Evolution-based morals? Don't pick up the soap!

So I seem to have opened up a can of worms when I tried to point out the absence of empirical evidence support on accounting morality to evolution propelled by natural selection at the Filipino Freethinkers site. One good thing out of allowing such a topic to be published in the Filipino Freethinkers site is that it brings opportunity to show the reading public that the site is not just an atheist or a militant atheist site. One bad thing about it is having “fans” or “stalkers” (depending on whether the person is good-looking or not). My understanding of evolution (and perhaps even science itself) may be frowned upon by some of my atheist friends and acquaintances there but that’s okay with me. If they think that I do not know anything about science or that my understanding of evolution and science is plagued with so “many errors” or “stupidity”, because uhm… well… my articles do not fit a certain framework of what they think science and evolution ought to be then there’s nothing I can do about such a sentiment. I certainly do not feel the necessity to prove to any “scientists” or “science teachers” there my science background. Besides, scientific grandstanding in order to bolster credibility when it comes to discussions touching on science is just so… well… not my style. 🙂

Anyway, marching onward…

I’ve encountered a few self-professed atheists in the past who account morality to evolution. For these folks, at least the ones I encountered, they do not subscribe to universal values and truth. Also for them, there is no objective truth. I guess it is perfectly understandable for the atheist position to reject objective truth. Bertrand Russell, author of the “Why I Am Not a Christian”, although known for his “philosophical agnosticism and practical atheism”, also contended that with God out of the picture, no other objective standard for morality (which he called “The Good”) could be found. J.L.Mackie, one of the greatest minds of atheism in recent times also admitted, in his book “Miracle of Theism”, that moral value is most unlikely without a God to ground it. He wrote that if there really is objective value, it would make God’s existence more probable than if there weren’t. He said this is a defensible argument from morality to the existence of God. Mackie rejected the notion of a universal value because as an atheist, well… he had to. He adopted the evolution-based morality model and believed that we all have the feeling, the sense, that there is objective value but that this is only a feeling developed over a long evolutionary process.

Perhaps there is more to evolution-based ethics than meets the eye. Let’s assess, shall we? However, before my atheist “fans” or “stalkers” go ballistic on me again for seemingly going against the choir, let me first state that this article does not intend to make any claims on the existence of an objective truth or value or even universal truth. It does, however, present some arguments against some questions we may have in mind. It also intends to incite critical thinking and assessments on what we may already adhere to and some ideas that the readers may consider under an open mind.

In our assessment, I would like to touch on something that I feel is important to the subject matter. Is there such a thing as a “universal value/morality/truth”?

I was once told that:

“Man has evolved in such a way that he relies less on his instincts (which have gone subterranean) and almost fully on his consciousness (his most fallible organ, if I may say so). Values are important for the enhancement of human life and culture, for creativity and creation. They are important for the enrichment of human life, that is why value-creation is one of mankind’s most wonderful activities and experiments.”

So our moral sense was basically a result of our value creation stemming from our evolutionary process for the enhancement of our lives. So if that is the case, does this make truth a creation of the mind? If we accept this, as well as the notion that truth is merely passed on from one generation of human beings to another, one could say that this truth must be nothing more than a human invention. It originated from humans and could have been thought up differently from the way it is. Like the idea that a red light means stop and a green light means go; humans invented that and could easily have reversed that if it was favored by the human mind. However, not all things we have learned from humans (e.g. our parents and ancestors) are human inventions that could have been different from what they are. There are some things that we learn from others that are not human inventions; humans teach them but we don’t necessarily invent them. They could not be different from what they are. Take for example, basic logical truths such as “a whole is greater than any of its parts” or “a thing cannot both exist and not exist in the same sense at the same time”. We learned these from our schools, our parents, other people; but it doesn’t follow that these people (or the people before them) invented these or that they could be different from what they are. We only recognize them as truths that exist apart from us and pass them along to other people.

The next question I have is: Is truth relative?

