Customer Reviews

Origins of Virtue (Penguin Press Science)

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Matt Ridley is a British science journalist who has the estimable quality of relying on facts rather than opinions to make his case. In this short, highly readable book he puts forward the evolutionary biologist's theory for the existence of human cooperation and altruism, and he does it brilliantly. The depth and breadth of material covered is extraordinary, and this book well rewards repeated readings (always the sign of good science writing).

From an introductory description of the ideas of Kropotkin, through game theory and Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, to a discussion of free market economics as the 'best fit' to human models of social cooperation, Ridley introduces a wealth of meticulously researched material with sufficient digs at current bien-pensant wisdom on the acquisition of culture to make the average sociologist's hair stand on end.

Matt Ridley writes a weekly column (Acid Test) in the UK broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph, and his customary penetrating analysis of accepted cultural and environmental theory is always a joy to read. He brings this penetrating style to bear on some of the shibboleths of modern sociology (there is a particularly devastating broadside reserved for the egregious Margaret Mead and her band of fellow travelers in the 'Culture Makes Mind' school).

The book concludes (rashly, as even the author acknowledges) with a defense of economic libertarianism. Ridley attempts to show that the whole panoply of cheater-detectors, enlightened self interest and Ricardo-esque comparative advantage that characterises the evolution-moulded systems of human altruism and socialisation can be used to argue in favour of a market-based, minimally interventionist society in which trade is as little hampered by government (or other) interference as possible. Although attempting to introduce economic theory into a work on biology might seem strange, it links in well with the lessons drawn from earlier sections of the book that demonstrate that extra-group commerce is a uniquely human activity. It should also be remembered that an economic analysis of human nature is far from new: the great F. A. Hayek analysed just such a thesis, although his work predates this book by many years.

In summary: a marvellous and rewarding book; extremely highly recommended.

This book should definitely be on your short list of books to read if you are at all interested in what makes us humans behave as we do. The prior review by David Gillies sums up the books nicely. I would just like to add one further detail.

The modern intelligentsia and media have portrayed Native Americans and other Aboriginal peoples as conservationists and environmentalists who were stewards of the earth's resources and were 'at one with nature'. If this is true, then it largely refutes Ridley's whole argument. Ridley devotes a whole chapter to this ( Chapter 11 - Ecology as Religion ) and shows that it is a complete myth. Some of the facts he adduces: Shortly after 'Native Americans' arrived in North America, 73% of the large mammals were exterminated and became extinct. Shortly after man arrived in South America, 80% of the large mammals were exterminated and became extinct. As the Polynesians colonized the Pacific, they extinguished 20% of all the bird species on earth. At Olsen-Chubbock, the site of ancient bison massacres in Colorado, where people regularly stampeded herds over a cliff, the animals lay in such heaps after a successful stampede that only the ones on the top were butchered, and only the best joints were taken from them. If you are incredulous - read the book, all the sources are there. Ridley's final conclusion is that the limitations of technology or demand, rather than a culture of self-restraint or religious respect, is what kept tribal people from overexploiting their environment. One nice touch is Ridley's quote of Chief Seattle's speech which Al Gore includes in his book 'Earth in the Balance'.

"How can you buy or sell the sky? The Land?...Every part of this earth is sacred to my people..."

This quote would seem to establish Native Americans as the original environmentalists. Unfortunately, the speech was never given. It was written by Ted Perry, in 1971, for an ABC television drama. Who says TV doesn't shape our perception of reality. ( It seems poor Gore is out of touch or is it calculated deception? How could he be expected to know that Chief Seattle owned slaves and killed almost all his enemies. ) If you are incensed over this, maybe ecology is a religion for you? Politically incorrect stuff to be sure. All this to establish that humans have a 'nature' which transcends their cultural milieu.

I highly recommend the book.

Matt Ridley's Origins of Virtue is one among many recently published books on evolutionary psychology -- and it's one of the very best. What distinguishes Ridley's book from the pack is his explicit grappling with the question: What does the fact that human moral sentiments are crafted by natural selection imply about the appropriate political order? Ridley presents one of the finest challenges to Thomas Hobbes yet written. According to Ridley, modern scientific research shows that Hobbes was wrong to assume that in the absence of an all-powerful government people would brutalize each other. While each person does indeed have within himself or herself an irreducible core of self-interest, this very self-interest is typically best served by cooperating with others rather than preying on others. In Ridley's view -- which I find convincing -- all that is necessary to channel self-interested sentiments into socially cooperative patterns of behavior is a system of private and freely exchangeable property rights. The government that governs least truly does, on this reading, govern best.

