Humans

On the Relativity of Ethics, Evolution, and Behavior

by Albert Prins

Summary of a number of reflections.

Key idea:
Human behavior is the result of evolutionary drives, neurological rewards, and social structures, in which both self-directed behavior and empathy fulfill evolutionary functions.

When we bring together the preceding reflections, a picture of the human being emerges that is determined both biologically, neurologically, and socially. Humans are not independent moral beings who freely and independently choose what is good or bad, but organisms whose behavior arises from a complex interplay of factors.

First of all, everything we do is driven by our brains. The structure of those brains differs from person to person and is largely determined by our genes, which we have inherited from our (fore)parents. This explains why people behave differently: not because they have fundamentally different goals, but because their neurological “configuration” is different.

Behavior is guided by reward mechanisms. An important element in this is the release of dopamine in the brain, among other places in the hypothalamus. This works as a form of reward: behavior that leads to a pleasant feeling is reinforced and is more likely to be repeated.

It follows that every human, consciously or unconsciously, strives for situations that trigger this reward feeling. What that exactly entails differs from person to person. For one, it means acting in self-interest; for another, acting in the interest of others. Altruistic behavior can also produce a rewarding feeling, for example because it generates appreciation within the group.

In this way, an important insight emerges: behavior that we consider “good” is often behavior that is rewarded by our brain. But that does not mean that it is objectively good; it means that it is functional within the system in which we live.

When we extend this further to the biological level, we see that DNA forms the basis of these processes. DNA contains the “programming” of the body and remains within the cell, while RNA acts as a messenger to transfer that information and provide new cells with the correct functionality.

Within this genetic system also lies the foundation of our drives: the striving for survival, both of the individual and of the group. This manifests itself in a combination of self-directed behavior and altruism; both are not moral choices, but evolutionarily developed traits.

It is important not to attach a value judgment to this. These traits are conditions for our existence. Species in which these traits were insufficiently present have simply disappeared. What remains are those species, including humans, that possess the right combination of traits to continue to exist.

Variation is essential in this regard. Without variation, a species would not be able to adapt to changing circumstances. Diversity is therefore not a byproduct, but a necessary condition for survival.

All of this supports an idea expressed, among others, by Swaab: life has no predefined purpose. What we experience as purpose is the result of processes aimed at survival, not at meaning.

Yet the question of morality continues to occupy us. Philosophers such as Susan Neiman ask whether humans are naturally good or rather self-directed. The fact that this question keeps recurring suggests that humans have a deeply rooted need to assume or find morality.

That in itself is meaningful.

It indicates that morality, regardless of its objective status, plays an important role in how people understand themselves and their behavior.

But perhaps we should approach the concept of morality differently. Not as something absolute, but as an expression of underlying drives.

Through evolution, humans possess both:

It follows that both selfish behavior and altruism are necessary. Without one or the other, the species could not have survived.

It therefore makes little sense to label one as “good” and the other as “bad.” They are complementary traits within a functioning system.

We see this not only in humans, but also in other animal species. Primates, dolphins, elephants, and many other species display behavior that we would describe as social, empathetic, or even moral, without possessing religions, legal systems, or explicit moral frameworks.

This suggests that these traits are not culturally imposed, but biologically embedded.

The well-known example of a lion killing a lamb illustrates this sharply. From a human perspective, this may be seen as cruel. But within the system, it is necessary behavior: without it, the lion’s cubs would starve.

The question of whether this is “good” or “bad” thus loses its meaning.

What remains is functionality.

The idea that all of this would reduce to a “chemical process” sometimes evokes resistance. But even if that is the case, if feelings of happiness, love, and meaning arise from chemical processes, this does nothing to diminish the experience itself.

We live, experience, enjoy, and strive, regardless of the underlying mechanisms.

The fact that all of this occurs without an explicit purpose or higher directive has not prevented humanity from developing, reproducing, and forming complex societies.

Philosophically, it is interesting that even before religious systems such as Christianity, thinkers like Aristotle developed ethical reflections that strongly resemble later moral systems. This suggests that ethics is not necessarily dependent on religion, but arises from general human characteristics.

Religions may reinforce or structure these systems, but do not appear to be their origin.

Finally, when we take a step back and place humans within the greater whole, the universe, it becomes clear that human ethics is only a local phenomenon.

From a holistic perspective, no absolute moral rules exist. What we consider ethics are agreements and interpretations within the human domain.

These may even come into conflict with broader systems, such as:

Nature itself has no morality, but follows processes that lead to equilibrium. In that sense, perhaps only the second law of thermodynamics is a universal principle: systems move toward entropy and equilibrium.

But no ethics is embedded in that.

What all this asks of humans is humility.

Humility in our beliefs about good and evil. Humility in our place within the whole.

And above all, the realization that our moral systems are not universal, but arise from who we are.