Before we get into this, I think it is important to distinguish two types of truths I have in mind. There is the objective/absolute truth and the subjective/relative truth. I think it is a mistake to think of truth as a case of “either/or”. Anyway, looking at relative truth, please have a look at Theodore Schick Jr.’s “Is Morality a Matter of Taste?” ( http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html )

Other types of Relativism can be seen in:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.htm

Now regarding absolutism, there are various kinds of absolutism as well. Most commonly, absolutism refers to the view that says, for example, that the government or the head of that government has complete rights and powers over the citizens. Absolutism also commonly refers to the belief that there are moral absolutes that are valid universally, and in the case of various denominations of Christianity, for example, that God is the ultimate moral authority. Thus, some or a good number of Christians, and Muslims I presume, are ethical absolutists, but may or may not be absolutists in other aspects.

Prof. LaFave offers several other types of absolutisms in http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/melchert.html

Anyway, I do not support the notion of absolute relativism that says there is no “objective reality”. I do, however, support the existence of both objective and subjective realities.

Examples of objective realities are “Airplanes exist in the world”, “I have used a computer in my life”, and “I am a human being”.

There are also subjective truths such as who is more beautiful–Ms. X or Ms. Y. These are value judgments, which depend upon the perceiver/interpreter. Such “truths” are more or less relative to the subject.

As for absolutist vs relativistic ethics I recommend you check the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism

As you will read, rather than just opt for either relativistic or absolutist ethics, the link shows an alternative—value (ethical) pluralism.

Now we may ask: What about the different moral practices in the world? Doesn’t this prove ethical relativism?

I do agree that we see different moral practices by different cultures at different places. However, different moral practices do not necessarily contradict the notion of a universal truth. Anyway, given the differences in moral practices that we see in different societies, what is remarkable is not really how different these are but how similar they are. In fact what we do find are fundamental value systems around the world. But before anyone goes ballistic on me with that statement, I will try to explain what I mean.

If we take the UN Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn in 1948, as an example, we would recognize the demonstration of this fundamental similarity in value systems around the world. Human freedom, dignity, life, liberty, security, and many other things are said to be morally good. Racial and gender discrimination, slavery, arbitrary arrest, torture, all forms of degrading treatment and other acts are condemned. Some may say that the UN Declaration is relatively modern and it may have evolved through preceding generations. But as the English writer, C.S. Lewis’ compilation of a list of ancient moral codes, we see a highlight of fundamental similarities between them. The moral imperative against murder or cruel treatment of other human beings is found in the moral codes of the ancient Egyptians, Jews, Babylonians, Hindus, and Chinese. The command to honor and respect others is found in the moral codes of the ancient Hindus, Babylonians, Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and Chinese. Values such as honesty, mercy and care are likewise found in a wide spectrum of ancient codes. I guess the point here is that despite the radically different conditions and situations we find people in, it is not the difference in moral practices that are remarkable, but the similarities.

Now, one may surely ask, “Ok, if there is indeed a universal truth (or value, if you will), and if people are truly guided by this set of objective and common moral principles, then how can different moral practices still exist?”

Well, it is one thing to recognize or know about an objective and universal moral standard, it is quite another to follow it. It is possible that when we find certain people who do things we condemn, they are acting in violation of moral standards that they recognize. But what about the societies that, without any remorse or any thought of wrongdoing, carry out practices that we condemn? A good example would be the classic case of the Eskimo societies recorded by anthropologists, as discussed in our Philosophy 101 courses. Anthropologists have found that in the past, infanticide was quite common amongst the Eskimos. They would leave their infant children out, to freeze to death. This was permitted by the parents and no social stigma was attached to it, yet we condemn this practice.

In assessing these kinds of things, I think it isn’t enough to ask what practices people do but also why they do it. We have to realize that a difference in moral practice may not always be because of a difference in moral principles held by the people. Different practices may be due to a difference in a group’s circumstances or conditions in life.

