Thursday, June 23, 2016

     PowerPoint Lecture for IPSA Congress, Poznan, Poland
Evolutionary Leadership, Evolutionary Ethics, and Redistribution
                                                Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
                                               Professor of Philosophy
                                   Mount St. Joseph University
                                                        Cincinnati, OH


The cornerstone of “welfare liberalism” is the core belief that social justice requires that government limit (Rawls) or even eliminate (Marx) “social distance” between the “most-advantaged” and “least-disadvantaged” individuals and/or nations. Distance is usually measured in terms of the intra-group (and/or inter-group) distribution of “social goods.” While social redistribution relies on voluntary moral exchange whereby the most-advantaged willingly share their social goods (directly or indirectly) with the least-advantaged; political redistribution is executed, coercively, by political regimes via tax code. For Rawls, the justification for social and political redistribution of social goods is the Difference Principle. With a few exceptions, classical liberals who support redistribution, favor voluntary social redistribution, while most welfare liberals also accept political redistribution. Until recent years, there has been very little research on the “nature” of social distance and the social and/or political origins of redistribution. Contemporary Evolutionary Leadership Theory (ELT) and Evolutionary Ethics (EET) provide important insight into the biological origins of both social distance and redistribution. In this presentation I will argue, based on ELT that “social distance” in its various manifestations is the product of a growing mismatch between our modular brains and human culture; most notably, the cultural evolution of leader-follower relationships within stationary, large-scale, political regimes.
Conceptual Framework
Social Goods
Social Distance
Rawlsian Framework
Social Goods
Primary Goods
Social Contract
Equal Liberty
Difference Principle
Evolutionary Social Psychology
Proximate Theories (how)
Ultimate Theories (why)
Modular Theory of the Brain
Proximate Brain Theories
How the Human Brain Produces Social Feelings, Thoughts, and Behavior.
Reductionism (neurons, genes)
Localization Theory
Ultimate Brain Theories
Why the Human Brain Produces Social Feelings, Thoughts, and Behavior. (Cooperation).
Variation and Natural Selection.
Individual  Genes
Individual Organisms
Groups of Organisms.
Evolutionary Leadership Theory
Leadership and Followership
Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers (Hominids)
Homo Sapiens
Modern Humans
Agricultural Revolution
Cultural Revolution
Bio-Cultural Mismatch
Leaders, Followers, and the Difference Principle
Evolutionary Ethics
Descriptive Ethics v. Prescriptive Ethics
Proximate Theories of Ethics
Biology and Social Science
Ultimate Theories of Ethics
Mismatch between moral feelings and cultural environments.
Biological v. Cultural Evolution
Feelings of Justice (merit, need, equality, utility)
Distribution and Retribution
Feelings of Sympathy
Ideal Altruism
Kin Altruism
Reciprocal Altruism
The “Expanding Circle”
In-Group/ Out-Group Bias
Ethics of Redistribution
Cooperation as an Amoral Human Trait
Realism v. Idealism
Voluntary v. Involuntary Redistribution : Both the Inner Brains and Outer Brains
Reason- Who Benefits
Emotion- (sympathy/Fear
ELT: Cooperation v. Coercion
Cooperation: Rational cooperation between Leaders and Followers
Coercion: Emotive Coercion
Leaders employ fear to force redistribution.
EET: Justice 
Emotional Feelings of Sympathy and Feelings of Retribution
Family and Friends : The Ethics of Familiarity
Strangers: The Ethics of Unfamiliarity
Public Policy (Idealism v. Realism)
Legal Redistribution: Coercion
Moral Redistribution: Cooperation
Public policy ought to promote transition from strangers to friends
Role of moral Leaders
Role of Media
Most Advantaged 
Moral Intent (sympathy for the least advantaged)
Moral Action (policies that work efficiently)
Least Advantaged
Moral Action (willingness to accept a social minimum rather than forcefully seize the goods of the  most advantaged 


No comments: