 so that could make the difference on that question. As for the revenge question, again, there were a number of males that put higher on that question than what would be expected. <BR>Robert Wright makes the arugment throughout The Moral Animal of the Male?s place in the ?ancestral environment?, and assuming his assumptions about gender roles are correct, the inflated scores by the males is to be expected. Also, even among the Gombe chimpanzees, it was the males who went to ?war? to defend the tribe.<BR>?Male ?Female<BR>5.8 6.2 1.2 1.2 7 8.4 3 3.6 15-17<BR>8.4 6.6 6.6 1.3 5 7.7 2 2.2 18 <BR>7.9 8.7 1.8 1.4 4.2 6.5 1.1 2 19<BR>6.9 7.5 1.6 1.1 6.8 8.4 2.5 2.5 20 <BR>8.3 9.5 1.5 1 4.5 7.8 2.5 4.3 21 <BR>6.4 7.6 1.1 1 8.4 8.3 1.1 2.6 22+<P>The breakdown by age unfortunatly does not yield to many startling revelations. There seems to be no ordered progression in age in regards to the questions. Respondents in their upper 40?s did not respond drastically different than a college-age student. There are some interesting results to note, however:<BR>? With the exception of the 18 year olds (who apparantly need all the money they can get) every age category is more likely to take money from the sidewalk than to take it when offered fully freewill. <BR>? 18 year olds are much more likely to steal money from people?s homes. 18 year olds are traditionally in a place between high school and college (or in the first year of college.) Since the responding body was mostly college students, this is a safe conclusion to make. The point could be made that college students are in a unique place where means for survival (food, shelter, etc) are more easily available. However, 18 year olds are most likely still making the transition and are on their own for their first time, and thus are more likely to put aside social controls in order to gain resources necessary for survival.<BR>? On the other hand, 18 year olds are the least likely to kill someone for money. The top group for this is the 15-17 year old group, who under our criminal justice system can still be charged as minors and thus have at least a little less to fear than any of the other groups.<P><img src=)
Abstract
Are humans truly moral beings, or were it not for social controls, would humans act in their own benefit? 50 surveys were distributed to people on and around campus, as well as surveying people online, in order to investigate this question. The survey posed a variety of hypothetical situations, half having to do with acquisition of resources (money) and the other half having to do with taking the life of another for a variety of reasons. The survey was meant to determine how likely people are to do actions that are deemed by society as morally ?wrong?, under what circumstances they would do so, and if any inferences can be made from this regarding actions that people are inherently predisposed to do.
Introduction
The concept of evil exists in every culture. What is evil? Where does our definition of evil come from? More specifically, is morality socially constructed, or is it rooted in biological evolution? These questions have profound significance for our society. If morality and one?s definition of evil are purely cultural, then there can be no absolute morality: all moral situations would depend on their context. If, on the other hand, there is a biological basis for morality, then it would be possible to determine universal moral guidelines.
Originally, my research project was on the ?Seven Deadly Sins.? Several assumptions were made: First, that the Christian ?Seven Deadly Sins? were fairly representative of qualities considered ?morally wrong? by the majority of cultures; and secondly, that these ?sins? in fact are ?right? evolutionarily. The poster topic was on this subject, in which I and my then partner explained how all the sins, with the exception of sloth, are beneficial evolutionarily. However, we ran into the question of what conclusions we could draw from this. It?s obvious that, accepting the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm, six of the ?Seven Deadly Sins? are beneficial qualities. So we re-examined the issues, and decided that the reason these were Deadly Sins, and that the reason we do not encourage such qualities, is because of social controls. So then we took a step back and decided to reexamine our assumptions, so as to test a fundamental part of Evolutionary Psychology.
Thus, we decided to test to see if humans were naturally inclined to commit acts that benefit themselves, but are socially unacceptable to various levels. From this, we also had to examine the fact that certain actions, while usually socially unacceptable, can be acceptable by society in certain circumstances, even such normally abhorrent actions as murder. So the train of thought was as follows: if people are willing to undertake actions that are personally beneficial, and the only time they do not wish to take them is in socially unacceptable situations, a survey that poses hypothetical situations but changes the social context should provide insight into whether there is an inherent basis for this. To take a further step, one could say that if people are naturally inclined to commit murder and to steal, humans as a whole are naturally inclined towards acts that our society deems ?evil.? The only reason that such acts are not rampant is because of the social context.