Considering the Eskimo example above on infanticide practice, people who hear of this practice may be quick to judge that Eskimos do not love their children as much as we do or that they do not have the same level of respect for human life as we do have. But if we ask the question why they did such things, we would see if they really love their children less than we do or whether they did have less respect for human life than we do. Perhaps this is just because they have different circumstances that forced them into such practice? Until we can answer that “why” question, we can’t really say for sure that they are following different moral values from ours.

The Eskimos in the anthropology study example lived in a harsh environment. Food was scarce in their region and mothers would often breastfeed their young much longer (up to 4 years). In addition, they were a nomadic people, unable to farm. They were always in a move to search for food. Infants had to be carried, and a mother could only carry one in her parka. In other words, these people lived on the margin of existence.

Let’s ask ourselves these questions:

1. What if I had more children than I could support?

2. What if I knew one was going to die because there simply was no way to keep that child alive?

3. What if neither I nor my community had the means to care for all my children?

4. What would we do in such situations?

Would we not search for the most painless way to bring about a child’s death because we do love our children? I think we might. That is what the Eskimos did, freezing to death, for them, is a relatively painless way to die. The child falls into a deep sleep and then dies in its sleep.

My main point is not that such practice is morally good but that it does not necessarily prove that the Eskimos held different moral values from what we hold. In other words, if we find ourselves in the same kind of situation as them, we would probably do the same. What we can learn from this is that infanticide did not signal a fundamentally different attitude toward children. Instead, we recognize that it was because of their love for their children and their respect for human life that they looked for the most painless way for them to die. So the question of “what” in differences in moral practices isn’t always sufficient, we also have to dig deeper and ask the “why” question.

Using another example, there are cultures in the world where it is believed that it is wrong to eat cows. This belief is held despite the hunger its people are suffering from. Such a society where killing cows is always wrong would appear to have different moral values from ours. It would appear that they have a greater respect for animal life than human life.

With a case like this, a person’s belief about reality makes a lot of difference. These people believe that after death, the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of cows. So a cow that we see may be our grandpa. But with this, can we really say that their moral values are really different from ours? No. The difference lies elsewhere. It is in our belief systems, not in our values. We both agree that we shouldn’t eat grandpa; we simply disagree whether or not the cow is or could be grandpa. The status of whether or not the cow is grandpa or could be grandpa does not have anything to do with morality.

So going back to the previous question on whether values such as moral values were invented for the enhancement of human life; if our moral convictions really do stem from the need to do whatever to promote the enhancement of human life, then shouldn’t we have the moral conviction to exterminate the sick, the aged, and the handicapped? I mean it may be said that these people do not really enhance one’s life. They can even be quite burdensome; they use up resources we need to survive. I don’t know up to what level these people contribute to the enhancement of our life but I’m guessing it may be minimal. So if we, as humans, are hard-wired to create values for the enhancement of our lives, then shouldn’t we then have a moral sense or sense of duty to get rid of anyone who hinders the enhancement of our lives? Shouldn’t we prohibit the (mentally) handicapped people from reproducing?

But we have not and do not regard these as our moral duty. In fact we have the opposite convictions. We would condemn anyone who did those and even thought about those things. If our evolution carried with our value creation activities for the enhancement of life, it doesn’t seem to support the human compassion for the sick, the aged, and the handicapped.

Now, we may also entertain the notion that morality is a necessity for the weak, that the compassion shown and given towards the weak makes life more pleasant for the weak and it would be nice for us all to know that we would receive that kindness too if we were in that position. However, this is not necessary if we go by the purpose of morality as an enhancement for human living. If it were only for human life enhancement, we’re actually better off without that kind of compassion. All those resources, funds, and energy would be freed up for use by the healthy ones. But as indicated before, this is not our attitude. We actually regard it as good to use resources to care for the weak. We do this even when the people concerned would not contribute to the enhancement of our lives; such as the comatose, the mentally handicapped, and others. And even if we decide to let the person die rather than prolong his or her life through extraordinary means, we do this with great reluctance and a deep “soul-searching”. There seems to be nothing in the evolutionary explanation which can explain these strong moral sentiments.

