Can you perform an act of kindness without truly being kind? Can you conduct an act of evil without truly being evil?
These are more philosophical questions than psychological ones. The psychological answer is, yes, good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things.
The philosophical problem is a definitional matter: Can an act truly be good if it was not good-intentioned?
Broadly, in our moral psychology, there are two heuristics we use to determine whether a person is morally responsible for their actions (Schlenker et al., 1994; Tabb et al., 2019).
The first is that of moral character: Is the action in question truly representative of who that person is? The second is determinism: Would it have been possible for the agent to act otherwise?
Behavioral genetics makes interesting combinations to both of these aspects of our moral judgments.
Genetic Essentialism
Regarding our character, the view that genes shape who we are is known as genetic essentialism (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011). This view is reflected in the old adage “a bad tree bears bad fruit.” It has been argued that in the modern era, essentialist views on genes have taken the place of beliefs people historically attributed to the soul (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011).
Humans have an innate tendency to believe that other people have intrinsic natures, whether those intrinsic natures are believed to be genetically, socially, or spiritually constructed (Medin & Ortony, 1989).
Genetic Determinism
The flip-side to this argument is genetic determinism (Schlenker et al., 1994). On the surface, essentialism and determinism sound like the same thing.
The main difference is that genetic essentialism states that genes shape a person’s intrinsic nature, while genetic determinism views genes as external factors outside of one’s control, shaping the behaviors of an otherwise morally good or neutral person (Tabb et al., 2019).
Behavioral Genetics and Morality
Take the example of a violent criminal, who has a genetic predisposition for psychopathy or aggression. From the perspective of moral determinism, learning about the genetic causes of his or her actions may evoke sympathy. If a certain genetic mutation were different, things would have turned out differently.
Should we really punish someone for being born with bad luck? In line with this reasoning, a study on judicial sentencing has found that judges are more likely to assign reduced prison sentences to criminals who had a genetic predisposition for antisocial behavior (Aspinwall et al., 2012).
On the other hand, from the perspective of moral essentialism, someone with an unfortunate genetic predisposition for violence will continue to have that predisposition; it is part of their character.
This essentialist view is thought to cancel out the sympathy brought on by views of genetic determinism: Most studies find small to no effects on the influence of genes on attributions of moral responsibility (Tabb et al., 2019).
The answer to whether kindness is genetically predetermined rests on the strength of your views on genetic determinism and essentialism or, in other words, the strength of your belief in free will.
Our character is not entirely based on our genes, nor are we powerless to the influence of genes on our behavior, nor are we entirely free and uninfluenced by our genetic makeup. The answer is somewhere in the middle.