It is difficult to explain why morals are so different in different cultures. The article makes a valuable contribution to solving this riddle.
People's beliefs that indulgent behaviors are bad for self-control and cooperation form the basis for puritanical morals according to the moral disciplining theory that the article presents. The article recognizes that functional norms, that is, norms that actually improve cooperation, can spread by cultural group selection. Yet the authors emphasize that their account is agnostic as to whether puritanical norms are objectively effective in improving self-control and cooperation. It depends only on people's perceptions that they are. This begs the question as to how these folk beliefs arise in the first place and how they change. Are the folk beliefs based on experience, evolved by cultural selection, imposed by self-interested leaders, or are they rationalizations of preexisting distastes for certain behaviors? The article focuses more on cultural evolution than on biological evolution, yet evolutionary psychology may offer additional insight into people's motivations to suppress or promote certain behaviors.
Allow me to introduce a theory called regality theory. This theory explains the psychological desire for strict discipline and strict morals as an evolved mechanism to suppress free-riding in situations with a high need for collective action, such as war and other collective dangers. Moral proscriptions against both sexual and non-sexual forms of indulgence are found in societies with a high level of perceived collective danger, according to this theory (Fog, Reference Fog2017).
A fundamental element in regality theory is the need for collective action during violent conflicts. Violent intergroup conflict has been a strong evolutionary force in human prehistory. Prehistoric hunter–gatherer tribes were not always as peaceful as early anthropologists believed (Allen & Jones, Reference Allen and Jones2014; Hames, Reference Hames2019; Kiblinger, Reference Kiblinger2020). A hierarchical social structure with strict discipline and a strong leader can be an efficient means for suppressing free-riding in case of intergroup conflict or war (Fog, Reference Fog2017; Sinn & Hayes, Reference Sinn and Hayes2017). A hierarchical social structure with strict discipline is optimal in a dangerous environment with frequent violent conflicts. The situation is very different in a safe and peaceful environment where there is less need for collective action. A powerful and despotic leader in this situation can take advantage of everybody else without providing enough collective benefit to justify his power. People will be likely to support a strong leader and to show psychological preferences for strict discipline only in case of violent conflict. In case of peace and security, people prefer an egalitarian society and a tolerant culture because this frees them from the tyranny of a powerful leader. This theory describes a psychological flexibility that allows humans and their culture to adapt to varying needs for collective action (Fog, Reference Fog2017).
Regality theory explains why puritanical morals are most common in poor societies marred by violent conflict and precarious existence, while rich welfare societies are more tolerant of indulgent behaviors. An evolved psychological response pattern makes people prefer strict morals and an authoritarian leadership when violent conflict or other collective dangers require a high level of collective action and suppression of free-riding. In light of this theory, we can regard strict morals as functional in the sense that they represent an evolved response mechanism that increases cooperation when collective action is most needed. This theory supplements moral disciplining theory by providing an evolutionary explanation for the postulated link between puritanism and the need for cooperation.
A recent large-scale study shows that perceived collective dangers such as war and terrorism foster an authoritarian culture with strict discipline and strict sexual morals, while individual dangers have no such effect (Fog, Reference Fog2023). This observation supports the theory discussed here.
The explanation that people in western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies do not need strict morals because they exhibit more spontaneous self-control is perhaps less convincing when we consider that such societies are characterized by more individualism (Welzel, Reference Welzel2013), more indulgence (Minkov, Reference Minkov2011), and more focus on joy than on duty (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, Reference Beugelsdijk and Welzel2018).
It is difficult to explain why morals are so different in different cultures. The article makes a valuable contribution to solving this riddle.
People's beliefs that indulgent behaviors are bad for self-control and cooperation form the basis for puritanical morals according to the moral disciplining theory that the article presents. The article recognizes that functional norms, that is, norms that actually improve cooperation, can spread by cultural group selection. Yet the authors emphasize that their account is agnostic as to whether puritanical norms are objectively effective in improving self-control and cooperation. It depends only on people's perceptions that they are. This begs the question as to how these folk beliefs arise in the first place and how they change. Are the folk beliefs based on experience, evolved by cultural selection, imposed by self-interested leaders, or are they rationalizations of preexisting distastes for certain behaviors? The article focuses more on cultural evolution than on biological evolution, yet evolutionary psychology may offer additional insight into people's motivations to suppress or promote certain behaviors.
Allow me to introduce a theory called regality theory. This theory explains the psychological desire for strict discipline and strict morals as an evolved mechanism to suppress free-riding in situations with a high need for collective action, such as war and other collective dangers. Moral proscriptions against both sexual and non-sexual forms of indulgence are found in societies with a high level of perceived collective danger, according to this theory (Fog, Reference Fog2017).
A fundamental element in regality theory is the need for collective action during violent conflicts. Violent intergroup conflict has been a strong evolutionary force in human prehistory. Prehistoric hunter–gatherer tribes were not always as peaceful as early anthropologists believed (Allen & Jones, Reference Allen and Jones2014; Hames, Reference Hames2019; Kiblinger, Reference Kiblinger2020). A hierarchical social structure with strict discipline and a strong leader can be an efficient means for suppressing free-riding in case of intergroup conflict or war (Fog, Reference Fog2017; Sinn & Hayes, Reference Sinn and Hayes2017). A hierarchical social structure with strict discipline is optimal in a dangerous environment with frequent violent conflicts. The situation is very different in a safe and peaceful environment where there is less need for collective action. A powerful and despotic leader in this situation can take advantage of everybody else without providing enough collective benefit to justify his power. People will be likely to support a strong leader and to show psychological preferences for strict discipline only in case of violent conflict. In case of peace and security, people prefer an egalitarian society and a tolerant culture because this frees them from the tyranny of a powerful leader. This theory describes a psychological flexibility that allows humans and their culture to adapt to varying needs for collective action (Fog, Reference Fog2017).
Regality theory explains why puritanical morals are most common in poor societies marred by violent conflict and precarious existence, while rich welfare societies are more tolerant of indulgent behaviors. An evolved psychological response pattern makes people prefer strict morals and an authoritarian leadership when violent conflict or other collective dangers require a high level of collective action and suppression of free-riding. In light of this theory, we can regard strict morals as functional in the sense that they represent an evolved response mechanism that increases cooperation when collective action is most needed. This theory supplements moral disciplining theory by providing an evolutionary explanation for the postulated link between puritanism and the need for cooperation.
A recent large-scale study shows that perceived collective dangers such as war and terrorism foster an authoritarian culture with strict discipline and strict sexual morals, while individual dangers have no such effect (Fog, Reference Fog2023). This observation supports the theory discussed here.
The explanation that people in western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies do not need strict morals because they exhibit more spontaneous self-control is perhaps less convincing when we consider that such societies are characterized by more individualism (Welzel, Reference Welzel2013), more indulgence (Minkov, Reference Minkov2011), and more focus on joy than on duty (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, Reference Beugelsdijk and Welzel2018).
Competing interest
None.