ON "HUXLEYS EVOLUTION AND ETHICS IN SOCIOBIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE" BY GEORGE C. WILLIAMS

Abstract. I concur with Williams that improving human ethics requires full consideration of the biogenetic facts; but I argue that the understanding of biogenetic facts, and of ethics also, can be improved by a fuller view of nature's mechanism for selecting what is fit, a view recently generated by physical scientists. For me ethics necessarily must fit the evolved genotype, but ethics does not emerge until the rise of cultural evolution, where nature selects a culturetype symbiotic with the genotype. I outline my integrated dynamics of the relation of culturetypes to genotypes and to the laws governing physical systems. The biologist's finding that a living organism is of transient significance compared with its lines of heritage and their consequences, I argue, is constructively important for ethical and theological understanding.     

Prosocial orientation and COVID-19 vaccine willingness in the U.S.

Despite evidence of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their wide availability, many in the U.S. are not vaccinated. Research demonstrates that prosocial orientations predict COVID-19 health behaviors (e.g., social distancing) and vaccination intentions, however, little work has examined COVID-19 vaccination willingness in the U.S. since vaccines were approved. Findings from two U.S. samples show that, in contrast to other COVID-19 health behaviors, vaccine willingness in unvaccinated people is unrelated to prosocial orientation. Study 2 demonstrates that the lack of association between vaccine willingness and prosocial orientation in unvaccinated participants was specific to those with stronger beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. Thus, in prosocial people, perceptions of vaccines' ineffectiveness may undermine COVID-19 vaccine willingness.     

ENTRUSTING THE LIFE THAT HAS EVOLVED: A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL RUSE'S RUSE

Abstract. This piece challenges Michael Ruse on three points: (1) The charge that Christian myth and doctrine are incredible fails to take into account the scholarship that has clarified the genre to which myth belongs and its function. (2) Naturalistic explanations, like Ruse's, have fully as much difficulty dealing with questions of purpose and evil as religion does. (3) The concept of "deception" has a number of inherent problems that Ruse fails to consider, of which the chief is that it requires a certainty about truth and falsity that Ruse cannot and does not claim to possess.     

An operant analysis of human altruistic responding

Human altruistic responding (called give responding), which delivered a reinforcer to someone other than the responder, was compared to responding where the responder was the recipient of the reinforcer (called earn responding). The same type of response (button pressing), the same reinforcer (a point representing a penny), and the same reinforcer contingency (a 40-response fixed-ratio schedule) were used for both give and earn responding. Since points representing pennies were used to reinforce give and earn responding, responding for points not worth money was also assessed. Give, earn, and point responding were arranged as concurrent incompatible operants. Lowest rates were obtained for point responding. Compared to earn responding, give responding occurred at lower rates, was more susceptible to cessation when point responding was possible, extinguished more rapidly in the absence of money, and produced less responding during reconditioning compared to conditioning when reconditioning followed a period of nonreinforcement. Give responding was less when it reduced the giver's opportunity to earn. Finally, histories of getting reinforcement from others were shown to determine give responding.     

得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响

以福利权衡率(WTR)为利他程度的指标, 通过3个实验逐步深入地考察了得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响。实验1的结果表明, 得失情境并未改变被试的WTR。实验2引入他人底线、现状和目标三个参照点变量, 发现被试获益情境下的WTR高于损失情境, 且WTR从高到低依次为他人临近底线、目标和现状; 他人临近底线时, 被试在获益情境下的WTR高于损失情境, 而他人临近现状和目标时, 个体在得失情境下的WTR无显著差异。实验3进一步引入心理距离变量, 发现心理距离较近他人的WTR高于较远他人, 且与得失情境和参照点发生了复杂的交互效应, 得失情境的主效应消失了, 但总体上并未改变实验2发现的参照点效应。这些结果对于更深入地理解得失不对称效应、三参照点理论及社会折扣和自我-他人决策差异研究的相关发现具有一定的启示意义。     

社会生物学伦理观评介

威尔逊通过社会生物学的研究,指出动物的社会行为有其生物学的基础。他认为人类的利他主义伦理也同样有着生物学基础,从而提出了以生物行为科学解释伦理本质的伦理观。社会生物学伦理观,是一座联接伦理学与自然科学的桥梁。当今时代,进一步深入研究社会生物学伦理观,对于完善伦理学的科学基础,对于如何恰当地开展社会伦理教育都具有重要的意义。     

From agape to organs: religious difference between Japan and America in judging the ethics of transplant

This essay argues that Japan's resistance to the practice of transplanting organs from persons deemed "brain dead" may not be the result, as some claim, of that society's religions being not yet sufficiently expressive of love and altruism. The violence to the body necessary for the excision of transplantable organs seems to have been made acceptable to American Christians at a unique historical "window of opportunity" for acceptance of that new form of medical technology. Traditional reserve about corpse mutilation had weakened and, especially as presented by the theologian Joseph Fletcher, organ donation was touted as both expressive of agape and a way of "updating" Christianity via the ethics of Utilitarianism. Many Japanese, largely Buddhist and Confucian in their orientation, view these changed valorizations as neither necessary nor patently more ethical than those of their own traditions.     

Personality and altruism in the dictator game: Relationship to giving to kin, collaborators, competitors, and neutrals

We investigate altruism in the context of the economic dictator game experiment where subjects are presented with different persons who can be classified as kin, collaborator, competitor and neutral based on their similarity/relationship to the subject. The classification is based on the role others play in facilitating or impeding an individual’s access to resources needed for reproductive success. The role of the Big Five personality traits in giving to the different target persons is examined. We find that kin are treated most generously, followed by collaborators, neutrals, and competitors. Personality has no effect on giving to kin, but a significant effect on giving to collaborator, neutral and competitor. We also find non-linear relationships between personality and giving.