Evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson envisions two stages of selection – at the level of individuals and groups.
- At the individual level, those who can be aggressive and reckless are more likely to pass on their genes.
- At the group level, however, the group whose members can work best together will win. That is, the one with the least inward aggression and recklessness.
Which of these principles is more important? That’s pretty clear. Humans as a species have succeeded because the brain has enabled effective cooperation in larger groups. Not by physical strength or aggression or outwitting the beast in some dangerous situation.
How do you reconcile those two conflicting tendencies?
- Wilson argues that a certain balance is usually established, representing a compromise between aggression and decency, between egoism and altruism.
- If selflessness and a willingness to help totally prevailed, we would have paradise on earth and a super-successful group. But this cannot last for long, because even one very selfish individual could dominate everything.
- If, on the other hand, the group moves too close to the aggressive egoistic pole, it will collapse with tragic consequences for all.
So it’s perfectly understandable that all societies and groups throughout history have tried to encourage decency, selflessness, consideration, and a willingness to help other members (which may not be inconsistent with very brutal behavior towards everyone outside). Trust and the ability to work together smoothly within a group is vital.
As far as I know, there is only one case in history where a society’s moral teachings recommend egoism – that’s free-market liberalism. One of its leading figures, the philosopher Ayn Rand, even calls selflessness a disorder. Any society where this prevails must collapse.
But Edward O. Wilson does not address these consequences. He is not a political commentator. He is a biologist.