Lockean Monkeys

Locke was closer to the truth than Hobbes.  That is not a surprising sentiment coming from an American; even less so coming from an American patriot.  The United States is a Lockean regime.  It was founded on principles derived explicitly from Locke’s political thought and more or less explicitly on a rejection of Hobbes’ account of politics.  I would argue, however, that modern biopolitical research is backing up John more than Thomas. 

Both Hobbes and Locke began with the early modern assumption that human beings are by nature individual animals and that human society is largely an historical artifact.  All our instincts, in so far as we have any, are those of a creature as naturally asocial as a bear.  Human social life is as artificial as umbrella: it is something we cobbled together to meet our needs.  This is a mistake.  We were social long before we were genuinely human. 

Hobbes supposed that we were and remain perfectly amoral and selfish in our motivations.  What makes us dangerous to one another, when we come together in social groups, is precisely that selfishness combined with a distrust of one another.  Government is necessary to force us to suppress these selfish mutually hostile inclinations and cooperate with one another.

Locke recognized that we also possessed a sense of justice.  When someone transgresses on my rights I am offended.  I am offended even when I observe some transgressing against a third party in a case where my own interests are not involved.  It is this sense of righteous indignation that makes us most dangerous to one another.  We may pursue retribution beyond any selfish interest and, if the perceived offender believes he is the one who has been wronged, we become locked in a cycle of retribution.  That is what necessitates the formation of governments.  Only by turning over such disputes to an arbitrator can we resolve them without perpetual war. 

This question, whether pure selfishness is the motivation or whether there is a moral or proto-moral motivation has been playing out in primate studies.  I have been digesting a lot of research on capuchin monkeys.  Brown capuchins are “known to engage in rich cooperative behaviors… and more consistently exhibit other-regarding tendencies in donation tasks than chimpanzees.”  That is, in experiments where one individual must cooperate with another to reap a reward (food), capuchins seem more concerned with what the other partner is getting or not getting. 

In experiments modeled on the ultimate game, the capuchin subject must decide whether to pull a lever that will distribute food to herself and a conspecific partner.  When the distribution is unequal-the subject receives less food or a lower value food, the subject will often refuse the distribution.  At first glance, the subject appears to be acting out of sense of fairness.  If I can’t get what’s coming to me, then no one gets anything.  But is this right?

The subject may be motivated by inequity aversion, a distaste for unfair distributions.  Let us call that the Lockean motive.  However, a lot of research indicates that the real motive may be simple frustration.  The subject wants the greater share or the better reward and rejects the distribution because of a frustrated desire.  Let us call that the Hobbesian motive. 

Capuchin researchers have parted along the Lockean/Hobbesian divide.  Franz de Waal and his associates began the argument with a series of studies that pushed the Lockean interpretation.  In response, other researchers made the case for the Hobbesian-frustration interpretation.  I thought that the balance was tilting against the Lockean side until today. 

Kristin L. Leimgruber et. al., have a report in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior [37 (2016) 236-244] that tells for the Lockean view: “Capuchin monkeys punish those who have more.”  Here is the abstract:

Punishment of non-cooperators is important for the maintenance of large-scale cooperation in humans, but relatively little is known about the relationship between punishment and cooperation across phylogeny. The current study examined second-party punishment behavior in a nonhuman primate species known for its cooperative tendencies—the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella). We found that capuchins consistently punished a conspecific partner who gained possession of a food resource, regardless of whether the unequal distribution of this resource was intentional on the part of the partner. A non-social comparison confirmed that punishment behavior was not due to frustration, nor did punishment stem from increased emotional arousal. Instead, punishment behavior in capuchins appears to be decidedly social in nature, as monkeys only pursued punitive actions when such actions directly decreased the welfare of a recently endowed conspecific. This pattern of results is consistent with two features central to human cooperation: spite and inequity aversion, suggesting that the evolutionary origins of some human-like punitive tendencies may extend even deeper than previously thought.

These findings present a decidedly Lockean monkey.  It isn’t just that I, capuchin that I am, am not getting what I want.  It’s that the other hairy fellow is getting more, dammit.  

Capuchin monkeys are more distantly related to John Locke than chimpanzees.  Spite and inequity aversion are part of our emotional pallet that go beyond self-interest.  A purely selfish individual doesn’t care what others get; she only cares what she gets.  An animal who is genuinely offended when a distribution is unfair is a moral animal.

