-group members and excluding out-group members in everything from finding food to defending the group, and generally acting in a way that showed special concern for one's in-group mates and the group as a whole." --- p.205
“Overall, it is important to recognize the complexity, and even the inevitable contradictions, that exist within human morality.
Given the complexity and unpredictability of human social life, the multiple sources and layers of human morality cannot be applied consistently to all situations.
If I feel empathy for my starving co-op partner, I might give him more than half of the loot, but that would contradict my general tendency to divide the loot equally.
"There may be a social norm against stealing someone else's food, but what if my child or friend is starving? And what about situations where different social norms apply equally? Human morality is not a monolith, but a motley construct pieced together from many different sources at different times in human evolution over millions of years, under different ecological pressures." --- p.241-243
“Morality is not a single, standardized module (whatever that means), but rather the complex result of many different processes, each with its own evolutionary history.
Human morality is the way humans interact with one another within the context of certain cognitive insights about how the world works, including acts of revenge.
Treating others as equals in dividing resources fairly, or reprimanding oneself in the same way as one reprimands others for breaking social norms, reflects a true morality that arises from an impartial perspective, a perception of oneself as equal to others with appropriate respect.” --- p.283
“Still, we are sometimes selfish.
Yes, that's right.
It is a miracle that we are moral, and we did not have to be this way.
Overall, it's just a coincidence that people who make generally more moral decisions tend to have more children.
And so, strange as it may seem (and Nietzsche notwithstanding), we should simply marvel and celebrate the fact that morality—at least so far—seems to be a good thing for our species, our culture, and ourselves.”
--- p.301
Publisher's Review
The birth of an equal "us" born from the well-being of others
The last common ancestor of great apes and humans, who lived somewhere in Africa about 6 million years ago, led a social life.
The basic principles of that life were hierarchy and competition.
These apes acquired instrumental rationality through their social lives, and thus possessed a kind of "Machiavellian intelligence," enabling them to execute flexible strategies and even predict the mental states of their own species.
In the process, they developed feelings of empathy towards their relatives and cooperative partners.
This is the moment when the 'morality of empathy', which can be called the prototype of human morality, was born.
As time passed and ecological changes occurred about 400,000 years ago, cooperative foraging became essential.
Early humans had to hunt large game instead of tree nuts, fruits, or small mammals, competing for food with monkeys and great apes.
Now that cooperation and collaboration have become essential for survival, humans have inevitably become aware of each other and can act together by forming a multi-actor "we."
So 'we' foraged together and shared the spoils of the hunt equally as worthy partners.
A uniquely human 'morality of fairness' emerged as we shared a sense of trust, respect, responsibility, duty, and entitlement.
Now, early humans had become truly human, different from any other animal species.
No other ape lives a social life as interdependent as humans.
Early humans were interdependent and respectful, yet firm toward "free riders."
Early human collaboration was achieved by evaluating each other's cooperative tendencies when selecting potential partners.
Unlike great apes, early humans knew that others were evaluating them (and, in fact, could mimic their evaluations by reversing roles), and thus knew their value to others as partners.
This has led to the evolution of a sense of mutual respect between partners.
While eliminating free riders in the hunt, it also evolved a sense that non-free riders deserved an equal share of the spoils.
Early human individuals evolved a cooperative identity as communal actors, a "we," by treating each other as equal partners.
Early humans controlled cooperation and made joint commitments through the collective agent, 'we.'
This shared commitment ensured that both partners would remain vigilant and unfazed until they received their fair share of rewards.
If you neglected or failed to fulfill your role, you were met with polite protests demanding self-correction, and you had to comply with these requests to maintain your identity as a good partner.
This self-correction is not only due to fear of retribution, but also because this protest is justified (deserved).
In this way, early humans developed a sense of mutual dependence and respect through 'us', sometimes protesting and excluding free riders, and 'us', who were not free riders, shared the spoils and evolved a 'morality of fairness'.
Homo sapiens morality: "Right and wrong" different from "them"
The demographic changes that occurred with the emergence of Homo sapiens 150,000 years ago set the stage for the next stage of moral evolution.
At some point (at least 100,000 years ago) modern humans began living in larger, more cohesive, and tribally structured cultural groups.
This change led to a distinct group-centric thinking.
Individuals conformed to the constraints of the group because they realized that they depended more on the group than the group depended on them.
Members of the group were particularly sympathetic and loyal to one another, but uncooperative and distrustful of all outgroup barbarians.
Modern humanity now finds itself in a situation where groups clash with each other and compete for resources and territory.
A distinction was made between 'us' and their competitors, 'them', and to make that distinction, a cultural identity needed to be created.
As the norms of 'right and wrong' were culturally created and objectified, a 'morality of justice' emerged that systematized fairness.
Through this process, contemporary humanity came to possess not only a reciprocal morality among individuals, but also a group-centered, 'objective' morality that bound individuals together as members of a community.
Tomasello, drawing on the achievements of primatology, relentlessly pursues this process through a series of comparative experiments involving great apes, including chimpanzees and bonobos (in their natural and semi-natural states) and human children around the age of three.
By piecing together the results of experiments on primates and children conducted around the world, starting with his own lab, he tests his hypotheses and finds answers.
The process of meticulously tracing the various aspects of human moral psychology through various experiments that focus only on variables such as food and cooperation, while excluding all other conditions, is fascinating in itself.
The upright monkey and the moral being
Tomasello believes that we, the modern human race, are beings with a layer of moral psychology acquired at each stage of this evolutionary process.
The primitive 'morality of empathy', the more complex 'morality of fairness', and even the 'morality of justice' are all coiled up within us, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in harmony, and as a result, we engage in certain moral or immoral actions.