Ridley's purpose is not to be the ethicist, but to provide an interdisciplinary account of our constitutional foundations as homo sapiens, in order for a moral theory to reflect these innate foundations. He succeeds masterfully. Indeed, Ridley's "The Origin of Virtue" succeeds in a way that Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" fails. Whereas Wright focuses only on the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary biology and molecular genetics, Ridley incorporates both and adds ethology, comparative psychology, sociology, politics, economics, game theory, and paleontology. Wright's scope is myopic, whereas Ridley's scope is expansive. The outcomes could not be more radically different.

I dismissed Wright's book - not because it failed to explain Darwinism (it does so very well) - but because it failed to provide any moral insight from the Modern Synthesis. Ridley does not make this mistake: He takes homo sapiens as we are, both one with Nature, yet tellingly distinct and unique as a social and rational species. Ridley does this by using a broader armamentarium from which to analyze the origins of human virtue. Consequently, Ridley accomplishes far more than Wright in half the space and time..

Ridley's territory is too sophisticated and nuanced to be summarized into several single propositions. But he leaves no stone unturned, examining a plethora of human dynamics, i.e., the innate characteristics with which we are born, the usual pattern of development after our birth, and what is factual about the real, rather than the metaphysical, world. Suffice it to say that reciprocal altruism, kin selection, unit cohesion, symbiotic collaboration, ostracism, imitation, contextualism, emotion, trade, personal property, and mutual trust all dovetail along with reason to produce a distinctive human reality.

While homo sapiens may be grounded in nature and motivated by self-interest, accepting these facts does not condemn us to a Hobbesian state of affairs. As Ridley poignantly observes, individual and collective interests break apart only when we are coercively removed from our finer instincts. We are not a blank slate, after all, but born and nurtured to do remarkably virtuous things. Ridley advocates no particular ethical theory, but shows what a theory must provide in order for it to be commensurate with our being human and to be compatible with our original innate predispositions. Wright [supra.] advocates a utilitarian ethic, not because of some intrinsic feature of utilitarianism, but, well, just because. It's no surprise then that the ethical theory Ridley most respects is the theory of moral sentiments espoused by David Hume, Adam Smith, and Francis Hutcheson in the eighteenth century. The link could not be more obvious: The theory of moral sentiments reflects on our empirical selves and how we are disposed to act towards others based on our own self-interests with benevolence.

Just because humans are genetically, physically, and biologically predisposed to act one way rather than another doesn't make such a predisposition ethically normative. Ridley avoids the naturalistic fallacy. His interdisciplinary account is intellectually and emotionally satisfying, because it draws on a plurality of disciplines to sort out our ethical origins and intuitions. Even though one does not get a complete ethical, political, or economic theory from Ridley, the implications are clear. For a fuller explication of his ideas, the reader will need to consult David Hume's "Treatise on Human Nature," Part III, or his "Enquiry into the Principles of Morals;" or Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments;" or else Francis Hutchinson's numerous ethical essays. The political and economic implications of Ridley's account favors the writings of F.A. Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty," and other classical liberals.

At least Ridley opens the door between the Modern Synthesis and ethical, political, and economic theories. He does not have an overriding agenda (as in the Sociobiology debates), but clearly and articulately examines human nature from manifold perspectives - all grounded in empirical evidence. The result if refreshingly honest and candid; now it's up to us to decide what to do with this evidence. Highly recommended.

Matt Ridley nicely demonstrates here that there is no such thing as virtue and that altruism is an oxymoron. Instead it is all reciprocity and enlightened self-interest. This reminds me of when I was a sophomore in college. We used to argue passionately about three things: the nature of women, whether the Pope believed in God, and whether it was possible to act otherwise than in one's own self-interest. We concluded that women were an enigma wrapped in a mystery, etc.; that it wasn't clear whether the Pope believed in God or not; and that, barring mistakes, we always acted in our own self-interest. We further concluded that "altruism" was a word without real meaning, that the Pope was an amoral political animal, and that women were, regardless of their nature, VERY interesting. But we were sophomores. Matt Ridley is all grown up, and what interests him in this book is not so much the origin of virtue (although he does get heavily into that) but the restoration of the conservative agenda. Alas. He argues from biology (our nature) to what ought to be politically. This is doubly "alas" because Ridley preaches mightily against this very delusion, calling it a "reverse naturalistic fallacy" (p. 257).

