Matthew Alper
The "God" Part of the Brain
A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God

Rogue Press 2001

pg156
THE GUILT AND MORALITY FUNCTIONS

"Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the philosophers and biologized." E.O. Wilson

"There are no moral phenomenon but only a moral interpretation of phenomena." Nietzsche

Just as individuals from every culture have possessod the capacity to experience feolings of sadness, individuals from every culture have possessod a capacity to experience feelings of what we call guilt- a remorseful awareness of having done something wrong. This would suggest that the experience of guilt represents yet another genetically inherited characteristic of our species. We could there­fore also presume that there must exist some neurophysiological mechanism from which this experience is generated. It would also suggest that we possess "guilt" genes which prompt our emerging brains to develop those neural connections that will come to constitute such a guilt mechanism in us. But what is the origin of such a peculiar sentiment? What is its function? Furthermore, in what way might the sentiment of guilt be related to our spiritual functions?

In order to understand the nature of guilt, we must first chart its evolutionary origins. During the time of the emergence of organic matter, the majority of earth's life forms lived independently from one another as opposed to in groups. This was primarily due to the fact that during those earliest times, all life reproduced asexually and, consequently, had no real need to congregate. In asexual reproduction one genderless, single-celled organism spawns another by forging an exact duplicate of itself. Due to the nature of this reproductive strat­egy, there was never any need for any two organisms from the same species to interact.

As life continued to evolve, howover, two distinct sexes emerged. Among these new sexually reproducing organisms, it now took two members of the same species one of each gender - to merge their genes in order to procreate. This new reproductive strategy served to an organism's advantage in that it promoted greater diversity among offspring. Greater diversity meant a greater chance for more advantageous adaptations to emerge. The more advantageous adaptations to emerge, the more a species was likely to survive.

Even with the advent of sexual reproduction, the majority of species were still non-social, meaning each individual organism still lived a predominantly solitary existence. The difference now was that the two sexes had to meet at least once in a lifetime in order to procreate. Such gatherings often occurred during a species' mating season in which the two sexes met, usually for the first and only time, merely to copulate and then go their separate ways. Moreover, among such species, once the mother layed her eggs, she usually abandoned them, never to behold her own progeny.

As time went on and life continued to diversify, an evolutionary trend began to occur in which individual organisms started to live among one another in groups. Within a group, each individual organism was more secure than if it lived on its own. Within a group, not only could individuals better defend themselves against predators, but they could more effectively hunt and forage. Because of the strength and stability that came with this social adaptation, the group dynamic became the "favored" evolutionary trend, particularly among vertebrates and most particularly among mammals.

With all the advantages that came with this new group dynamic, there were some disadvantages as well. In regard to those drawbacks that came with the emergence of the social species, before the emergence of the group dynamic, individual organisms lived primarily by and for themselves. Because these earliest life forms lived exclusively solitary existences, they did so without regard for any other member of their species. Consequently, all behavior was governed by an animal's self-serving instincts. It was a strictly planarian-eat-planarian world.

As organisms evolved to coexist among one another in groups, these selfish instincts no longer served to an animal's advantage. Obviously, if every creature within a group only struggled for its own preservation without any regard for any other individual within its community, it would be impossible for such a group to survive.

Now that life forms were evolving to coexist among one another in tightly-knit groups, newer adaptations had to emerge by which a species could balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the community. In other words, organisms had to evolve a capacity to apportion their own needs so that they could serve themselves while simultaneously serving the needs of their group. Strictly selfish behaviors suddenly represented a threat to the group, which, in turn, represented a threat to every individual within the group. Though each individual added to a group's strength and therefore served to its advantage, because each individual also possessod its own set of self-serving instincts, each member simultaneously represented a potential threat to its group.

This was not the only drawback to arise with the emergence of a group dynamic. Now that individual organisms lived in such close proximity to one another, there was an increased likelihood of transmitting contagious discases. Among the less social species, one single organism infected with a transmittable disease was much more likely to die on its own without infecting another of its own kind. Since these social organisms lived in such close contact with one another, now when an individual was infected with a transmittable discase, it was much more likely to infect the entire community.