The main hypothesis is that were it not for social controls, people would commit acts that our contemporary society deems as morally wrong. Committing such acts is inherent to human beings? nature, as evolutionary psychology says about humans in the ancestral environment. If evolutionary psychology is correct, the only reason that people do not act with what is in their own interests (for survival and everything that goes with it) is because of the social context that we have created for ourselves.
Methods
The first step was to generate a survey that could test the hypothesis. The eventual survey ended up being as follows:
Age: _____ Sex: M F
On a scale of one to ten, where 1 is extremely unlikely and 10 is extremely likely, rate how likely you would be to do the following:
1. How likely would you be to take money:
-that is offered to you freewill? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-that you find on a sidewalk? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-from someone?s home? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-by threatening an individual? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. How likely would you be to kill someone:
-as a soldier in combat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-in self-defense if there was no alternative? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-for money? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-for revenge? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aside from the base hypothesis, this survey enabled correlations to be made between sex, age, and the survey results. After generating the survey, I then printed out physical copies and also generated the HTML in order to post the survey online as an interactive web page. (The online survey can still be seen at http://foodmage.tripod.com/survey.html) I distributed the physical surveys to people around campus, and also to people at where I work in the Registrar?s office. I also distributed the website URL as best as I could via contacting people via AOL Instant Messenger and telling them to complete the survey and to tell their contacts to complete the survey. After 50 surveys were received (in combination of physical surveys and online participants), the data was collected and assembled into an Excel document. Statistical analysis was conducted within Excel, including mean, median, and mode analyses. The data was analyzed both by sex and by age grouping. The final data was then correlated into easy to read charts and graphs. Further data analysis was conducted using the program StatView.
I feel the mixture of physical surveys and online distribution is important. The online portion allows for easier spread of all age categories and regions, among other factors. The online survey is less restrictive in terms of those surveyed. However, there is a (perceived) tendency for online respondants to be less than serious with surveys. Thus, the physical survey distribution was important as well to get a greater mix of answers, as well as getting accurate answers.
Results
The overall averages are as follows:
Question 1: 7
This question was asking how likely one would be to take money that is offered freewill. Feedback from the surveyed indicated that many people believed that they would wonder what ?strings? were attached, in other words, what social factors went into the offering of the money. The most common response for this question was 10.
Question 2: 7.7
People, on average, are more likely to take money found on the sidewalk than money that is given to them. The important thing to note is that money found lying on the sidewalk probably did not get there by owner?s choice. Because there is little that can be done to punish someone who takes money from the sidewalk, even though it would be more ethical to try to find the rightful owner, people are more likely to take the money than when it is completely and freely offered. The most common response for this question was 10.
Question 3: 1
This question asked about stealing money from someone?s home. This sort of action is easily traced back to an individual, and is socially unacceptable and carries consequences. The most common response for this question was 1.
Question 4: 1
This question is about threatening an individual to get money. Because there is always at least one witness to this, this action definitely caries direct social consequences. The most common response was 1.
Question 5: 6
This question asked how likely an individual would be to kill someone as a soldier in combat. While people were generally willing to do so, some respondents said that they were opposed to being a soldier. So while there was little objection to killing, the circumstances are what made the difference. The most common response was 1, which can most likely be attributed to objection to military service. It also was not an overwhelming response.
Question 6: 8
This question asked about killing someone in self-defense. This is important because this is a situation that directly impacts personal survival. While 8 is very high, it is interesting to note that it was not a perfect 10. Even when confronted with such an extreme situation, many people still listed responses in the middle (around 5) The most common response was 10.
Question 7: 2
This question asked about killing someone for money. While this represents killing to gain resources, the expected response was fairly low, and it turned out that way. Resources, while important, are apparently not enough of a motivating factor to drive most people to kill. The most common response was 1.
Question 8: 3
This question asked about killing for the sole reason of revenge. This is probably the most interesting result. People are more likely to kill out of entirely personal reasons (revenge) than for resources. This could have something to do with the fact that several people, whether out of seriousness or overstatement, gave this answer as a 10 while the majority gave it a low score. Regardless, it is still important to note this result The most common response was 1.