David Ricardo and Adam Smith are brought into the fray, Hobbes and Machiavelli. Ridley takes arguments from game theory and political science and the world of high finance to make his point that virtue as it is ordinarily understood does not exist. He goes on to call for less government and more local autonomy, a return to a dream state of "everything small and local" (p. 264). As he does, Ridley comes dangerously close to taking on all the trappings of a right wing radio talk show host, spouting the virtues of Newt Gingrich and Margaret Thatcher on his way to becoming something like a high-toned Rush Limbaugh.

Alas, how sharp was his rapier and how telling his prose when Ridley stuck to revealing our social and sexual hypocrisy as he did so delightfully in The Red Queen (1993); but how obvious are his prejudices when he steps into the political arena. He actually argues that tried old irrelevancy of the embarrassed right wing, that even though Hitler was bad, very bad, he was better than Stalin. Thus on page 258 we have (referring to the doctrine of acquired characteristics embraced by the Soviet state): "Unlike the genetic determinism of Hitler, Stalin's environmental variety went on to infect other peoples."

Ridley even argues that Hitler got his ideas from the communists. "Hitler was merely carrying out a genocidal policy against `inferior', incurable or reactionary tribes that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had advocated..." (p. 253). So caught up in his cause is Ridley that he begins to contradict himself and argue for the kind of idyllic fantasy world that he condemns in Rousseauians. Thus in his chapter entitled "The Power of Property" he waxes nostalgic for the "egalitarian" conservation systems of New Guinea fishermen and Maine lobster men before the interference of big government. On page 262 he talks about "The collapse of community spirit in the last few decades, and the erosion of civic virtue...caused" by "the dead hand of the Leviathan." But on the very next page he declares, "I hold to no foggy nostalgia that the past was any better. Most of the past was a time of authority, too..."

Yes, Matt, it was. The authority of the war lord, of the feudal lord, of a system of social, political and economic imprisonment so oppressive that the average person never got further than a few miles from the place of his birth and had little to no chance of rising above the economic and social station of his birth. It was "small and local" with a vengeance. The tyranny of the feudal lords in Europe and, e.g., the war lords in China is conveniently ignored in Ridley's political fantasy. He claims that we have it better today only because of superior technology (p. 263) forgetting that our system of representative democracy in Republican form is also an improvement over the absolutism of the tribe. The sad lesson here is, that even a man as adroitly talented and as intelligent as Matt Ridley becomes just another propagandist when he ventures into an area in which he is emotionally involved.

Still there is a lot to enjoy in The Origins of Virtue. His discussion of the prisoner's dilemma is the best I've read, although his analysis of the "wolf's dilemma" (p. 55) is faulty. I won't go into it here, but "the tiny chance" that he refers to is overwhelmed by the fact that each player has only a five percent chance of "winning" by pushing his button since he has to beat 19 others to the punch. Consequently the best strategy is the obvious, don't push that button! (But check this out for yourself.)

His discussion of how the division of labor has enriched our world is interesting; his analysis of how we detect cheaters and how that is an instinctive human talent is persuasive; and his delineation of the nature of gift giving and receiving and how it relates to our innate sense of reciprocity is valuable as it shines light on the nature of "virtue." In fact, his entire argument is eminently worth reading. His glorification of trade (with which I agree) and his put down of ecologists (with which I disagree) is tolerable. Most fun though--recalling the Matt Ridley of The Red Queen--is in all the sacred cows he slaughters along the way: the New World Indians (ouch!), Margaret Mead, the so-called "tragedy of the commons" theory, the Noble Savage, even poor Chief Seattle is revealed as a slave-owner whose public reputation is largely the product of a screenwriter's imagination. (p. 214)

This book is a truly inter-disciplinary venture. It explores evolution (group selection BY survival of it's individuals) and works gradually up into game theory, ethics, human psychology, anthropology and finally, the possible biological origin of good government.