A third problem of the group dynamic was that it represented a potential threat to a species' gene pool. Since the group worked to protect all of its members, now even the weakost members of the species were more likely to survive. On its own, a weak, sickly or handicapped organism is less likely to survive. Among the group dynamic, however, even the weakest members are at least partially safeguarded by the group from any external threat. Consequently, among the social orders, it became more likely that a weaker individual might live long enough to reproduce and therefore to pass its "inferior" genes on to future generations, thus negatively affecting the group's as well as the entire species' gene pool.

Suppose, for example, an organism from a non-social species happened to be born with a bad leg or inferior vision. In such cases, not only would that individual find it difficult to hunt and forage, but it would have an equally difficult time safeguarding itself against predators. Among the group, however, this same physically handi­capped individual would have a much better chance of surviving since it would be sheltered by the group. Therefore, though the group dynamic represents a highly advantageous adaptation, it at the same time threatens to compromise a species' gene pool.

Among those organisms that live solitary existences, the weakest are more vulnerable and therefore less likely to survive. In this way, with every passing generation the weakost members of a species are weeded out (along with their genes) for extinction. As a result of this dynamic, with each passing generation, every species should be better suited to meet the demands of its physical environment. It should be stronger, more fit [energy efficient] and therefore more likely to persevere.

Among the social species, however, this principle no longer applied. Among such species, the rule becomes survival of the fittest as well as the weakest. Among the social species, the law of survival of the fittest—the principle that fosters all natural selection, all organ­ic evolution—is compromisod. As a result, the chances of any such species surviving is compromisod as well.

As advantageous as the group dynamic may have been, by fortifying the weakost members of a species, it threatened to derail the selection process. Among the social animals, rather than a species' gene pool getting stronger with each passing generation, it now remained stagnant. In order to compensate for these drawbacks, newer adaptations had to emerge among the social organisms.

To circumvent these new obstacles, the social organisms began to develop new mechanisms which enabled them to counter these problems. One such mechanism to emerge took shape in what is called "ostracizing" behaviors. Here, the social species evolved a mechanism that enabled them to distinguish genetically healthy individual from an uhealthy one....

This ostracizing mechanism helped to resolve two of the most essential problems associated with the group dynamic. Being that many discases reveal themselves by affecting our physical appearances (scabs, open sores, infections, distressod complexion, weak­ened constitution, bloodshot eyes, etc.), social animals now ostracized the sickly, thus helping to deter the spread of transmittable diseases. Second, the ostracizing reflex prompted social animals to cast out those members of their communities with substandard genes, fortifying the group's as well as the entire species' gene pool.

Even with these two threats resolved, there still existed that internal threat to the group generated by those destructive, yet necessary, selfish instincts inherent in each individual within the group. How was nature to balance the conflicting needs of individual self­preservation with the need to preserve the group? Obviously, no organism could survive if it lost all of its self serving instincts and lived exclusively for the welfare of others. At the same time, no group could survive if each member was exclusively self-serving and completely inconsiderate of the needs of others within its communi­ty. For this reason, nature had to select a new mechanism that would balance these two essential yet conflicting needs.

In pre-human social orders, the threat posed to the group by individual selfish behavior was held in check by an evolutionary strategy known as the hierarchy system. In the hierarchy system, every member of the group engages one another in a series of physical contests until each individual's rank in the hierarchy is determined. Whichever individual proves itself strongest of all will dominate the others as their leader. This dominant individual (often referred to as the alpha male or female) will be first in line to eat when food is pro­cured. More significantly, he or she will also have first choice in the selection of a mate. This will ensure that the fittest male's genes will be coupled with the fittest female's, ensuring the production of the fittest offspring.

