Are We Moral Animals?

When I was having a conversation with my friend Paul this last month, I was telling him the different classes that I was taking this semester. I started talking about the class Human Nature and Human Value. My friend replied by saying, "Neither of which are true." Paul brought up an interesting point. Is there such a thing as Human Nature, or Human Values? Do we have those values because they are from our animal ancestors, or did we create them for our own purposes? After reading Robert Wright's book, The Moral Animal, I have to agree with Wright when he says that there are reasons for a code of morality. Human beings have generated morality. We will see how this statement is true by looking at the different chapters and see how the argument is developed throughout the book. And keeping score for Wright and my friend Paul.

Wright breaks his book down into three different parts. The first part is labeled Sex, Romance, and Love. The chapters deal with a lot of different versions of these three, but mostly it is about Sex. Starting with chapter one, Wright is mainly discussing Darwin's life. It is kind of a biography of Darwin. Wright begins by describing Victorian England (the time frame that Darwin grew up in). This sets the ground for discussion in a good part of this book. Dealing with sex, Victorian England was very strict when it came to sex. Women were very encouraged to be chaste until they were married, and men were also supposed to be (for the most part). When they were married, women were expected to stay with her husband, and the man was somewhat allowed to go of if it was with a prostitute. Not a lot, but if they did, it was not a very big deal. This theory was thought as good, because the male would be able to go out and act out his genes of having as much sex as possible, but this will not detour his resources away from his wife or his children. The wife still has the man there to provide for her, and he will not run away, or divorce her, because he would not leave her for a prostitute. So everything works out in the end. This is a double standard, and we have to ask ourselves, is this moral? Well, the man will stick by his wife, and will continue to provide for her. Also a good majority of the males didn't run off. So you can say that it is somewhat moral. We have decided to separate women, and keep a good majority of them as good as possible. This separation is called the Madonna-Whore dichotomy. Most women are Madonna's, and a few of them are the whores. So how does this separation relate to morality? Well, men and women put a value on women being chaste, and put a high morality on them. So we have put a morality on sex, and how we perceive people in different ways. Humans created this. A separation of how we perceive sex. We created a moral code dealing with sex when talking about Madonna's or whores. So this is one point for Wright, and none for my friend Paul.

Have you ever wondered why a male always has to try and woo the women? It's strange, but sometimes is fun to watch. You see this poor guy, who is star-struck by this female, and he is just trying his hardest to just get a date with her. She of course is not that interested, because if she turns down this one, another is soon to be around to try and woo her. Wright says that Darwin was wrong about sex. However, he also says that he was right about a few things, specifically that males being the wooers, and females being the choosers. Since this has happened since the beginning of time, males have developed to what the females choose, and the females have developed or evolved into what the males are going after. So women have created tall, strong, aggressive men. Men have created the hourglass shaped female. Now why are males aggressive, and females coy? This is what Wright says Darwin was wrong about. Wright says that the reason males and females developed that way is because of investment. Females can only reproduce about once a year. However, males can reproduce, theoretically, hundreds or even thousands of times a year. So males have a lot less investment when it comes to having children. Females must be careful not to have sex with just anyone. She might get stuck with bad genes. She must make her decision carefully, so when her genes are passed on, it is with a male that has good genes. Males on the other hand, can have as much sex as possible and not worry about it. This is how it works in most species. Wright ends this chapter with a thought that maybe females and males from our ancestors have converged our sexual appetites to make monogamous marriage a reasonable goal. Maybe, and we will see that this is true, because humans are different from all other animals.

In chapter two, it was titled, 'Males and Females' as a general statement for all animals. Now in chapter three, Wright has called it 'Men and Women', because we will be focusing on human beings. The main difference between males in general, and men, is Male Parental Investment, or MPI. MPI is something that has developed in the human male, and has changed the ideas of sexual aggression. MPI is very high in humans. Why is this the case? There are a few different reasons for this. The first reason is the possibility of cultural programming. Our culture has told us that males need to invest into their offspring. The second reason is the vulnerability of the offspring in humans. In most species offspring are usually able to walk within hours after being born, for human, it is much longer. The third and final reason is the fact that the cost of MPI is lower. It is easier for us to provide for our offspring and wives in human culture than it is for a monkey to provide for his offspring. So again we have developed a higher morality when it comes to sex, and to our offspring. So now that's two points for Wright, and still none for Paul.

We've decided that men and women can have a monogamous relationship together. So now we need to look at the subject of marriage. That is what Wright does in chapter four, The Marriage Market. We see that with marriage there is compromise. The only way for a monogamous relationship will last is to have compromise. However, how did we get to monogamy? For the most part men have ruled this world, and yet polygamy is not the practice used in human cultures. Why is this? Wouldn't polygamy be the best route for the males? The answer, surprisingly, is no. Now why is polygamy bad for men, and yes is actually good for women? Wright tries to give us the reason why. Let's say there are 100 males, and 100 females, each in order of rank, and are married to the person who is of equal rank. Now in monogamy, each person gets a female, and one of equal value. However, lets say polygamy is practiced, and lets say male number 34 wanted another female. So female 48 goes up and is married to number 34 as well. Now, that female goes up in rank, and then each female that is below number 48, will move up in rank. So now, each female below 48 will get a better male, and each male below 48 will get a lesser female, and the last male will not get one at all. Even though this is a hypothetical situation, because females and males are not exactly like this. We can see that in the long run, and the short run for that matter, females benefit and males will be hurt. The male that gets more than one wife will benefit obviously, but that one improving hurts all of the other males. On the female side that one female that moves up, will benefit a good majority of other females, and hurt none of them. This is the reason we have monogamy and not polygamy. We view this practice as moral. We have created a system that other animals do not practice. Just like Wright says, we have created this moral code for a reason. What is that reason? It is better to have monogamy than polygamy to increase the diversity of the species. So Wright now has three points, and Paul has zero.