I think it is clear that human beings are Lockean animals.  If capuchin monkeys are as well, that suggests that morality is older than we are.  As the trajectory of evolution pushed into primate design space, it opened up the dimension of genuine moral consciousness. 

A History of Violence

Two perennial and obviously closely related questions in the biosocial sciences are whether human beings are violent by nature and whether our close relatives among the great apes are violent by nature.  It is obvious that human beings and chimpanzees display violent behavior in fact, both within groups (politics) and between groups (war).  For those inclined to believe that such violence is not the produce of evolution but instead a result of unnatural environmental factors (which is to say, factors that did not constitute substantial selection pressures during their evolution), there are a number of available arguments. 

One is that the last twelve thousand years have seen the rise of social conditions among human beings that are very different from those in which any primate ever lived before.  Large surpluses and the social stratification that was made possible by those surpluses gave human beings something to fight about.  That is the most plausible case for the thesis that violence is accidental rather than natural to our species.  It flies in the face of evidence that human beings were more violent in hunter-gatherer societies that approximate the environment of evolutionary adaptation. 

A second argument is that human beings are largely responsible for chimpanzee violence.  Humans have put enormous stress on chimpanzees (by restricting their foraging ranges, etc.) and this, not their nature, is to blame.  For a third argument, one may look to our other cousins, the bonobos.  These animals do not fight wars, organize hunts, or display much interpersonal violence in their groups. 

To make the bonobo argument plausible, one would have to explain why the same artificial pressures that make chimpanzees violent have not had the same effect on bonobos.  If it has, I have not seen it reported.  The absence of violence among bonobos is thought to result from the power of female coalitions.  These coalitions are built upon networks of sexual partnerships among the females and function to protect the sons of the coalition partners. 

The problem with using bonobos to argue that the three species are not inherently violent is that is raises the question of what the female coalitions arose to do in the first place.  Mothers collective protect their sons, which they would not have to do if their sons did not need protection.  That this has been going on for long enough to modify the bonobo’s evolution is evident from the fact that bonobo males are considerably smaller and less robust than chimpanzee males. 

Competition for status among males is less intense and largely nonviolent but it is not absent.  Males who have living mothers are apparently advantaged in status competition over motherless males.  Motherless males are also subject to much more aggression by other males, especially when they are young.  It appears that bonobos are the exception that proves the rule.  Their tendencies to interpersonal violence are not absent, they are merely suppressed by a special feature of pan paniscus evolution. 

As for chimpanzees, a study published in Nature does short work with the excuses for violence in this species.  From a summary in The Washington Post:

The paper, which analyzed data from 426 combined years of observation and 18 separate chimp sites, argues chimps are not driven to violence by their contacts with humans, which some scientists have previously contended. Chimps, rather, are natural born killers.

“Variation in killing rates was unrelated to measures of human impacts,” said the paper, which was researched by an international team of 30 scientists. “… The adaptive strategies hypothesis views killing as an evolved tactic by which killers tend to increase their fitness through increased access to territory, food, mates and other benefits.”

The research feeds into a lengthy debate over the nature of chimp violence, and what it means for humanity’s own propensity for murder. “We’re trying to make inferences about human evolution,” lead researcher Michael L. Wilson, an anthropologist at the University of Minnesota, told the New York Times. Even in areas where humanity’s hand and habitat loss were not discernible, the chimps conveyed the same bellicosity, the research found. It signified that competition over resources— even when abundant — drove the chimp wars.

So if chimpanzees are not less violent where human influences are not felt and resources are abundant and bonobos are not more violent where human influences cause stress, then it seems clear that pan troglodyte is in fact violent by nature and bonobos not.  If bonobos are less violent not because aggressive tendencies are absent but because they have been suppressed by another evolutionary adaptation, then it seems likely that the tendencies toward violent aggression have been inherited by both species from their common pan ancestors.  Finally, if human beings were more troglodyte in behavior than paniscus in their behavior before the rise of settled agriculture, then it seems likely that the history of violence stretches back to the common ancestors of all three species. 

This has significant implications for political philosophy.  Jean Jacques Rousseau argued precisely that human beings were asocial and therefore non-aggressive by nature.  It was only a terrible accident of history that drove human beings together and created the conditions for inequality and violence.  Rousseau was wrong. 

Thomas Hobbes argued not that human beings were violent by nature but that the logic of their situation when they meet drives them in the direction of violence.  I might get what I want by killing you and you, knowing this, have an incentive to kill me first.  Hobbes was closer to the truth, but failed to consider that such logic would have to be partially built-in to be effective.  The context works by triggering instincts.  If our instincts were not Hobbesian, neither would be our behavior. 