Despite the fact that the group was comprisod of individuals generally driven by more selfish instincts, the hierarchy system maintained stability and order. In such a dynamic, though a member of the group might at times be tempted to act on his or her more selfish impulses, such instincts are held in check by the structure of the hierarchy. Should an individual, for instance, try to take more than its fair share of a kill, that individual will inevitably be challenged by one of its superiors. Should this "greedy" individual dispute its rank, it can at any time challenge another member of its group to a physical contest. If the challenger prevails, its position in the group is elevated. If it loses, it will either maintain its old rank or, in some cases, it might even be shunned or chastisod by its community for trying to usurp a superior and disrupt the group order. Amid the hierarchy system, the group dynamic was maintained by the simple law of domination by the fittest. At no point, for example, could a weaker member claim superiority without eventually being challenged and forced back into submission. In this way, physical strength settled all scores and helped to maintain a harmonious order among the pre-human social species.

With the advent of humans, howover, all this changed. Humans, in a sense, represent the end of the physical hierarchy system. Unlike any other species, because of our cerebral capacities, every individual possesses the power to subjugate or kill any other. Before humans, if a weaker member within a group challenged a superior, he or she would be defeated based on pure physical strength. With the emergence of human intelligence, howover, even the physically weakest member of a community possesses the capacity to kill, and, consequently, to displace any other. Among human societies, even the physically weakest member of a community can, for example, should he or she be so inclined, pick up a heavy object and bludgeon the physically strongest member of its community to death. With our enhanced capacity to construct tools, the lines of the hierarchy became irrovocably blurred. In light of our intelligence, power took on a whole new meaning. No longer could a human society rely on raw, physical strength to maintain social stability. Instead, some newer device was now needed if the group, not to mention the entire species, was to survive. It was at this point in our evolution that a moral function emerged.

Just as all cultures display a distinct set of what we could classify as "spiritual" behaviors, all cultures display a distinct set of what we could classify as "moral" behaviors. Moral behavior can be characterized as that tendency in our species (and only our species) to cat­egorize every action as being either productive or destructive to the group's welfare. Those acts perccived as prodoctive to the group are cross-culturally classified as "good," while those acts we perccive as harmfnl to the group are classified as "bad." This propensity to discern "good" from "bad" behaviors is made evident by the fact that every culture has compiled lists of rules and regulations [laws] in which "good" acts are encouraged and destructive or "bad" behaviors are discouraged by societies. Just as our biological ancestors ostra­cize those individuals who represent a threat to the group, we do the same.

Though our species may possess some very strong communal instincts, we are still driven, to a significant extent, by our more self­ish and destructive impulses. Consequently, it became necessary for our species to evolve a moral function. Just as our ancestors could distinguish a physically healthy and fit individual from a diseased or handicapped one, because our species is so much more behaviorally complex, it became necessary that we develop a capacity to distin­guish healthy behaviors from unhealthy ones. Again, those behaviors we perceive as being advantageous to the group, we define as "good," whereas those we perceive as harmful, we define as "bad."

By implementing our language functions, humans possessed the capacity to compile verbal and, eventually, written lists of those behaviors they perceived as being potentially harmful to the group. Once these rules became codified, the group was compelled to ostra­cize or punish any individual who transgressod one of its "laws." To enforce these laws, we developed an instinct to punish those who broke them. In essence, humans had evolved a "penal" function to complement our moral one. This penal function represents that impulse in us to systematically ostracize and/or punish those who transgress our society's laws. For the majority of our species, fear of such punishment inhibits most individuals from acting on his or her more selfish instincts. Once we evolved this instinct to enforce our laws, group order could survive despite our more selfish impulses. I imagine that if such a function hadn't emerged in us, the group dynamic, not to mention our entire species, would have most probably succumbed to the forces of anarchy and with it extinction.

Though our entire species possesses the same language centers in the brain, every culture, based on its own particular historical and environmental circumstance, has developed its own specific language. Though each language may be unique, each contains certain universal characteristics. Likewise, though our entire species possesses the same spiritual/religious impulse, every culture, based on its own particular circumstance, has cultivated its own unique religion.

Evolution of Language
Evolution of Society