The Biological and Cultural Grounds for Ethics
Hans Jonas and Francisco Ayala
Why our moral compass is a profound dialogue between our biology and our culture.
Introduction: Where Do Our Ethics Come From?
What makes something right or wrong? Is our moral sense a divine gift, a social construct, or a product of our evolution? The question of the origin of ethics has puzzled philosophers and scientists for centuries. In the quest for answers, the insights of two towering 20th-century thinkers—philosopher Hans Jonas and biologist Francisco J. Ayala—create a fascinating dialogue.
Though approaching the question from vastly different disciplines, together they provide a compelling framework: that the capacity for ethics is a biological endowment, while the specific moral codes we live by are products of our culture.
This article explores their synthesized view, revealing how our moral nature is deeply rooted in our biology, yet beautifully refined by human culture.
Biological Foundation
Our capacity for moral reasoning evolved as a byproduct of advanced intellectual abilities.
Cultural Refinement
Specific moral codes and norms develop through cultural evolution and social learning.
Francisco Ayala: The Biological Capacity for Ethics
Francisco J. Ayala (1934–2023)
The Evolutionary Leap to Morality
Francisco J. Ayala was a renowned geneticist and evolutionary biologist, a former Dominican priest, and a recipient of the US National Medal of Science2 . From his unique vantage point, he argued that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature5 .
He proposed that this capacity is not a direct product of adaptive evolution but rather an exaptation—a trait that emerged as a byproduct of other advanced intellectual abilities that were directly favored by natural selection5 .
Ayala's Three Intellectual Capacities for Ethics
Ayala identified three specific intellectual capacities that must be present for ethical behavior to exist5 :
Anticipation
The ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions.
Judgment
The ability to make value judgments.
Choice
The ability to choose between alternative courses of action.
These abilities, Ayala contended, are rooted in the formidable human intellect, which was itself an adaptation crucial for survival, tool use, and planning2 5 .
Moral Codes as Products of Culture
A crucial distinction in Ayala's work is that between the capacity for ethics and the moral norms themselves5 . He saw the capacity as a universal biological trait of humans. However, the specific rules—don't kill, don't steal, help the needy—are outcomes of cultural evolution. This explains the incredible diversity of moral codes across different societies and their ability to change over time, independent of biological change.
| Aspect of Morality | Origin | Key Characteristic | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity for Ethics | Biological Evolution (as an exaptation) | Universal among humans; enables moral judgment | The inherent ability to feel that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. |
| Moral Codes/Norms | Cultural Evolution | Variable across cultures and history; transmitted by learning | Specific norms about diet (e.g., kosher laws), marriage, or property rights. |
Ayala's Two-Tiered Model of Morality
Universal capacity for ethics
- Anticipation of consequences
- Value judgments
- Choice between alternatives
Diverse moral codes
Hans Jonas: The Moral Demands of Experimenting on Humans
Hans Jonas (1903–1993)
Beyond Simple Consent
While Ayala looked at the broad evolutionary origins of ethics, Hans Jonas grappled with a very specific and modern moral problem: the ethics of human experimentation. In his seminal essay, Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects, Jonas argued that the standard of "voluntary consent," though necessary, is not sufficient1 .
He made a provocative claim: outside of widespread medical emergencies, individuals do not have a moral or social duty to volunteer for medical research1 . He viewed the research subject not as a resource for societal progress, but as an individual whose autonomy and very existence must be protected from being instrumentalized.
The Primacy of the Individual and the Informed Volunteer
Jonas placed a high value on the individual's right not to be used as a means to an end. He further argued that when volunteers are sought, priority should be given to those who can most fully identify with the research goals and offer a strong, informed commitment1 . In his view, a researcher who experiments on themselves or a fully understanding peer gains a deeper moral justification than one who uses a less-informed, albeit consenting, subject.
- Instrumentalization of human beings
- Insufficiency of mere consent
- Lack of identification with research goals
- Power imbalance in research relationships
- Prioritize fully informed volunteers
- Researcher self-experimentation when possible
- Emphasis on individual autonomy
- Protection from being used as means to an end
A Meeting of Minds: Synthesis in Modern Bioethics
The ideas of Jonas and Ayala, though developed independently, powerfully complement each other in shaping the principles of modern ethical research. Ayala's biological framework explains why we have the capacity to even engage in the complex moral reasoning that Jonas demands. Our ability to anticipate consequences (an Ayala capacity) is essential for a researcher to obtain truly informed consent (a Jonas principle).