Now, let’s set aside the previous questions and grant that the evolution model is the most plausible explanation for morality. The question now is: “Can we condemn anything via evolutionary morality?”

Suppose aliens from Planet X came to Earth one day and interacted with us, would rape be wrong for them? Suppose that the aliens have an entirely different evolutionary history from ours, wouldn’t it be conceivable that rape would not necessarily be wrong for them? If rape is wrong for us humans, we cannot just say that rape must be wrong for the aliens as well if they have a different evolutionary history. On the evolutionary model, we cannot assume that the aliens’ morality would be like ours. It would depend on how their evolutionary process went.

Suppose that these aliens can have sex with us, how should they act towards us? Suppose they decide to begin raping humans at will and suppose we complain that rape is wrong and that they should stop, they would have a ready response to us by saying “Your morality is just a product of your evolutionary process. They are only like your other adaptations. Any other meaning is an illusion. It doesn’t affect us”.

If morality were strictly an evolutionary product, they would be correct. If morality is only an evolutionary product, then acts like rape would not really be wrong, we just have the conviction, the feeling, the emotion that say that it is wrong. So in the case of the alien rapists, they would be fully justified and we would have nothing to say to them. So with evolutionary morality, it appears that there is no basis for condemning such acts. On the evolutionary model, acts such as rape are no more wrong for us than they are for the aliens. The fact that we are humans does not make an act any more wrong in itself. It just means that we happen to have the feeling or emotion that it is wrong because of our evolutionary development.

Why shouldn’t we rape, and maim, and steal, and lie, and do anything else that we want to do? We may have a feeling that such acts are wrong but in the view of evolution, it is merely a biological adaptation passed onto us over millions of years. It’s a feeling, nothing more. There is no reason to regard any act as really right or wrong. In fact, on the evolutionary model, it may even be argued that rape is ethically good because it gives the rapist pleasure.

An evolution-based ethics, although interesting, I think has its share of flaws as well. It appears that there may be arguments worth considering that point towards universal values or truth. It appears that there may be arguments worth considering that point towards universal values or truths not necessarily having been invented or created by the human mind. Lastly, with an evolution-based ethics we may not be able to really condemn a morally reprehensible act because such an immoral act may be merely accounted to a feeling or emotion due to our evolutionary development. So if you’re abducted by aliens and sent to some alien prison out in galaxy XYZ… just make sure you don’t pick up the soap dropped by another alien inmate when you guys are in the shower. 🙂

* * * * *

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this article represent the views of the author (hgamboa) and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com.

91 comments

  1. Hector Gamboa says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Thanks for reading, nigger…. uhm… that is what your monicker means, right?]]]

    If you want to be flagrantly racist, probably this site is not for you. You write about morals but you are truly devoid of some. It's a shame as this site profess on promoting science and reason on which tolerance rests upon, and we come upon someone very educated and intelligent whimsically tossing out words that carry painful intimations on slavery and racism.

    • The funny thing about this, “antiracist” (I am assuming that you are also Nword), is that your beef basically just shows that you have nothing to offer but mere pontification of political correctness and the evil of racism which the article or even the context of how the word “negro” was used has nothing to do with! The use of the word “negro” clearly refers to folks with African heritage and whose skin is dark. You come in here and accuse me of being a racist for the use of “negro” while you used the monicker “Nword” which clearly denotes the derogatory term “nigger”. Jesus H. Christ, get a life!

        • Hi arm, I’m sorry if you found it offensive and uncalled for. However, it was a response to something which I personally find offensive as well. To accuse me of engaging in racism for something that had nothing to do with racism on how I used the term “negro” was stupid. I am okay with people telling me that I do not know anything about evolution or science after reading the article. But to get a racist tag on the article I wrote that does not have anything to do with racism? Sorry… that I cannot accept. I have little patience for Political Correctness nannies. Besides, if you look back at how I used the term “nigger” in my response… you will notice that it was meant as a mirror for “N-word”. He pontificates about the use of what he deems as a derogatory term while his choice of a monicker means exactly that derogatory term he despises.

