Why do we help strangers? Is there a genetic basis for compassion? Or does evolutionary biology tell us a just-so story about why we care for others? These questions lie at the heart of this conversation between EconTalk Russ Roberts and Michael McCullough, who joined Russ to talk about his new book, The Kindness of Strangers.
McCullough, a psychologist, tries to find answers to these questions in a lab setting, with many parallels to what we see in experimental economics. What did you take away from this episode? We’d like to know. Use the prompts below to help us continue the conversation.
1- How does McCullough explain the origins of the Golden Rule? What is the significance of its coincidence with the rise of religions? Is it really just “self-interest rewritten” as many economists might have us believe?
2- How do we internalize moral principles, and why do we believe certain things right or wrong (even when we can’t explain why? (Think about McCullough’s example of Roe v Wade. Can you come up with other similar examples?)
3- What can we learn from Adam Smith about how we behave with regard to others? Where do our other-regarding preferences come from? Why, for example, do people tend to share money in the Dictator Game?
4- What does McCullough mean when he talks about a behavior continuum from highly externalized to highly internalized behavior? Which do you think has the greatest influence on our behavior? What role does superstition, for example, play in our motivation to help others?
5- Roberts and McCullough discuss the growth in humanitarian aid since 1500s, and Roberts asks why we don’t talk more about how futile it is? What would constitute effective humanitarian aid? Should we be more macro- or micro focused in our approach? (Roberts, for example, suggests visiting the sick might have a much greater impact on the world than large-scale foreign aid.)
READER COMMENTS
John Alcorn
Feb 8 2021 at 6:53pm
1. Ancient civilizations greatly extended cooperation among strangers. Religions codified the new cosmopolitan psychology.
In game theory, the Golden Rule is equivalent to unilateral cooperation as a first move, to be followed by tit-for-tat (conditional cooperation or retaliation) in subsequent dealings. Thus the Golden Rule begins with a leap of altruism, which brings extrinsic rewards only if others reciprocate. A big if. The Golden Rule also brings obligations if others, too, start from the Golden Rule. To reduce all of this to self-interest would be … reductive.
2. Most people simply have ethical intuitions. I suppose developmental psychology has something to say about how these are formed.
Moral rules take a birds-eye view. ‘Do what would be best if all do the same.’ This Kantian rule ignores what others actually do — But we do sometimes ask pointedly, ‘What if everyone did that?!’ ‘Do what produces the best social outcome in the circumstances.’ This utilitarian rule requires knowledge of social causality (a tall order). In any case, much of moral psychology really consists in bounded application of moral rules that claim to be unbounded. It’s rare for anyone to take a birds-eye view that encompasses everyone on the planet, future generations, and all sentient creatures.
(Social norms involve strong feelings about right and wrong, but differ from moral rules.)
3. Adam Smith explains that our conduct towards others is greatly shaped by three motivations: self-interest, a desire for respect, and a desire to be worthy of respect (look oneself in the mirror). The ‘why questions’ are too hard.
4. I admire Prof. McCullough’s insistence that we have a variety of motivations (interest, integrity, altruism, etc.). But I doubt it’s accurate or useful to array the various motivations along a one-dimensional continuum. Social norms conform to what others expect. Moral rules take a birds-eye view. Emulation mimics what others do. The Golden Rule (see above) has a complex social structure. And so on.
5. Don’t underestimate the power of freedom (migration, enterprise, trade, ideas).
Amy Willis
Feb 10 2021 at 10:05am
@John,
I especially like your answer to #4. I had the same thought. McCullough’s continuum seems applicable to discussing the MOTIVATIONS for behavior, but not the content of the norms/rules those behaviors are in reference to.
With regard to #5, three cheers. But we’re still left with the perennial problem of how to convince other of this; we’ve been largely unsuccessful (or perhaps I’ve not yet had enough coffee this morning.) Also, Russ noted the ubiquitous desire to “do something” (he says, be an “activist”) or be part of a “movement.” Freedom, on the other hand, often implies “doing” nothing (ref Adam Smith, of course).
Steven Lee
Feb 10 2021 at 2:58pm
1- I wonder if there is any way to actually collect evidence on this. My thoughts would be to extend signalling as ‘being good’. You can lean on other people to reciprocate obligations, and you yourself want a reputation of being reciprocal. I think it was said in the book Sapiens, that religion was a way to extend cooperation. Codifying the golden rule like that would help with giving people an explicit mantra that is easier than ‘I do not defect in prisoner’s dilemmas’
2- I think the way things feel is important. Pessimistically, we internalize moral principles to the extent that they justify our own behavior. Optimistically, we internalize moral principles if they allow us to strive towards better behavior. How this works depends a lot on the person. The Roe v Wade example was striking. I had no idea that was the reasoning behind the decision for that case. Other examples might be on gay marriage? Saying that marriage is legal under the 14th amendment is not exactly how I think many people think of the gay marriage legal battle.
3-
Perhaps we can learn about positive sum games from Adam Smith, and their importance in growth and ethical behavior. The dictator game is interesting. Related, why do people tip at restaurants that they will only visit once? I think the social stigma of greed is really big here. Additionally, most games are iterated. You don’t play only once in real life. Because of that, thinking about one-off games can be hard, even if not giving any money away is the ‘rational’ choice.
4-
I think we need a mix of both to be the best we can be. Externalized behavior is probably stronger most of the time. That is usually a good thing, because serial killers can be highly internally motivated. We need feedback from other people to make sure that we aren’t doing anything morally wrong, but picking the right people is important.
5-
I disagree that visiting the sick would have a greater impact on the world. We should seek to help more people as a terminal value, and despite quibblings about specifically how helpful effective altruism projects are, we know what helps more people rather than less. Roberts does not choose to visit sick people randomly. Instead, he visits sick people who are close to him. I don’t think there is an ethical basis for valuing people more just because they are close to you. Instead, it seems to be an obligation to community, and seeking to be publicly seen being nice by people who will interact with you later. There is a social capital benefit to that, which is nice for the community. Hopefully we could do both?
Amy Willis
Feb 15 2021 at 7:51am
@Steven, such great responses! Your 3 and 4 both make me think of Adam Smith… Specifically, where does Smith’s Impartial Spectator fit on this behavior continuum McCullough describes? It seems to be a rather unique combination of externalized and internalized. Or perhaps, when do external influences become internalized?
re tipping- a classic Russ question. ICYMI, did you catch this older episode on tipping with Tony Gill?
Comments are closed.