The practical application of their synthesized philosophy is best illustrated by the ethical principles that now govern clinical research worldwide. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), for instance, outlines seven key principles that resonate with both thinkers' ideas4 .
| Ethical Principle | Description | Connection to Jonas & Ayala |
|---|---|---|
| Social & Clinical Value | Research must answer a question that benefits health or knowledge. | Justifies the risk to individuals (Jonas) by proving value to the culture (Ayala). |
| Scientific Validity | The study must be well-designed to yield useful results. | Prevents wasting resources and subject exposure to risk for no purpose. |
| Fair Subject Selection | Scientific goals, not vulnerability or privilege, should guide recruitment. | Addresses Jonas's concern against using the convenient or powerless. |
| Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio | Potential benefits must outweigh the risks. | A direct application of Ayala's "ability to anticipate consequences." |
| Independent Review | Unbiased panel reviews the proposal to minimize conflict of interest. | Provides a cultural (Ayala) check on the researcher's power (Jonas). |
| Informed Consent | Participants must understand and voluntarily agree to the research. | The cornerstone, uniting Jonas's emphasis on consent with Ayala's capacity for judgment. |
| Respect for Participants | Privacy, confidentiality, and right to withdraw must be protected. | Embodies the respect for the individual person that Jonas championed. |
Integration of Ethical Principles in Research
Informed Consent
Risk-Benefit Analysis
Respect for Persons
Independent Review
Implementation rates of key ethical principles in modern research institutions
In-Depth Look: The Milgram Experiment - An Ethical Case Study
To see what happens when these principles are violated, and to observe Ayala's moral capacities under pressure, we can examine one of psychology's most ethically dubious experiments.
In 1961, spurred by the events of World War II, psychologist Stanley Milgram designed an experiment to investigate how far ordinary people would go in obeying an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.
The participants were told they were part of a study on memory and learning. They were assigned the role of "teacher," while a confederate of the experimenter was the "learner." The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock to the learner for every incorrect answer, increasing the shock level with each error. The learner (who received no actual shocks) would pound on the wall, complain of a heart condition, and eventually fall silent.
Illustration of the Milgram experiment setup
The results were shocking. Despite visible distress—both their own and the learner's—a majority of participants (65%) continued to administer what they believed were lethal shocks (450 volts) when prodded by the experimenter. The experiment demonstrated the powerful influence of authority on individual action, suggesting that personal morality can be dangerously suppressed in a structured, hierarchical situation.
Obedience Levels by Shock Intensity
Ethical Analysis
From Ayala's perspective, the participants possessed the three capacities for ethics: they could anticipate the consequence (harming the learner), make a value judgment (this is wrong), and choose an action (to continue or stop). Yet, the experimental environment created a scenario where the choice to obey overrode their moral judgment.
From Jonas's viewpoint, the experiment was a profound violation, as participants were subjected to severe psychological harm without their full informed consent, being deceived about the true nature of the study.
| Aspect | Description | Ethical Failure |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntary Participation | Participants were recruited and could theoretically leave. | The situation created immense pressure to obey, making voluntary withdrawal psychologically very difficult. |
| Informed Consent | They agreed to participate. | They were deliberately deceived about the study's true purpose and the fact that the shocks were fake. |
| Potential for Harm | The setup appeared to cause physical harm to the learner. | Participants suffered severe, lasting psychological harm from realizing their own capacity for obedience-driven cruelty. |
| Respect for Participants | Data was collected. | The well-being of the participants was secondary to the scientific objective, violating their dignity. |
The Scientist's Toolkit: Foundations of Ethical Research
The evolution of research ethics since experiments like Milgram's has led to the establishment of formal tools and principles to protect human dignity. Key components of this modern toolkit include7 :
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
An independent committee that must review and approve all research involving human subjects. Its role is to ensure the study is ethically designed and that risks are minimized and justified.
Informed Consent Form
A detailed document that explains the study's purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and alternatives. It ensures participants understand what they are agreeing to and that their consent is truly informed and voluntary.
Debriefing Procedure
A process that occurs after a participant's involvement, especially in studies involving deception. Researchers explain the true nature of the study, address any misconceptions, and provide psychological support if needed.
Data Anonymization & Confidentiality
Protocols that protect participant privacy by removing or encrypting identifying information, ensuring data cannot be linked back to the individual.
Evolution of Research Ethics
Pre-20th Century
Limited formal ethical guidelines for human research; paternalistic approach to medicine.
1947: Nuremberg Code
Established after Nazi war crimes trials; emphasized voluntary consent and avoidance of unnecessary suffering.
1964: Declaration of Helsinki
World Medical Association's recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects.
1974: National Research Act (US)
Created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects, leading to the Belmont Report.
1979: Belmont Report
Identified basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
1991: Common Rule
Federal policy for the protection of human subjects adopted by multiple US agencies.
Conclusion: The Shared Ground of Being Human
The explorations of Hans Jonas and Francisco Ayala, one looking forward to the ethical perils of a technological future and the other looking back at our evolutionary past, converge on a common, humanistic ground. They teach us that our moral nature is dual-natured.
We are Homo moralis because we are first Homo rationalis, endowed by evolution with a magnificent intellect that enables us to care, to judge, and to choose5 . Yet, the specific expressions of this morality—the codes that bind our societies and the principles that guide our science—are the products of our collective cultural wisdom and vigilance.
This dialogue between our biology and our culture is what ultimately allows us to protect the sacred individual in the pursuit of knowledge, ensuring that progress never comes at the cost of our humanity.
Biological Foundation
Universal capacity for ethics rooted in human cognition
Dynamic Dialogue
Continuous interaction between innate capacities and cultural norms
Ethical Application
Protecting human dignity through informed principles and practices