When primatologists apply principles of animal behavior to humans, they sometimes find instances when morally repugnant behavior may be evolutionarily adaptive. For example, human males are more likely to abuse other mens' infants than they are to abuse their own. This behavior is seen in other mammals as well. How can it be explained in the light of evolutionary adaptations, and how should

Question

society as a whole address it?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

When a male lion takes over a pride, he kills the young. When the females go into heat, he mates with them so the next generation of offspring is his. This is adaptive in the sense that it maximizes that male's transmission of his genes into the next generation. Additionally, by killing the former male's cubs, he prevents the energy of the pride from going into raising another lion's offspring.

Statistics show that male humans may display this trait as well. Infants living with nonpaternal boyfriends or step-fathers run a higher risk of abuse than those in the care of their biological fathers. This may well be adaptive in humans for the same reasons that it is in lions, but that does not address the question of morality. The fact that a behavior is adaptive does not make it acceptable.

Society should address the issue through education, so single mothers are aware of the risk.