What do chimpanzees, Hieronymus Bosch and the Dalai Lama have in common? No, that’s not the setup to a bad joke. All of them appear in Frans de Waal’s contemplation of the sources of human morality, The Bonobo and the Atheist. This is not the first time that de Waal, an eminent primatologist and prolific author, has suggested that we can learn about human morality from the behavior our closest relatives (evolutionarily speaking). But with this volume he carefully lays out the complete case that moral behavior is rooted in characteristics that are part of our human nature. 

De Waal argues forcefully that as a practical matter morality is not derived from a set of religious or philosophical precepts. Rather, the basic components, if not the details, of our moral behavior come from our evolutionary history and are not deduced from an external source of rules. He interweaves stories of ape behavior, imagery from the work of Bosch and the results of rigorous primate studies to build a compelling argument that the fundamental elements of human morality arise from moral sentiments with a lengthy evolutionary pedigree. 

With no direct access to our ancient progenitors, this case must be made by examining our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos. If traits we consider desirable and moral are exhibited by these related species, the most parsimonious explanation is that the mental processes underlying these behaviors are shared and stem from their common ancestry. The argument draws power from the numerous stories used to illustrate that apes evince key “building blocks” of morality — empathy, altruism, generosity, a sense of fairness (“inequity aversion”) and community concern.

Take Daisy, a chimp comforting the terminally ill Amos. Seeing that Amos is resting uncomfortably in a hard surface, Daisy pushes bedding material toward him. Amos is too sick to respond, so Daisy attempts to stuff the shavings between his back and the hard wall against which he was sitting. This simple gesture demonstrates that Daisy has the ability to put herself in Amos’s shoes, realize that he was in an uncomfortable position, and provide the means to improve his comfort. When the rest of the troop falls “eerily silent for days” after Amos’s death, it is hard not to believe their grief is similar to what we would feel. Over and over, these glimpses of chimp and bonobo life convincingly present a view of creatures that demonstrate genuine empathy, generosity and other moral impulses. 

De Waal argues that morality emerges from the bottom up, from traits deeply rooted in our species, and not from obedience to an imposed moral code. The component pieces of “the two H’s of Helping or at least not Hurting” fellow species members are plainly to be found in other primates. If moral impulses predate the first manifestations of religion in our distant past, then religion cannot be the source of morality. A species whose survival and flourishing requires certain behaviors develops a complex mechanism to promote those behaviors. An atheist himself, de Waal does not reject the idea that religion in some form or other may play a beneficial role, suggesting that “instead of giving us the moral law, the large religions were invented to bolster it.” 

He also dismisses philosophical principles as a source of morality. Unfortunately, the argument he sets out against secular theories of morality is far less compelling than the case that the underlying bases of morality are rooted in evolved inclinations. It may be correct as a historical matter that evolved traits and not rational principles are the source of moral behavior. But the claims of the philosophers deserve better analysis than they receive here. To posit that the golden rule would require a meat lover to feed sausage to a vegan, for instance, is an almost willfully literalistic interpretation of “do unto others.” 

An extended discussion of the outspoken tactics of so-called “new atheists” (the recent generation of critics of religion) feels like something of a detour. There is a case to make that it is dogmatism and not religion per se that most threatens human well being, but the discussion here amounts to an extended “I don’t get it.” Disparate tactics are lumped together and dismissed because de Waal finds some of them unappealing. The book would have been stronger if it had stuck with making the positive case rather than attacking straw man opponents. 

The Bonobo and the Atheist is eminently readable, engaging and challenging. It is at its strongest when making its positive case: that the roots of human morality lie deep in our evolutionary past, and that the set of behaviors we consider moral (in its most general sense) arise naturally out of inherited characteristics. Yet even if morality is grounded in biology, “its specifics are decided by people.” While the biological building blocks of morality do not equip us to apply moral principles on a global scale, understanding the source of our shared morality may help us move beyond dogmatism. One can only hope. 

Beth Kingsley is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Center for Inquiry DC, and a member of the board of the National Capital Area Skeptics. In her day job she is a lawyer.

comments powered by Disqus