Conclusion
When money is found on the street, people on average will take it. Even though this could have reprecussions- the money belongs to someone else who needed it for rent for example- people are still very likely to take it. Attach a social element to this, however, and it becomes less likely. Questions start to be asked like ?Are there strings attached?? Social concerns- repayment being the least of the worries in this case- set in. Finding money on the street, whether morally right or wrong (by our society?s standards) seems to be unimportant. If the money belongs to someone else, is this not stealing? Yet, the suvery indicates that, except for the 18 year olds, people are unlikely to do so. Why? After being in someone?s house, it is probably easy to trace who had taken the money. Even if there are no criminal charges, there is still the social stigma. So why is stealing from someone who accidentally lost their grocery money different? Is our moral system based around not having to attach a face to it? Threatening someone to get money is the same way, though in that case, there are direct and immediate consequences. If we were in a society where one could easily threaten someone to get their money, then never have to see them again and not have any possibility of criminal charges, I wonder if the results would be the same.
Then we move on to one of the most heinous crimes in our society: murder. Yet even then, there are exceptions. In the military, one is expected to, even praised for, mass murder. While there are plenty that denounce the military, there are still plenty who would not hesitate to kill in combat as a soldier. Taking the life of another is the same action no matter where it is done, so what makes it morally right here? The answer, of course, is society. The need for a society to eliminate potential threats overrides the need to suppress this action. Essentially, society tells us to eliminate our foes from other societies, but not within our own society. Even then, however, there are exceptions. If it is in self-defense with no alternative, then it is acceptable to kill someone else. In a grand scheme, both lives are equal. However, because evolution is a process geared towards personal survival and/or gene survival, this is the case where our society has evolved based on evolutionary grounds. Personal survival overwrites any other socially constructed moral imperative.
However, then there is the question of killing out of revenge. This was the most surprising part of the survey, in which the average indicated that people are equally or more likely to kill out of revenge than for money. While money is the modern day resource for survival, the question did not state specifically that the money was essential for survival. So while this may be a factor, the question still remains of why the average was a 3 for killing out of revenge. From the responses of some of the respondents, it was clear that they interpreted the question to be an extreme situation where the revenge could not be something simple like damaging someone?s car out of revenge- this is the extreme case where murder is an option due to the grevious circumstances surrounding it. This is very telling, that murder out of completely personal reasons, while not acceptable society (hence why the number was on the low side), is still a possibility and that the potential exists. When one is pushed far enough, it gets to the point where murder is the option. Were it not for the social controls surrounding it, I have no doubt that murder out of revenge would be more common than it already is.
I found the survey to be fairly effective in answering the hypothesis, with still plenty of room for interpretation, especially if the sample size were to be increased to include a broader range of people. If such acts truly are inherent in human nature, it should be universal with the only differences being the social and cultural context with which such things are dealt with. So if the survey were to be given to, say, China, the questions would have to be adjusted because of their different social context.
A weakness of this process, however, is that this is all based off of a survey. There is no way to tell how accurate people?s answers were, and there really is no way to predict what one would do in an extreme circumstance and condense that into a survey response. Were I to have unlimited funds and access, it would have been very beneficial to set up an experiment that really tested what people would do in the situations. However, for the questions of self-defense and revenge, barring astounding technological advancement, these are questions that could only be answered by research into those who have already been in those situations. There is a lot of room for expanding on this hypothesis, however, for initial findings, the survey proved to be quite useful and quite telling.
Works Cited
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ETHICS.html
http://www.dieoff.com/page95.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/weikart181.htm
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthMizz.htm
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthByro.htm
http://www.spectacle.org/995/gandhi.html
http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/chrismac/phd/on-line.html
Anders, Timothy. The Evolution of Evil. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1994.
Daly, Martin and Maro Wilson. "Killing the Competition: Female/Female and Male/Male Homicide," Human Nature 1:81-107, 1990.
Hurd, James P. Investigating the Biological Foundations of Human Morality. Lampeter, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1996.
Paradis, James, and George C. Williams. Evolution and Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Rottschaefer, William A. The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Singer, Peter. Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Stent, Gunther S. Morality as a Biological Phenomenon. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.
Wawrytko, Sandra A. The Problem of Evil. Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 2000.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or