Ridleys main argument is to show that human cooperation is not- contrary to popular thought- a biproduct of government and law, but a natural development. What's odd about this is that cooperation seems to come straight out of the prisoners dilemma which is generally depicted as a selfish game. For those not familiar, in brief, the prisoners dilemma is- 2 or more players are in a game. If each cooperates with eachother, they share the reward equally but if one deciedes to cheat the others, she alone gets the full reward. Rationallity dictates that it's in the individuals interst to cheat, getting the full reward. Ridley shows us that emotions, possibly evolutionary ones, come in to counter this and encourage cooperation. In other words, Ridley blows holes in the theory that cooperation comes out of 'group selection'- rather, it comes from individual selection.

The only problem with books as inter-disciplinary as this one, is that one doubts from time to time whether the author really knows about biology, government, law, psychology, anthropology, history AND philosophical ethics. I can't say that Ridley is definitely overstretching. His statements do appear sound and error free. Still, his tendency to make sweeping statements in so many fields detracts from his credability. Not enough to loose a star though.

For the interested reader, another great book on the evolution of law as an extention of human nature (coming to much the same conclusion as Ridley's) is Judge Richard Posner's "The Economics of Justice." Albeit a bit more academic and not as coversational, Posner's book serves as a good paralell read to Ridley's.

Does true morality exist? Does altruism exist? Does true co-operative spirit exist? Or are all of these mere examples of subtle selfishness? In other words: are moral, altruistic and co-operative looking people just acting these behaviors to manipulate others? Are they in fact being opportunistic and selfish? Many economists claim altruism does not exist. They would say that, even when a person would do a nice thing to another, it would be, in the end, for his own benefit, and thus be an act of subtle selfishness. He would do it to gain the trust of the other person, to make a good impression and build a reputation of friendliness and trustworthiness or perhaps to create a dependency. Most of economic theory is still based upon the idea that people are in the end selfish and opportunistic. These economist call this 'rational'.

Matt Ridley does not deny that individuals can act out of selfishness bu he argues that harmony generally prevails over selfishness. This book explains the paradox that our minds have been build by selfish genes to be social, trustworthy and co-operative. He says we owe our success as a species to these social instincts. He explains that morality is the stuff society is made of. In short his argument goes like this:

1. Society is important because is allows for divison of labor. It allows for people to specialize. And the sums of all our specialized efforts are greater than they would be if we all had been generalists. In other words: society is synergy between specialists.

2. In order to have a harmonious society, we have to be well-connected to each other. This requires us to be co-operative, social and trustworthy.

3. Being social, co-operative and trustworthy is a way to thrive and thereby an evolutionairy advantage. These traits are built into our nature by evolution.

Matt Ridley carefully argues his case. He uses findings from many disciplines like biology, psychology and economics. Very important parts of this book, and a delight to read, are the chapters where he explains the great work of Robert Axelrod (see: The Evolution of Co-operation, 1984) and the inspiring theory of moral sentiments of economist (!) Robert Frank (see: Passions within Reason, 1988).

The message of this book is important. One lesson is that it is wise to teach our children to be good, because in the long run it pays. If you only act rationally (in the sense of the rational man from economic theory) you can only expect to reap short-term benefits. Another wise suggestion is that we need to build our institutions in such a way that they draw out our co-operative instincts (instead of building mechanisms aimed only at suppressing our supposed selfish nature). Ridley: "Pre-eminently this means the encouragement of exchange between equals. just as trade between countries is the best recipe for friendship between them, so exchange between enfranchised and empowered individuals is the best recipe for co-operation. We must encourage social and material exchange between equals, for that is the raw material of trust, and trust is the foundation of virtue."

Inspiring material...

This is a belated review... penned after reading Ridley's more recent book "Genome" and making some casual comparisons.

Where "Genome" stays on its track, "Origins of Virtue" gets rather derailed. Skip the final chapter and you'll enjoy this book. (Or if you're a Libertarian then read ONLY the last chapter and feel vindicated.)

For the most part it's a fine book, one of those rare science books that's entertaining to read. Ridley ties together biology, economics, sociology, anthropology, game theory and more to show how humans (and many other creatures, even at the cellular level) have evolved to be naturally cooperative: being generous has benefits apart from esteem-building.

