In the target article, Whitehouse posits several reasonable hypotheses. First, natural selection favored self-sacrifice, in the sense of risking one's life for the benefit of others, in certain circumstances. Second, those circumstances included coalitional lethal violence. Third, kin (i.e., individuals identified through birth links) were often the beneficiaries of such self-sacrifice. Fourth, the encouragement of such self-sacrifice took place partially during dramatic rituals, although listening to stories about the past sacrifices of ancestors was also probably a major factor (Palmer et al. Reference Palmer, Begley, Coe and Steadman2013). Fifth, relatively recent social environments have led to the modification of rituals and stories to influence individuals to direct their self-sacrifice to benefit individuals who are not kin (i.e., not identified as being related through birth links). Finally, accurate knowledge of the cause of such self-sacrifice may help harness it to occur in certain desirable situations (sect. 7, para. 7), for example, where the willingness to sacrifice one's life leads to saving other lives instead of destroying them.
Unfortunately, Whitehouse's apparently unquestioned fundamental starting assumption, upon which his entire explanation of why self-sacrificing behavior was favored by natural selection is built, is worded in a way that is sufficiently inaccurate to prevent him from being able to explain some important forms of self-sacrifice. The only things described in his scenario that are empirically verifiable are individual humans influencing other individual humans to sacrifice their lives in a way that benefited individual humans. Although it is tempting to gloss over these complex interactions of individuals by use of the term “group” for the sake of convenient communication, it is neither necessary nor accurate to describe self-sacrifice as being performed for some group or caused by fusion with that group. The ethnographic record describes the gatherings of foragers as fluid, with individuals who are kin gathering, dispersing, and regathering in different combinations. Although the fluidity of groups is often claimed to be compatible with multilevel selection, surely there is some degree of fluidity beyond which claims of individuals being divided into groups becomes false. Even Durkheim (Reference Durkheim1961/1912) realized that the clans involved in dramatic rituals in aboriginal Australia did not form the local gatherings brought to mind by the statement “In much of human prehistory, fused groups probably comprised small warring bands bound together in adversity” (sect. 7, para. 2). The assertion that forager rituals fused “individuals into small relational groups” (sect. 5, para. 1) is simply not consistent with ethnographic evidence.
Focusing on relationships between individuals related through birth links and avoiding the assumption of distinct human groups enable a more accurate view of the relationship between kinship and self-sacrifice. Whitehouse proposes that self-sacrifice was originally for a group made up of literal kin, by which he appears to mean only those individuals so closely related that the sacrificing of their lives for each other may be explainable by kin selection (sect. 4, para. 1). According to Whitehouse (sect, 6, para. 5), the scope of self-sacrifice was expanded to a large group consisting primarily of non-kin by people falsely claiming that the non-kin members of the large group were actually kin (i.e., closely related brothers and sisters). Humans do use kin terms metaphorically, but Whitehouse's scenario leaves out a crucial intermediary step that constitutes one of the most important aspects of the ethnographic record. Humans identify individuals more distantly related than nuclear family members as actual kin (i.e., individuals related to each other through birth links), and the ubiquity of this ability suggests that doing so was favored by natural selection. This identification of distantly related kin (i.e., individuals related through large numbers of birth links) was accomplished not through the false assignment of kin terms, but through traditional markers such as descent names and body decorations transmitted from parents to offspring, often for many generations (van den Berghe & Barash Reference Van den Berghe and Barash1977). The willingness to sacrifice one's life for such distant kin did not require larger distinct groups. It resulted from traditional rituals and stories encouraging such altruism to be transmitted, along with the descent names and markings, from parents to offspring over many generations. Distinct groups were also not necessary for the more recent encouragement of self-sacrificing behaviors toward individuals who are seen as only metaphorically kin. This self-sacrifice only requires slight modifications of the same social learning from individuals that are involved in the transmission of traditions.
Whitehouse's explanation of self-sacrifice is a testable hypothesis with practical implications (sect. 7, para. 1). Indeed, if self-sacrificial altruism is only produced by fusion with a group, it will only be directed toward co-members of that group. If, however, self-sacrificial altruism can result from copying the behavior of a parent or parental-like individual, perhaps through the mechanism known as “moral elevation” (Haidt Reference Haidt2000), it can be directed toward individuals regardless of any group membership. Conveniently, there already exists a test of this hypothesis. The Israeli organization known as Yad Vashem awards the title of “Righteous Among the Nations” to only non-Jewish individuals who risked their lives to rescue one or more Jewish individuals during the Holocaust (Palmer, Reference Palmerin press). Although common nationality is occasionally mentioned by these rescuers as a factor contributing to their self-sacrificial acts, a far more frequently mentioned cause of the rescue behavior is the influence of a tradition transmitted to the rescuer from a parent or parental-like individual encouraging altruism toward other individuals regardless of group membership. This finding is so common that one of the major interviewers of rescuers said, “I began after a while to wait for the recital of … an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker who served as a role model for altruistic behavior” (Fogelman Reference Fogelman1994, p. 254; see also Land-Weber Reference Land-Weber2000; London Reference London, Macauley and Barkowitz1970; Oliner & Oliner Reference Oliner and Oliner1988). Further, this process often led to rescues that occurred despite being strongly disapproved of, and even severely punished, by the individuals most likely to be considered the members of the rescuer's own group.
