Why reciprocal altruism was a bad choice of words.
The following definitions are taken fromhttps://iep.utm.edu/altruism-and-group-selection/
First the distinction between biological and colloquial altruism
“Biological altruism is a course of action that enhances the expected fitness of another at the expense of one’s own fitness.”
Colloquial altruism as follows “An ultimate motivation of assisting another regardless of one’s direct or indirect self-benefit is necessary for it to be altruistic in the ordinary sense ─ for what we might call moral altruism”
The biological definition is somewhat muddled by the fact that the word was invented by Comte to have the following meaning “a theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action.” Taking it out of a moral context abuses the idea that language requires internal consistency and logic. The colloquial meaning has not changed much over time so my first argument is find another word if you are going to change the meaning.
That is not to say that science does not have its own set of definitions for terms that may vary from colloquial use. In the past the convention was to use Latin to avoid confusion. So I would not have as much of a problem with how it is used if Latin had been used as in alteri huic ‘to this other’. My guess is the English word was used to make the concept more accessible. That however would not resolve the philosophical issues.
A frame of reference is needed to translate a scientific concept into a philosophical concept. Basically a philosophy of science. A philosophy of science is a topic that spans many volumes and endless debate but still a working definition is called for. (A detailed discussion can be found here Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ) It seems appropriate since science is natural philosophy that it be defined by nature. I would define science as the natural process of observation, hypothesis and testing, in that order. What validates this view is that every organism uses the same process. Take an ameba for example. It makes observations of the chemicals in its environment, forms a “hypothesis” on which concentrations are more food like and which are poisonous and tests the “hypothesis” by moving in the direction of more food and less poison. This definition avoids the subjectivity that creeps in as to what degree of cognition is necessary to call something an observation, hypothesis, or test.
The problem with the term reciprocal altruism isn’t so much that it is factually inaccurate based on the above definition of science but what creeps into every evolutionary discussion, which is purpose. Let’s rewrite the first definition to remove any hint of subjectivity. Expected fitness of another at the expense of one’s own fitness becomes group fitness at the expense of individual fitness. That helps but the problem remains.
The problem starts with evolution’s fundamental dependence on random mutations. Ignore for now the idea of evolved to evolve or the indivisibility of reality, etc. etc. A random mutation is by definition without purpose. We next have to tackle the issue of if individual selection is dependent on random mutations is group selection as well. The short answer is that only individuals have genes. A complication arises in that groups have “culture”. By bending colloquial definitions a bit you could say all social animals and perhaps even non-social animals have culture. To simplify, the idea that information about the environment is passed on from one generation to the next by non-genetic or at least by means other than alterations to DNA. Epigenetics makes that somewhat outdated but I think we can ignore that as well. All we really have to accept is that regardless of non-genetic transfer DNA still defines a species. Minus genetic engineering selection remains dependent on random mutations. Selection inherits its purposelessness from random mutations.
The question is why is purposelessness so important to this discussion? The answer is from a scientific perspective it isn’t. The problem is that the people that propose “reciprocal altruism” don’t stop there. Wittingly or otherwise they try to construct a morality based on science. Altruism once again takes on the colloquial definition. I’m not actually proposing that the people who do this are not sophisticated enough to not notice the problem. The question becomes why do they do it if you cannot develop a morality from a naturalistic perspective?
Morality implies intention and evolution has no intention. It cannot because it is dependent on random mutations. Switching to selection doesn’t solve the problem because selection is dependent on random mutations. You could argue that fitness is built into selection and DNA but scientifically fitness is a consequence not an intention. “Mother nature” doesn’t actually “care” if you or your species survives. Every species that has or will ever exist is either extinct or headed towards extinction. What then are the arguments against nihilism and narcissism? The answer is “created” meaning and “created” morality. What have people discovered that creates meaning in life?
I would argue that reciprocal altruism is one of those abstract creations that create meaning. The importance of the distinction between abstract reality and physical reality become clear when we talk about cultural evolution. How is meaning created or destroyed culturally?
