You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Peter Singer
Published: Saturday 5 May 2012
We might think that evolution leads to the selection of individuals who think only of their own interests, and those of their kin, because genes for such traits would be more likely to spread.

Are Humans Getting Better?

Article image

With daily headlines focusing on war, terrorism, and the abuses of repressive governments, and religious leaders frequently bemoaning declining standards of public and private behavior, it is easy to get the impression that we are witnessing a moral collapse. But I think that we have grounds to be optimistic about the future.

Thirty years ago, I wrote a book called The Expanding Circle, in which I asserted that, historically, the circle of beings to whom we extend moral consideration has widened, first from the tribe to the nation, then to the race or ethnic group, then to all human beings, and, finally, to non-human animals. That, surely, is moral progress.

We might think that evolution leads to the selection of individuals who think only of their own interests, and those of their kin, because genes for such traits would be more likely to spread. But, as I argued then, the development of reason could take us in a different direction.

On the one hand, having a capacity to reason confers an obvious evolutionary advantage, because it makes it possible to solve problems and to plan to avoid dangers, thereby increasing the prospects of survival. Yet, on the other hand, reason is more than a neutral problem-solving tool. It is more like an escalator: once we get on it, we are liable to be taken to places that we never expected to reach. In particular, reason enables us to see that others, previously outside the bounds of our moral view, are like us in relevant respects. Excluding them from the sphere of beings to whom we owe moral consideration can then seem arbitrary, or just plain wrong.

Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Peter Singer, click here

Steven Pinker’s recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature lends weighty support to this view.  Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, draws on recent research in history, psychology, cognitive science, economics, and sociology to argue that our era is less violent, less cruel, and more peaceful than any previous period of human existence.

The decline in violence holds for families, neighborhoods, tribes, and states. In essence, humans living today are less likely to meet a violent death, or to suffer from violence or cruelty at the hands of others, than their predecessors in any previous century.

Many people will doubt this claim. Some hold a rosy view of the simpler, supposedly more placid lives of tribal hunter-gatherers relative to our own. But examination of skeletons found at archaeological sites suggests that as many as 15% of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another person. (For comparison, in the first half of the twentieth century, the two world wars caused a death rate in Europe of not much more than 3%.)

Even those tribal peoples extolled by anthropologists as especially “gentle” – for example, the Semai of Malaysia, the Kung of the Kalahari, and the Central Arctic Inuit – turn out to have murder rates that are, relative to population, comparable to Detroit, which has one of the highest murder rates in the United States. In Europe, your chance of being murdered is now less than one-tenth, and in some countries only one-fiftieth, of what it would have been had you lived 500 years ago.

Pinker accepts that reason is an important factor underlying the trends that he describes. In support of this claim, he refers to the “Flynn Effect” – the remarkable finding by the philosopher James Flynn that since IQ tests were first administered, scores have risen considerably. The average IQ is, by definition, 100; but, to achieve that result, raw test results have to be standardized. If the average teenager today took an IQ test in 1910, he or she would score 130, which would be better than 98% of those taking the test then.

It is not easy to attribute this rise to improved education, because the aspects of the tests on which scores have risen the most do not require a good vocabulary, or even mathematical ability, but instead assess powers of abstract reasoning.

One theory is that we have gotten better at IQ tests because we live in a more symbol-rich environment. Flynn himself thinks that the spread of the scientific mode of reasoning has played a role.

Pinker argues that enhanced powers of reasoning give us the ability to detach ourselves from our immediate experience and from our personal or parochial perspective, and frame our ideas in more abstract, universal terms. This, in turn, leads to better moral commitments, including avoidance of violence. It is just this kind of reasoning ability that improved during the twentieth century.

So there are grounds to believe that our improved reasoning abilities have enabled us to reduce the influence of those more impulsive elements of our nature that lead to violence. Perhaps this underlies the significant drop in deaths inflicted by war since 1945 – a decline that has become even steeper over the past 20 years. If so, there would be no denying that we continue to face grave problems, including of course the threat of catastrophic climate change. But there would nonetheless be some reason to hope for moral progress.

ABOUT Peter Singer

Peter Singer is Professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books includePractical Ethics, The Expanding Circle, and The Life You Can Save.

Part 2 .....& Simpson, 2009).

Part 2 .....& Simpson, 2009). They say that the significance of these experiments was much more than their resulting in a new appreciation of research ethics. Benjamin and Simpson (2009, p.14) claim:
The obedience studies resulted in sweeping changes in the broad fields of personality and social psychology, including a diminution of the importance of person or trait variables accompanied by an exceptionally strong emphasis on the power of situations.
The significance of situationism and Milgram’s research is that it provides evidence that personality can change and is influenced by power. This means that leaving the influence of power out of your discussion was a serious error.

What this article lacks is an

What this article lacks is an understanding of how systemic power affects humans. While we think we are sperate individuals with seperate personalities social science has started to challenge this idea and now holds that personality changes according to situation. This view is known as situationism and it blurs the line between what is personality and what is behaviour. Benjamin and Simpson (2009) attribute the origins of situationism to the work of Stanley Milgram. Milgram conducted 18 experiments in the early 1960s which involved subjects being encouraged by an authority figure to provide increasingly powerful electric shocks to other subjects (Benjamin

Man! I'll have whatever

Man! I'll have whatever Singer's on.

Our technology is evolving. We as individuals are, sadly, not. Not morally, physically or mentally. We have learned to specialize and delegate our murderous behavior. How many pigs (the next most intelligent animal sharing this planet) do you imagine are slaughtered each day? If corporate greed leads to millions starving or being poisoned, is this not a form of violence? What about our concerted destruction of the environment? What about the 3,000,000 Americans behind bars, most for victimless offences? Not only are we not evolving, but we are very likely to be extinct (at least society as we know it) in the next half century. Just hope our technology evolves to replace us.

Maybe people are dying less

Maybe people are dying less but the powerful aspect of our species sure has gotten good at killing/eradication those considered "other." And, primitive man knew (learned) not to shit where he ate. Current man seems to be losing this perspective. I think, really, our frontal lobes may be smart but appear to be quite disconnected from their surround.

Are you sure you really want

Are you sure you really want a shot of that?

Cheers, Christopher! My post,

Cheers, Christopher!
My post, 3 hours ago and still not appearing, agrees with you!
Let's hope...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all things tend toward disorder.
(Entropy of a system is always increasing.).

Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and ArcherDanielsMidland are just a few corporations working on dumbing down people with diet with genetically modified, Round Up-ready crops more poisonous pesticides and herbicides, and high fructose corn syrup. Food processors are helping by taking the nutrition out of our food and putting artificial flavors and colors back into our food.

Televison is contributing.

Education is also doing its part.

Big Oil and Frackers are gladly working hard to do it too.

It's a team effort requiring team players.

All true, but you forgot the

All true, but you forgot the long-term result of population growth and destruction of the environment for our "progress." It is absolutely NOT SUSTAINABLE and will collapse in this century.

"In particular, reason

"In particular, reason enables us to see that others, previously outside the bounds of our moral view, are like us in relevant respects. Excluding them from the sphere of beings to whom we owe moral consideration can then seem arbitrary, or just plain wrong."

Mr. Singer, does this mean you are finally willing to include the disabled and those with genetic diseases in "the sphere of beings to whom we owe moral consideration"? Born, and pre-born?

If so, thank you, finally. If not, you have a lot of nerve penning a piece like this.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...