You have
Access
In the target article, Whitehouse posits several reasonable hypotheses. First, natural selection favored self-sacrifice, in the sense of risking one's life for the benefit of others, in certain circumstances. Second, those circumstances included coalitional lethal violence. Third, kin (i.e., individuals identified through birth links) were often the beneficiaries of such self-sacrifice. Fourth, the encouragement of such self-sacrifice took place partially during dramatic rituals, although listening to stories about the past sacrifices of ancestors was also probably a major factor (Palmer et al. Reference Palmer, Begley, Coe and Steadman2013). Fifth, relatively recent social environments have led to the modification of rituals and stories to influence individuals to direct their self-sacrifice to benefit individuals who are not kin (i.e., not identified as being related through birth links). Finally, accurate knowledge of the cause of such self-sacrifice may help harness it to occur in certain desirable situations (sect. 7, para. 7), for example, where the willingness to sacrifice one's life leads to saving other lives instead of destroying them.
Unfortunately, Whitehouse's apparently unquestioned fundamental starting assumption, upon which his entire explanation of why self-sacrificing behavior was favored by natural selection is built, is worded in a way that is sufficiently inaccurate to prevent him from being able to explain some important forms of self-sacrifice. The only things described in his scenario that are empirically verifiable are individual humans influencing other individual humans to sacrifice their lives in a way that benefited individual humans. Although it is tempting to gloss over these complex interactions of individuals by use of the term “group” for the sake of convenient communication, it is neither necessary nor accurate to describe self-sacrifice as being performed for some group or caused by fusion with that group. The ethnographic record describes the gatherings of foragers as fluid, with individuals who are kin gathering, dispersing, and regathering in different combinations. Although the fluidity of groups is often claimed to be compatible with multilevel selection, surely there is some degree of fluidity beyond which claims of individuals being divided into groups becomes false. Even Durkheim (Reference Durkheim1961/1912) realized that the clans involved in dramatic rituals in aboriginal Australia did not form the local gatherings brought to mind by the statement “In much of human prehistory, fused groups probably comprised small warring bands bound together in adversity” (sect. 7, para. 2). The assertion that forager rituals fused “individuals into small relational groups” (sect. 5, para. 1) is simply not consistent with ethnographic evidence.
Focusing on relationships between individuals related through birth links and avoiding the assumption of distinct human groups enable a more accurate view of the relationship between kinship and self-sacrifice. Whitehouse proposes that self-sacrifice was originally for a group made up of literal kin, by which he appears to mean only those individuals so closely related that the sacrificing of their lives for each other may be explainable by kin selection (sect. 4, para. 1). According to Whitehouse (sect, 6, para. 5), the scope of self-sacrifice was expanded to a large group consisting primarily of non-kin by people falsely claiming that the non-kin members of the large group were actually kin (i.e., closely related brothers and sisters). Humans do use kin terms metaphorically, but Whitehouse's scenario leaves out a crucial intermediary step that constitutes one of the most important aspects of the ethnographic record. Humans identify individuals more distantly related than nuclear family members as actual kin (i.e., individuals related to each other through birth links), and the ubiquity of this ability suggests that doing so was favored by natural selection. This identification of distantly related kin (i.e., individuals related through large numbers of birth links) was accomplished not through the false assignment of kin terms, but through traditional markers such as descent names and body decorations transmitted from parents to offspring, often for many generations (van den Berghe & Barash Reference Van den Berghe and Barash1977). The willingness to sacrifice one's life for such distant kin did not require larger distinct groups. It resulted from traditional rituals and stories encouraging such altruism to be transmitted, along with the descent names and markings, from parents to offspring over many generations. Distinct groups were also not necessary for the more recent encouragement of self-sacrificing behaviors toward individuals who are seen as only metaphorically kin. This self-sacrifice only requires slight modifications of the same social learning from individuals that are involved in the transmission of traditions.
Whitehouse's explanation of self-sacrifice is a testable hypothesis with practical implications (sect. 7, para. 1). Indeed, if self-sacrificial altruism is only produced by fusion with a group, it will only be directed toward co-members of that group. If, however, self-sacrificial altruism can result from copying the behavior of a parent or parental-like individual, perhaps through the mechanism known as “moral elevation” (Haidt Reference Haidt2000), it can be directed toward individuals regardless of any group membership. Conveniently, there already exists a test of this hypothesis. The Israeli organization known as Yad Vashem awards the title of “Righteous Among the Nations” to only non-Jewish individuals who risked their lives to rescue one or more Jewish individuals during the Holocaust (Palmer, Reference Palmerin press). Although common nationality is occasionally mentioned by these rescuers as a factor contributing to their self-sacrificial acts, a far more frequently mentioned cause of the rescue behavior is the influence of a tradition transmitted to the rescuer from a parent or parental-like individual encouraging altruism toward other individuals regardless of group membership. This finding is so common that one of the major interviewers of rescuers said, “I began after a while to wait for the recital of … an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker who served as a role model for altruistic behavior” (Fogelman Reference Fogelman1994, p. 254; see also Land-Weber Reference Land-Weber2000; London Reference London, Macauley and Barkowitz1970; Oliner & Oliner Reference Oliner and Oliner1988). Further, this process often led to rescues that occurred despite being strongly disapproved of, and even severely punished, by the individuals most likely to be considered the members of the rescuer's own group.