Morality

==Evolution==
{{See also|Altruism#Evolutionary explanations|Evolution of morality|Evolutionary ethics}}

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to [[sociocultural evolution]]. Some [[evolutionary biology|evolutionary biologists]], particularly [[Sociobiology|sociobiologists]], believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through [[group selection]] (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically driven behaviors which encourage human [[cooperation]]. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate [[selfishness]] in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to the moralities of other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.<ref name="shermer">{{Cite book
|title=The Science of Good and Evil
|isbn=978-0-8050-7520-5
|last=Shermer
|first=Michael
|author-link=Michael Shermer
|chapter=Transcendent Morality
|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&q=shermer+exegesis&pg=PA19
|title-link=The Science of Good and Evil
|date=2004
|publisher=Macmillan
}}</ref>

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction ([[inclusive fitness]]). Examples: the [[maternal bond]] is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the [[Westermarck effect]], where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins [[Incest taboo|taboos against incest]] because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as [[inbreeding]].

<!-- kinship altruism theory -->
<!-- handicap altruism theory -->
<!-- reputation theory -->
<!-- reciprocity theory -->
The phenomenon of [[Reciprocity (evolution)|reciprocity]] in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some [[vampire bat]]s fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a [[Conspecificity|conspecific]] from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness.<ref>Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce ''Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals'' (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)</ref> In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show [[empathy]] for each other in a wide variety of contexts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=O'Connell |first= Sanjida |date=July 1995|title= Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind? |journal= Primates|volume= 36|issue= 3|pages= 397–410|issn= 0032-8332 |doi= 10.1007/BF02382862 |s2cid= 41356986 }}</ref> They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social politics<ref>{{cite book|title = Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals|last = de Waal|first = Frans|date = 1997|publisher = Harvard University Press |isbn = 978-0674356610}}</ref> prototypical of our own tendencies for [[gossip]] and [[reputation management]].
<!-- [[hypocrisy]] Johnathan Haidt -->

Christopher Boehm (1982)<ref>{{cite journal|last=Boehm|first=Christopher|title=The evolutionary development of morality as an effect of dominance behaviour and conflict interference|journal=Journal of Social and Biological Sciences|year=1982|volume=5|issue=4 |pages=413–22|doi= 10.1016/s0140-1750(82)92069-3}}</ref> has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout [[Great ape|hominid]] evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of [[theory of mind]] abilities.