Genetics, Morality, and Profanity

I recently read about research into the possible genetic influences on our sense of right and wrong. Some scientists believe that a moral conscience is an evolved brain function as much as a learned cultural artifact. I agree. I believe that there are several traits that have evolved in gregarious species, humans included, that interact and balance one another.

The smoking gun for genetically based morality is Tourette’s Syndrome. Tourette’s is a hereditary disease that manifests itself mostly as facial tics, meaningless involuntary vocal sounds, and involuntary body movements. However, in 10-15% of cases, it manifests as involuntary obscenities or aggressive speech. The unfortunate sufferer will suddenly swear, insult someone, or utter an ethnic slur (generally the opposite of how the person feels). It has been called “the uncontrollable urge to voice the forbidden.”

So, here we have an inherited disease that causes people to express what is forbidden. That fifteen percent of TS sufferers do not blurt out “Have a nice day!” Ergo, there is a piece of genetic code that recognizes what is acceptable and what is forbidden. It makes evolutionary sense. Even though there are cultural variations as to what is moral or immoral, our species needs members who can make that distinction.

The immediate counter argument is the wretched behavior of humans throughout history. War, murder, torture, theft, and deceit are always with us. How do we reconcile an inherited neurological understanding of right and wrong with all this?

I propose that there are two other fundamental forces at work, both necessary for survival in their own ways. One, as evidenced by the famous Milgram experiments, is the human tendency to obey authority figures. Stanley Milgram had each of his subjects paired with a “learner” (actually an actor) in a supposed educational experiment. The learner was placed in a room with fake electrodes on him, and the subjects asked him questions, giving him ever increasing shocks (so they thought) with each wrong answer. 65% of the subjects, sternly prodded by the experimenter, “shocked” the learner to the final limit.

Our treatment of authority figures is similar in nature to the dominance relationships in other species. Wolf packs have the alpha male and female, herds of horses have the stallion and the lead mare, and human beings have the doctor in the white coat, the general, and the political leader. Obedience to leaders is a survival trait that served our species well during the hundreds of thousands of years that we wandered around in groups no bigger than wolf packs. It has served us less well as our societies have grown larger and our weapons technology deadlier.

Another intrinsic trait among humans is conformity. Mirror neurons probably have a lot to do with this. Scientists in Italy, studying muscle-activating neurons in monkeys, found that the same neurons fired when the monkey was picking up a peanut or when the monkey saw a human picking up a peanut. Other researchers found the same response in humans, both for actions and emotions. When we observe other people doing things or feeling things, a part of our brain is actually experiencing the actions or emotions. This neurological mimicking is entirely involuntary and unconscious. There are also studies where the opinions of others modify an individual’s behavior or actual perception of reality, on subjects as basic as the color of a projected slide (Moscovici, 1969) or the relative length of two lines (Asch, 1951).

Again, this is a small group survival trait. It promotes unified action and group solidarity. It also motivates members of a group to learn and preserve the customs and taboos that the group evolved to deal with its environment. Of course, the necessary restriction of the individual in a tribal society eventually becomes the mob mentality of the modern nation state.

What we have is a set of innate behaviors that balance one another. The general format is, “Don’t break the rules, unless ordered to by a superior, or if everyone else is doing it, or both.” The balance was important during our long small-group phase. Rigid rule-based behavior would have prevented necessary adaptations to changing conditions. Group cohesion was a better survival trait than moral purity. In tribal societies existing today, the extension of moral relevancy to those outside the tribal group varies, but is often absent.

Our dominance behaviors and mirror neurons have trumped our innate sense of right and wrong in most in-group vs. outsider interactions for eons. There is hope, however. In the experiments by Asch, Moscovici, and Milgram, a number of factors tended to reduce submission to authority and conformity.

Physical proximity to the “learner” in Milgram’s experiment
An ally that also disagrees with the majority
Inconsistency of opinion within the majority
Clarity of evidence – conformity increased with the ambiguity of the information

The findings of Moscovici and Asch indicated that a confident and consistent minority opinion tends to influence people’s actual beliefs, while majority opinion tends to only influence public compliance.

This all points to Margaret Meade’s statement about never underestimating the ability of a small, dedicated group of people to change the world.

The Chinese philosophers of old considered people to be naturally moral and social. The seeds of “jen” (humanity) were in us, and just needed to be developed. They lacked an understanding of genetics and neurology, but they were on the right track. So take some consolation from this in the world as it is. Speak up and stand your ground. Present evidence for your beliefs. Give people’s mirror neurons something positive to copy. Show people the humanity of those they consider enemies. The human brain is ready for it.