Morality and genes
The issue that we may have an inbuilt disposition to morality is examined at some
length by Hauser (2006). That idea is similar to the Chomskian notion that infants have
an inbuilt disposition to the grammar of language. Under this idea is the notion that
there is an inbuilt moral grammar. Evidence for and against this notion abounds, but
we seem unable to resolve it definitively: we might also consider the evolutionary
advantages of co-operation, as outlined initially by Darwin. There the evidence does
point to advantages gained by co-operation rather than the benefits of unbridled
competition.
One of the difficulties here is that of individual variations. In extreme crises such as
volcanic eruptions, floods, pestilence, fire, and storms there are highly varied
responses. On the one hand there are those who risk their lives to help the vulnerable
and, at the same time, looters who prey upon the unfortunate by taking advantage of
the situation. The immoral opportunist behaves rather like to Kohlberg (1969) infants
whose world view is that of “I want!, Me!, and Now!”. Perhaps psychopaths are
characters whose moral neural system is still immature. If this is the case it would be
interesting to know if psychopathy ameliorates with age.
As Lord Acton rightly noted, it is a truism that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. History is replete with instances of those in power who become
corrupted by it, and act with indifference to those over whom they exercise control:
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, are only some instances of the extreme. The recent revolts in the
Arab world, where the tolerance for dictators seems to have expired, is driven by
inequality coupled with the popular denial that self appointed “rulers” have an
inalienable right to govern. Even in representative democracies the names of some
premier’s personalities have been or still are are, in many quarters, held in widespread
blame because of their behaviour, coupled with their individual belief that whatever they
did was “right”. The presidential style of government removes some of the necessary
checks and balances. For example, going to war on a premier’s decision rather than
having a parliamentary vote.