This evolutionary process is similarly repeated in ontogeny.
Although the three morals emerged at different stages of evolution, the morals of later stages are not necessarily more important or superior.
The central aim of this book is to explain, particularly from an evolutionary perspective, how the human species, unlike the great apes, developed a truly human morality.
This book does not provide answers to the various moral dilemmas that modern society presents.
But the fact that humans are not only upright apes but also capable of a new kind of cooperation unlike any other animal species, and that this is how morality arose, provides an opportunity to examine ourselves as moral beings.
The last common ancestor of great apes and humans, who lived somewhere in Africa about 6 million years ago, led a social life.
The basic principles of that life were hierarchy and competition.
These apes acquired instrumental rationality through their social lives, and thus possessed a kind of "Machiavellian intelligence," enabling them to execute flexible strategies and even predict the mental states of their own species.
In the process, they developed feelings of empathy towards their relatives and cooperative partners.
This is the moment when the 'morality of empathy', which can be called the prototype of human morality, was born.
As time passed and ecological changes occurred about 400,000 years ago, cooperative foraging became essential.
Early humans had to hunt large game instead of tree nuts, fruits, or small mammals, competing for food with monkeys and great apes.
Now that cooperation and collaboration have become essential for survival, humans have inevitably become aware of each other and can act together by forming a multi-actor "we."
So 'we' foraged together and shared the spoils of the hunt equally as worthy partners.
A uniquely human 'morality of fairness' emerged as we shared a sense of trust, respect, responsibility, duty, and entitlement.
Now, early humans had become truly human, different from any other animal species.
No other ape lives a social life as interdependent as humans.
Early humans were interdependent and respectful, yet firm toward "free riders."
Early human collaboration was achieved by evaluating each other's cooperative tendencies when selecting potential partners.
Unlike great apes, early humans knew that others were evaluating them (and, in fact, could mimic their evaluations by reversing roles), and thus knew their value to others as partners.
This has led to the evolution of a sense of mutual respect between partners.
While eliminating free riders in the hunt, it also evolved a sense that non-free riders deserved an equal share of the spoils.
Early human individuals evolved a cooperative identity as communal actors, a "we," by treating each other as equal partners.
Early humans controlled cooperation and made joint commitments through the collective agent, 'we.'
This shared commitment ensured that both partners would remain vigilant and unfazed until they received their fair share of rewards.
If you neglected or failed to fulfill your role, you were met with polite protests demanding self-correction, and you had to comply with these requests to maintain your identity as a good partner.
This self-correction is not only due to fear of retribution, but also because this protest is justified (deserved).
In this way, early humans developed a sense of mutual dependence and respect through 'us', sometimes protesting and excluding free riders, and 'us', who were not free riders, shared the spoils and evolved a 'morality of fairness'.
Homo sapiens morality: "Right and wrong" different from "them"
The demographic changes that occurred with the emergence of Homo sapiens 150,000 years ago set the stage for the next stage of moral evolution.
At some point (at least 100,000 years ago) modern humans began living in larger, more cohesive, and tribally structured cultural groups.
This change led to a distinct group-centric thinking.
Individuals conformed to the constraints of the group because they realized that they depended more on the group than the group depended on them.
Members of the group were particularly sympathetic and loyal to one another, but uncooperative and distrustful of all outgroup barbarians.
Modern humanity now finds itself in a situation where groups clash with each other and compete for resources and territory.
A distinction was made between 'us' and their competitors, 'them', and to make that distinction, a cultural identity needed to be created.
As the norms of 'right and wrong' were culturally created and objectified, a 'morality of justice' emerged that systematized fairness.
Through this process, contemporary humanity came to possess not only a reciprocal morality among individuals, but also a group-centered, 'objective' morality that bound individuals together as members of a community.
Tomasello, drawing on the achievements of primatology, relentlessly pursues this process through a series of comparative experiments involving great apes, including chimpanzees and bonobos (in their natural and semi-natural states) and human children around the age of three.
By piecing together the results of experiments on primates and children conducted around the world, starting with his own lab, he tests his hypotheses and finds answers.
The process of meticulously tracing the various aspects of human moral psychology through various experiments that focus only on variables such as food and cooperation, while excluding all other conditions, is fascinating in itself.
The upright monkey and the moral being
Tomasello believes that we, the modern human race, are beings with a layer of moral psychology acquired at each stage of this evolutionary process.
The primitive 'morality of empathy', the more complex 'morality of fairness', and even the 'morality of justice' are all coiled up within us, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in harmony, and as a result, we engage in certain moral or immoral actions.
This evolutionary process is similarly repeated in ontogeny.
Although the three morals emerged at different stages of evolution, the morals of later stages are not necessarily more important or superior.
The central aim of this book is to explain, particularly from an evolutionary perspective, how the human species, unlike the great apes, developed a truly human morality.
This book does not provide answers to the various moral dilemmas that modern society presents.
But the fact that humans are not only upright apes but also capable of a new kind of cooperation unlike any other animal species, and that this is how morality arose, provides an opportunity to examine ourselves as moral beings.
GOODS SPECIFICS
- Date of publication: August 13, 2018
- Page count, weight, size: 336 pages | 498g | 140*215*30mm
- ISBN13: 9791189143015
- ISBN10: 1189143011
You may also like
카테고리
korean
korean
![ELLE 엘르 스페셜 에디션 A형 : 12월 [2025]](http://librairie.coreenne.fr/cdn/shop/files/b8e27a3de6c9538896439686c6b0e8fb.jpg?v=1766436872&width=3840)