John Locke supposed that what really made us dangerous was our inherent sense of justice.  Our tendency to invoke the executive power that belongs to everyone by nature can make really enemies out of human parties, each of which thinks it has been wronged by the other.  Locke was pretty much dead spot on.  Our moral instincts are built upon the political and territorial instincts of our ape (or proto-ape) ancestors. 

All three of these early modern philosophers were, however, proceeding on the basis of a big mistake.  They supposed that man is by nature an isolated animal.  Not only political institutions but all human societies are largely accidental.  As the nature of a wall does not change much the nature of bricks, so what is natural to us is only what we bring to any society of which be become a part. 

Aristotle did not make that mistake.  Just as a biologist cannot recognize a gene except by recognizing the function it has in the cellular machinery, so we cannot understand the nature of a single human being except by recognizing how he or she shapes and is shaped by social and indeed moral and political communities.  It remains the fact that we do carry with us a nature that contains our evolutionary history within it.  The three homo species (to use a proposed and, I think, correct specification) carry with them a history of violence. 

Hobbes' Materialism & His Political Agenda

Thomas Hobbes begins his magnum opus with one of the most materialist accounts of mind in the history of philosophy.  The obvious question that confronts any reader of Hobbes is why this is appropriate in a work on political science.  A less obvious question is what it says about Hobbes’ view of man and God.  Here is the opening of the second chapter, “On Imagination”.  I have added additional paragraph breaks.

THAT when a thing lies still, unless somewhat else stir it, it will lie still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat else stay it, though the reason be the same (namely, that nothing can change itself), is not so easily assented to.

For men measure, not only other men, but all other things, by themselves: and because they find themselves subject after motion to pain and lassitude, think everything else grows weary of motion, and seeks repose of its own accord; little considering whether it be not some other motion wherein that desire of rest they find in themselves consisteth.

From hence it is that the schools say, heavy bodies fall downwards out of an appetite to rest, and to conserve their nature in that place which is most proper for them; ascribing appetite, and knowledge of what is good for their conservation (which is more than man has), to things inanimate, absurdly.

The first two sentences introduce the concept of inertia and grounds it in the claim that “nothing can change itself”.  This principle is fundamental, as I think that it constitutes a deliberate rejection of Aristotelian biology.  Aristotle supposed that nature was precisely a motion that originated in the organism; for what is life, except something that can move itself, either in space or by development over time?  If nothing can move itself, then everything is moved by something else.  If that is so, then whence comes the source of all motion?  This seems to suggest a perfectly determined, mechanical Kosmos consisting of matter and motion alone. 

The second part explains why the principle of inertia seems contrary to common sense experience.  We are used to the idea that a rock will not leap up into the sky and that a rock thrown into the air will return to earth and remain there.  We base the idea that motion requires an explanation whereas rest does not on our own lethargy. 

The third part is a direct attack on Aristotelian physics.  Aristotle and the Aristotelians seem to have supposed that basic substances (earth, air, fire and water) had a natural place to which they naturally return.  Of course, Aristotle also recognized that the place of some things such as the heavenly bodies included motion, so Hobbes is being a little bit unfair here. 

What is the point of this physical reference?  The second paragraph explains. 

When a body is once in motion, it moveth (unless something else hinder it) eternally; and whatsoever hindreth it, cannot in an instant, but in time, and by degrees, quite extinguish it: and as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over rolling for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that motion which is made in the internal parts of a man, then, when he sees, dreams, etc.

For after the object is removed, or the eye shut, we still retain an image of the thing seen, though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it the Latins call imagination, from the image made in seeing, and apply the same, though improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks call it fancy, which signifies appearance, and is as proper to one sense as to another. Imagination, therefore, is nothing but decaying sense; and is found in men and many other living creatures, as well sleeping as waking.

Hobbes presents us with a model of internal human experience.  All the contents of the mind originate in the external world.  External motions collide with the senses, which transfer the motion to the nerves and then to the brain.  There the internal motions result in images of external objects.  The internal motions do not maintain their original force, which is why our memories of things are less vivid than direct observations.  When new motions come in they frequently overwhelm the decaying motions that constitute the mind’s present contents.  Within the mind, such motions are constantly competing with one another.  Yet clearly, some motions received from outside keep going for long periods of time, which explains long term memories. 

