Lots of humans behave morally if and only if the system is “fair” and everyone else has to behave morally too. Moral values determine what you force others to do, instead of your own behaviour. Typical humans ignore their morals values if the stakes are high and if “it’s not being enforced on others.”
This means human moral views evolved to serve the best interests of a tribe (which may have hundreds of people), rather than the best interests of an individual. Someone might have empathy for another tribe member who got injured in tribal warfare, even if it benefits his inclusive fitness to just let that person die. It benefits the tribe’s fitness to compensate injured warriors, because failing to do so means no one has any reason to defend the tribe.
There are lots of examples of animals which avoid “overharvesting” another animal or plant which provides them food for the future.
For example a moth mite only infects one of the moth’s ears since infecting both will make the moth deaf and much more likely to get eaten by a bat. Wikipedia says “Once an ear is colonized, scouts are sent to the other ear periodically to see if there are any mites and lead any they find to the correct ear. This further refreshes the pheromone trail.”
Squirrels hide acorns for later even though there is no guarantee the acorn won’t be forgotten or stolen by other squirrels.
There’s the relationship between cleaner fish and the fish they clean. Some cleaner fish cheat the system by biting off a piece of the fish they’re supposed to clean and running away. But that doesn’t happen all the time, maybe because it deters fish from coming back in the future, harming both the cheater and other cleaner fish.
Ants allow aphids to live in order to farm them for honeydew. Of course, the aphids don’t travel much so the future benefits stay within one ant colony.
The more unrelated individuals share the prey, the weaker the incentive to spare prey for later, but it doesn’t drop to zero. It probably depends on how hungry they are.
Your tribe hypothetical is irrelevant and all 4 of your real examples are straightforwardly (and usually) explained by greedy inclusive fitness, and do not come anywhere close to providing 3 examples of comparable mechanisms.
Lots of humans behave morally if and only if the system is “fair” and everyone else has to behave morally too. Moral values determine what you force others to do, instead of your own behaviour. Typical humans ignore their morals values if the stakes are high and if “it’s not being enforced on others.”
This means human moral views evolved to serve the best interests of a tribe (which may have hundreds of people), rather than the best interests of an individual. Someone might have empathy for another tribe member who got injured in tribal warfare, even if it benefits his inclusive fitness to just let that person die. It benefits the tribe’s fitness to compensate injured warriors, because failing to do so means no one has any reason to defend the tribe.
There are lots of examples of animals which avoid “overharvesting” another animal or plant which provides them food for the future.
For example a moth mite only infects one of the moth’s ears since infecting both will make the moth deaf and much more likely to get eaten by a bat. Wikipedia says “Once an ear is colonized, scouts are sent to the other ear periodically to see if there are any mites and lead any they find to the correct ear. This further refreshes the pheromone trail.”
Squirrels hide acorns for later even though there is no guarantee the acorn won’t be forgotten or stolen by other squirrels.
There’s the relationship between cleaner fish and the fish they clean. Some cleaner fish cheat the system by biting off a piece of the fish they’re supposed to clean and running away. But that doesn’t happen all the time, maybe because it deters fish from coming back in the future, harming both the cheater and other cleaner fish.
Ants allow aphids to live in order to farm them for honeydew. Of course, the aphids don’t travel much so the future benefits stay within one ant colony.
The more unrelated individuals share the prey, the weaker the incentive to spare prey for later, but it doesn’t drop to zero. It probably depends on how hungry they are.
Your tribe hypothetical is irrelevant and all 4 of your real examples are straightforwardly (and usually) explained by greedy inclusive fitness, and do not come anywhere close to providing 3 examples of comparable mechanisms.
Yes, I agree the mechanism is greedy inclusive fitness. But where is the disanalogy between
Squirrels having an instinct to value acorns it buried underground and
Humans have a (weaker) instinct to value young prey animals left alive, implemented by (weakly) generalizing empathy?