On the good of the group:
Most discussions of the biology of altruism are really not about the biology of altruism. It’s easy to see why nature documentaries, with their laudable conservationist ethic, disseminate the agitprop that animals act in the interest of the group. One subtext is, Don’t hate the wolf that just ate Bambi; he’s acting for the greater good. The other is, Protecting the environment is nature’s way; we humans had better shape up. The opposing theory of the selfish gene has been bitterly attacked out of the fear that it vindicates the philosophy of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street: greed is good, greed works. […]
I think moralistic science is bad for morals and bad for science. […]
The body is the ultimate barrier to empathy. Your toothache simply does not hurt me the way it hurts you. But genes are not imprisoned in bodies; the same gene lives in the bodies of many family members at once. The dispersed copies of a gene call to one another by endowing bodies with emotions. Love, compassion, and empathy are invisible fibers that connect genes in different bodies. They are the closest we will ever come to feeling someone else’s toothache. When a parent wishes she could take the place of a child about to undergo surgery, it is not the species or the group or her body that wants her to have that most unselfish emotion; it is her selfish genes.
At this point, Pinker (to be fair, mostly via citing the work of biologist Robert Trivers) describes what he calls “reciprocal altruism”, where he explains the evolutionary source of liking, anger, gratitude, sympathy, guilt, shame, trust, distrust, and so on, devoting at least a full paragraph to each. It’s all extremely fascinating and impossible to summarize, and so I recommend you buy the book and read it in its entirety.
Pinker then proceeds to his conclusion on the good of the group:
Many people still resist the idea that the moral emotions are designed by natural selection to further the long-term interests of individuals and ultimately their genes. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if we were built to enjoy what was best for the group? Companies wouldn’t pollute, public service unions wouldn’t strike, citizens would recycle bottles and take the bus, and those teenagers would stop ruining a quiet Sunday afternoon with their jet-skis.
Once again I think it is unwise to confuse how the mind works with how it would be nice for the mind to work. But perhaps some comfort may be taken in a different wya of looking at things. Perhaps we should rejoice that people’s emotions aren’t designed for the good of the group. Often the best way to benefit one’s group is to displace, subjugate, or annihilate the group next door. Ants in a colony are closely related, and each is a paragon of unselfishness. That’s why ants are one of the few kinds of animal that wage war and take slaves. When human leaders have manipulated or coerced people into submerging their interests into the group’s, the outcomes are some of history’s worst atrocities. In Love and Death, Woody Allen’s pacifist character is urged to defend the czar and Mother Russia with the dubious call to duty that under French rule he would have to eat croissants and rich food with heavy sauces. People’s desire for a comfortable life for themselves, their family, and their friends may have braked the ambitions of many an emperor.