What Hobbes is after is an explanation of ghosts.  He has a theory of dreaming. 

And seeing dreams are caused by the distemper of some of the inward parts of the body, diverse distempers must needs cause different dreams. And hence it is that lying cold breedeth dreams of fear, and raiseth the thought and image of some fearful object, the motion from the brain to the inner parts, and from the inner parts to the brain being reciprocal; and that as anger causeth heat in some parts of the body when we are awake, so when we sleep the overheating of the same parts causeth anger, and raiseth up in the brain the imagination of an enemy.

This gives rise to the belief in ghosts. 

We read of Marcus Brutus (one that had his life given him by Julius Caesar, and was also his favorite, and notwithstanding murdered him), how at Philippi, the night before he gave battle to Augustus Caesar, he saw a fearful apparition, which is commonly related by historians as a vision, but, considering the circumstances, one may easily judge to have been but a short dream. For sitting in his tent, pensive and troubled with the horror of his rash act, it was not hard for him, slumbering in the cold, to dream of that which most affrighted him; which fear, as by degrees it made him wake, so also it must needs make the apparition by degrees to vanish: and having no assurance that he slept, he could have no cause to think it a dream, or anything but a vision.

The confusion caused by dreaming gives rise to a false belief that the dead can reappear.  Such beliefs are important politically because unscrupulous men can exploit the fear of such things. 

And for fairies, and walking ghosts, the opinion of them has, I think, been on purpose either taught, or not confuted, to keep in credit the use of exorcism, of crosses, of holy water, and other such inventions of ghostly men. Nevertheless, there is no doubt but God can make unnatural apparitions: but that He does it so often as men need to fear such things more than they fear the stay, or change, of the course of Nature, which he also can stay, and change, is no point of Christian faith.

But evil men, under pretext that God can do anything, are so bold as to say anything when it serves their turn, though they think it untrue; it is the part of a wise man to believe them no further than right reason makes that which they say appear credible. If this superstitious fear of spirits were taken away, and with it prognostics from dreams, false prophecies, and many other things depending thereon, by which crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple people, men would be would be much more fitted than they are for civil obedience.

That last part, I think, explains the political function of Hobbes materialist science.  If men did not believe in ghosts, if they were not subject to confusion about the nature of reality, then they would be more fit for civil obedience. 

Hobbes lived at the end of a long period of terrible religious wars.  It was not, however, the belief in personal ghosts (like Hamlet’s father) that made so many men ungovernable.  It was their belief in the Holy Ghost.  Hobbes has to be careful.  He cannot explicitly the Christian faith.  He does, however, give us clues as to his inexplicit thoughts. 

Whatsoever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude; nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power. When we say anything is infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds of the thing named, having no conception of the thing, but of our own inability. And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive Him (for He is incomprehensible, and His greatness and power are unconceivable), but that we may honour Him.

Also because whatsoever, as I said before, we conceive has been perceived first by sense, either all at once, or by parts, a man can have no thought representing anything not subject to sense. No man therefore can conceive anything, but he must conceive it in some place; and endued with some determinate magnitude; and which may be divided into parts; nor that anything is all in this place, and all in another place at the same time; nor that two or more things can be in one and the same place at once: for none of these things ever have or can be incident to sense, but are absurd speeches, taken upon credit, without any signification at all, from deceived philosophers and deceived, or deceiving, Schoolmen.

So Hobbes tells us that we can have no concept of God because we can have no concept of the infinite.  So far, so good; as this is nothing that Aquinas or Maimonides would not say.  Then he goes on to say that any words not grounded in sense perception are absurd speeches from deceived philosophers and deceived, or deceiving, Schoolmen.  I think we can put two and two together. 

As evil men exploit the superstitious fears of their fellows in order to encourage civil disobedience, so Hobbes intends to exploit modern science to make men more governable.  His materialistic account of the human being is introduced to wean men, by degrees, from belief in external powers and heavenly rewards.  If this life is all we have, then the best that most of us can hope for is comfortable self-preservation.  That is a person more fit for civil obedience. 

I end by noting that, while Hobbes’ physics are sound, it is sound only at the level of physics.  His materialism can account for matter alone; it cannot account for biological wholes.  Aristotle’s view that living organisms are self-moving beings is altogether viable and essential for a science of biology.  I suggest also that the notion of self-moving organisms is the metaphysical ground of human autonomy, something that is certainly diminished in Hobbes political philosophy.