Now, I know most of you are saying "but we don't rank people when dating." This is true. However, if you look closer we do in a way. Males of a certain social class and attractiveness tend to marry a female of the same social class and attractiveness. While this is not always the case, for the majority of us, it is. You don't see a wealthy Ivy League graduate marrying a farm girl with no college education that often, it just doesn't happen.

The idea of a monogamous relationship, and the first chapter talking about Victorian England, gives us a glance at what Wright will discuss in chapter five, Darwin's Marriage. In Victorian England, the average number of divorces, per year, was around four. This is an amazing number when you think about it. In our current society, over half of all marriages result in divorce. Only 150 years ago, there were only four divorces per year in England. Why was it like that? Well, divorce back then literally took an act of parliament, as Wright tells us. Does this mean that there were a lot of miserable people out there in a bad marriage? Maybe, but think of the pain and suffering that we have caused in our own society with the separation of marriage. Well, we will take a look at Darwin's marriage, and how he decided on Emma. Then will also be looking at why he stayed with her in the next chapters. Emma was not Darwin's first choice of mate. While he was on the Beagle (a ship that he took a five year trip on to study), his sister's wrote him about different females that they thought would suit Darwin quite well. One of the females, Emma's sister, got engaged while Darwin was away on the Beagle. Then there was Fanny Owen, who also got married while Darwin was away (so the moral of this story is if you want a female, don't go off on a five-year trip away from them). Then, out of the two left, Emma and Fanny Wedgewood, Darwin's sister gave the nod to Fanny. However, she died within a month after the letter was written. All that was left was Emma. Not to say that he did not love Emma, he did, but it was not his first choice. Why are we going through all of this about Darwin you may ask? Well, he is an example of all the different men in that time period, that were looking at different women to get married. Why were men so easily dragged to the altar in those days? Well, I believe that Wright sums it up well when he says "if it is harder to drag men to the altar today than it used to be, one reason is that they don't have to stop there on the way to the bedroom." This is an excellent point at how different the Victorian society is from our current society. Women were not as free as they are now. So back then, and still to some effect today, we have put a high morality on marriage, and a high value of it as well. So again, the moral animal, created marriage for the good of humanity. The question of keeping that together is another story all together.

In chapter six, Wright explains the Darwin plan for marital bliss. Basically, we could spend a lot of time explaining in detail the different steps, but instead I will just briefly talk about them. The first step to a happy marriage is a chaste courtship. Like Wright says, now men don't have to stop at the altar to get to the bedroom. This must change. The second step is to marry an angel. I think that this is what all men would like. However, with an angel, she is a lot easier to live with then someone who is not. The third step is to move to the country. This keeps him away from other females. What he can't see, he can't cheat with. The fourth step is to have a lot of kids, tons of them. This will keep him at home more, and make sure that he provides for them. And the final step is to fall into illness. This illness will make the male less attractive to other females. Now would all males like to do this? Well, it seemed to work for Darwin. However, this is not going to happen for a good majority of people. So what can we do? Well, that is where the moral codes come in. This chapter really helps out Wright thought on why humans have created a moral code. First of all, we have created a moral code against affairs. This is something that has been created by man. Also, it is morally wrong to leave your wife for no reason, or for any reason at all. So again, humans created this. What we have done is created an entire moral code just for marriage. So again, Wright gets another point (four I believe) and Paul is still at zero.

The final chapter we will be looking at is the chapter on Families. This is the start of the second part of Wright's book called Social Cement. Looking at families, we will look at the different behaviors of the males and females. With females, they look for a man with resources and good genes. They want someone that will put his resources into the family, and to raising the children and providing for them. However, they also want good genes so the children can survive and pass on the next generation of genes. So the females must look for both. Males on the other hand look for beauty. Now this is not bad, because the reason they look for that is it is a sign of fertility. A younger, more attractive woman looks like she would be a lot better at having more children. However, after a while the females lose attractiveness, and the males are no longer attracted to them. This problem can lead to a few other problems. It can lead to divorce, or it can also lead to affairs. Wright brings up a solution, Polygamy. Why would this system work? When a man is no longer attracted to the one female, he can just marry another one. Now, the female may lose some of the resources that the man was giving her, but she didn't lose all of them. This is where a man who has enough resources to marry two women should because he is more likely to stay with his wives. However, since that won't happen, we need to look at other options. We can have legal sanctions, like stricter rules on divorce, or allow affairs. Kind of like the Victorian era. A lot of men had affairs, but they didn't move any of their resources away from the wives and children. However, we still see a problem here.

There are actually a lot of problems when it comes to monogamy. Monogamy causes tension within the society. In most animal species, those who are monogamous usually separate themselves from others, while polygamous species are very social. In human societies, we are highly social, yet monogamous. So this causes tensions on the society. So what happens, we get a socially imposed monogamy. How does this relate to the moral animal? Well, as Wright stated right away, we have a reason for a moral code. The reason we have a moral code for monogamy is to keep our society on the move, and to end as much tension as possible. What we have looked at in this book is that we are animals. However, we are moral animals. We have created a lot of different moral codes for the well being of ourselves as well as the well being of our genes and our society. So if we look at my friend's statement that neither human nature nor human values exist, we have to take a different look at it. At first glance it may seem that we just are animals, but in the long run, we see that by nature, we are moral animals.