|
From an evolutionary perspective, the objective of reproduction
is to propagate one’s genes. Personal reproduction
is one way to achieve this. Another is to help individuals
who share the same genes. Similar genes are present not in
only in offspring and their parents, but in other relatives, as
well. A mathematical way of representing the probability
that any two relatives share the same genes is called the “coefficient
of relatedness” or r. Between parent and offspring, r is
0.5; between full siblings, 0.5; between uncle/aunt and nephew/niece,
0.25; between grandparent and grandchild, 0.25; and between cousins,
0.125. Animal Behavior, by J. Alcock, Sinauer Associates,
Fifth Edition, 1993, Pages 506-510. Say an individual had
the choice of producing a single offspring or foregoing reproduction
to raise his sister’s three children. The r value
for his own child is 1 x r (1 x 0.5) or 0.5, but for fostering
his nieces and nephews it is 3 x r (3 x 0.25) or 0.75. In
other words, it is evolutionarily more profitable for him to relinquish
his procreative potential in favor of raising his relatives. The
theory that individuals may assist their kin to promote the maximum
propagation of their genes is called “kin-selection.”
Consider the following case: William E. Story, Sr. was the
uncle of William E. Story, 2d. Uncle Bill promised his nephew
Willie that if he would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing,
and playing cards or billiards for money, until he became 21 years
of age, he would pay him the sum of $5,000. On his 21st birthday,
Willie wrote to his uncle, informing him that he had performed
his part of the agreement, thereby becoming entitled to the $5,000. The
uncle agreed, but suggested that Willie leave the sum of money
in a bank account with him. “Now Willie, I do not intend
to interfere with this money in any way till I think you are capable
of taking care of it, and the sooner that time comes the better
it will please me. I would hate very much to have you start
out in some adventure you thought all right and lose the money
in one year.” Willie took his uncle’s advice, leaving
the money with Uncle Bill. The uncle died several years later
without turning over any of the money to Willie. Eventually,
Willie sold the right to the money to a third-party, who brought
an action against the executor of Uncle Bill’s estate for
the $5,000. Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E.
256 (Court of Appeals of New York, 1891).
Should the court enforce the contract, and turn over the money
to Willie? The general rule is that a contract which lacks
a bargained for exchange of value, referred to as “consideration,” will
not be enforced. Consideration serves several useful purposes. It
provides an evidentiary function by furnishing evidence that a
binding contract exists. It also serves a deterrent function
against rash, impulsive actions. Consideration helps to prevent
an unreasonable promise, such as a joke, from being performed to
the detriment of the promisor. Contract Law and Theory,
by R.E. Scott and D.L. Leslie, The Mitchie Company, 1988, Page
121. Willie certainly had been promised something of value
to him, $5,000. This motivated him to perform his part of
the bargain. But what Uncle Bill? What benefit was
Willie’s performance to him?
Notwithstanding Bill’s moral satisfaction from Willie’s
forbearance, let’s assume that Bill received nothing of tangible
value. If so, the contract should not be enforced because
there was no consideration. Maybe what really happened is
this: Seeing Willie with a cigar in his mouth and a glassful
of Scotch in his hand, Bill jokingly offered to give him $5,000
if he gave up smoking and drinking. Of course, Bill never
intended for Willie to accept his offer. He knew that Willie
loved the wild life too much. Wouldn’t he have asked
for something valuable in return, if he had really meant it? “If
you forbear tobacco and alcohol for the next five years, and turn
over your wine and cigar collection to me, I’ll give you
$5,000.”
Let’s say that Willie is Bill’s nephew. Is consideration
still necessary? Kin-selection theory identifies a basis to
enforce the promise. Any benefit to Willie accrues to Bill,
as well, since Willie is genetically part-Bill. (Coefficient
of relatedness is 0.25). Thus, Bill’s promise of $5,000
to Willie is valuable to Bill, as well, to the fraction of genes
in Willie that Bill shares. Giving money to Willie is a way
of promoting the maximum propagation of Bill’s genes. Kin-selection
is a substitute for consideration
|
