| Title |
Ethics, evolution and culture
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theory in Biosciences, March 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12064-008-0027-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alex Mesoudi, Peter Danielson |
| Abstract |
Recent work in the fields of evolutionary ethics and moral psychology appears to be converging on a single empirically- and evolutionary-based science of morality or ethics. To date, however, these fields have failed to provide an adequate conceptualisation of how culture affects the content and distribution of moral norms. This is particularly important for a large class of moral norms relating to rapidly changing technological or social environments, such as norms regarding the acceptability of genetically modified organisms. Here we suggest that a science of morality/ethics can benefit from adopting a cultural evolution or gene-culture coevolution approach, which treats culture as a second, separate evolutionary system that acts in parallel to biological/genetic evolution. This cultural evolution approach brings with it a set of established theoretical concepts (e.g. different cultural transmission mechanisms) and empirical methods (e.g. evolutionary game theory) that can significantly improve our understanding of human morality. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Nepal | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 88 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 24% |
| Researcher | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 26% |
| Unknown | 10 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 21% |
| Psychology | 17 | 17% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,452,489
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#58
of 194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,520
of 81,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 81,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.