The problem I have with the book is that Ridley, after leading the reader chapter by chapter through a terrific set of examples and specific experiments and demonstrating the inherent ability of humans (and many other animals) to form first and second order, mutually beneficial alliances, and behave in what appears (on the surface) to be an altruistic manner with no need for religion, government or culture to prompt them, goes on to present a view of government that is pure Newt Gingrich (or Adam Smith) in its philosophy. His final chapters deal with humans' failures as environmental custodians (debunking the myth of the noble savage), proposing that unfettered private property rights are the only way humans can protect the environment for the common good. His logic seems good on the surface but he leaves out a critical point: properties are bought and sold like any other exploitable resource. He does say at one point that currency speculation is a "zero sum game", but so is property speculation based on resource extraction. This view, where a private owner (such as Weyerhauser to use a Northwest example) is assumed to do what is for the common good simply because they are (in theory) thinking long-term and wisely using land that they (or more precisely, their shareholders) own is clearly false. The result is just a "value-added" phenomenon whereby the low-profit, high-efficiency forest is converted (over time) into a sprawling, high-profit but low-efficiency housing development, or golf course, or commercial park. What's good for the property owner is often not good for the society.

That aside, the book is fine, entertaining and thought-provoking.

Matt Ridley is my favorite popular science writer, but this is his worst book. Maybe it's not that bad, but his others are much better, especially "Genome" and "The Red Queen."

Anyway, a lot of research has been done since "The Origins of Virtue" was published. In its time it was better than it is now, but I recommend getting a more recently written book instead.

As above, I especially recommend "Genome" and "The Red Queen."

But here are some other books you may want to check out before deciding what to purchase:

Jared Diamond's classic "Guns, Germs and Steel"

Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" (predates "Origins of Virtue" but is still better)

Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate"

Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature"

Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained"

This is a well-written book, larded with intellectual plums, so even if you don't follow the main line of argument, you will enjoy its details. However, following the main argument is not terribly difficult. Ridley really makes a single point and draws an important conclusion: whatever else we are we are by nature cooperators, yet key forms of cooperation are thwarted by the conditions of modern life.

We are 'groupish'; we form teams and do our part, and disapprove of those who don't do their parts. We form friendships based on mutual favors, and our accounting of who owes whom what and how much is exquisitely honed and compulsively indulged. We have first-class cheat-detectors, and we use our miraculous language abilities mostly to gossip about others, and whether they are holding up their ends, are free-riders, or perhaps do more than their share, blaming and praising and so keeping everyone more or less in line.

These behaviors were 'designed' by evolution to aid us; those who got along with others by being generous, friendly, and trusting, yet also firmly punishing betrayal, tended to do better in life and to leave more offspring of the same ilk. These behaviors do not always translate into being 'nice', and certainly hardly ever translate into a universal love of mankind. But they do lead us to get along with those we feel are a part of our group of the moment.

Anyway, given this constellation of reciprocal altruism/cheat detection along with our always-vigilant looking out for Number One, it seems that we do have within us the makings of a workable social mechanism that can deliver benefit to everyone without requiring lots of police. We can, it turns out, avoid The Tragedy of the Commons and the 'war of each with each'. Most people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt in dealing with strangers -- to trust them and be honorable towards them -- if the social climate encourages this. So people all over the world have always been able to deal with common resources in the only way that really assures they can be profitably and sustainably exploited: by making them private properties.

Much of the first part of this book was adequately covered in Robert Wright's book "The Moral Animal". I don't think Ridley adds anything new there, but his discussion of the consequences of reciprocity, or reciprocal altruism, is much more extensive than Wright's. He discusses groupishness, our tendency to operate in groups, which to him is not the same thing as submerging ourselves into some group identity. We cooperate, we trade, we work together by means of groupishness and reciprocity: they explain trust, retribution, gifts, and sharing; they allow us to gain greatly from trading with each other.

He notes, amusingly, that we seem to have a built-in dislike of hoarding, and that this sits uncomfortably with the vast possibilities for hoarding of property that modern societies provide. At the same time, private ownership is the engine that has ramped up our prosperity so spectacularly. People work for themselves directly and also for things that they can own. At the same time, people sort themselves into groups of similar levels of resources [that is, of wealth] so as to not have to deal with the hoarding taboo.

I think this book makes an important political point in a novel way. And its conclusions can be applied to other than the economic sphere. For example, laws enforcing political correctness often have the unintended consequence of reducing the tacit cooperation that would otherwise enforce community morals.

Anyway, Ridley basically is saying that we should use some aspects of our innate nature to control other aspects and get to the good society. Cooperation and trust, properly employed, can do more than squadrons of police to keep people in line. It's an uplifting message. I wonder how many will believe it?