          • "Stupidity" and "pontification" is a retort to the person writing to you. Fine replies. "Nigger" hits people just reading your posts, some of whom may even be siding with you.

          • Yes, I realize that, arm. "Nigger" is such an eyesore for the readers and it certainly triggers heavy emotional response. I am just hoping that my readers would at least look back and reconsider their thoughts upon realizing the context in which the term was used. Same deal with the use of the term "negro" in the article which Nword went ballistic on. Thanks!

        • Hi arm, I’m sorry if you found it offensive and uncalled for. However, it was a response to something which I personally find offensive as well. To accuse me of engaging in racism for something that had nothing to do with racism on how I used the term “negro” was stupid. I am okay with people telling me that I do not know anything about evolution or science after reading the article. But to get a racist tag on the article I wrote that does not have anything to do with racism? Sorry… that I cannot accept. I have little patience for Political Correctness nannies. Besides, if you look back at how I used the term “nigger” in my response you will notice that it was meant as a mirror for “Nword”. He pontificates about the use of what he deems as a derogatory term while his choice of a monicker means exactly that derogatory term he despises.

      • Actually Hector, Antiracist and Nword are probably two different people based on their very different IP addresses. Their comments are also both valid and deserve something more than your dismissive response.

        • Sorry, innerminds, but I do not agree that their comments were valid as I think that the racism accusation they hurled against me was based on the use of terms which were not meant to be derogatory against blacks (or African-homo sapiens sapiens folks… whatever the politically correct term we ought to use). I also do not think their comments deserve something more than my dismissive response as they clearly are merely having a hard-on against something they deem as politically incorrect.

          • While the politically-correct term is "African American", "black" is way more acceptable than "negro", at least in today's civilized societies. As for the commenter who calls himself "Nword", I think it's logical to suppose that the reason he used that particular moniker is to call to attention your use of the N word. Also, I must point out that our readers are not limited to Filipinos and that we do get a large number of views from the US and other countries, so the comments of "Nword" and "Antiracist" might be more than just a "hard-on against something they deem as politically incorrect".

          • Noted, innerminds. Anyway, I thought about "African American" but not all "blacks" are Americans so I didn't use the term. (By the way, it may be argued that "negro" is merely the Spanish/Portuguese word for black, as well) As for the "hard-on", well… their comments came to me as that… mostly about PC. But "might" is a good qualifier in what you said so I can give it the benefit of the doubt considering what you said.

          • "As for the commenter who calls himself "Nword", I think it's logical to suppose that the reason he used that particular moniker is to call to attention your use of the N word."

            By the way, innerminds, if the choice of Nword as the moniker is merely to call my attention for my use of the "N word" (negro), then again I think the objection is stupid as he was objecting to the mere use of the word without even thinking about the context of how "negro" was used. Isn't there any room for looking at the context and intent of the speaker/writer? If not, then I suppose we should blast http://www.ncnw.org/ , http://www.nanm.org/ , as well as the NAACP for the use of the word "Colored". Gee! Really? The word "colored" is still used in this day?

      • According to the IP logs, 'Nword' and 'antiracist' aren't the same person. While I agree that Nword was being oversensitive and stupid, I don't think you were justified in calling him a nigger.

        • Hi Jeiel,
          If you look back at how I used the term, it merely acknowledges his choice of monicker. The monicker "Nword" pertains to the derogatory term "nigger". If one is against racism, why on earth would he use something that references a racial slur? You see? The context in which I used the term "nigger" was meant as a mirror to counter his point and not to degrade folks with African origin with dark skin.

          • Since you never used the word 'nigger' in your article, it is reasonable to think that his name was a reference to 'negro', not 'nigger'. I acknowledge that Nword was trying to bring up the racial issues with the usage of the word 'negro' (which I find stupid) but he did not use the word nigger. If you had defended your stance, which I find reasonable enough, without using the word 'nigger' you would have won here.

  2. In the question of "nature vs nurture" I'd also like to cite the example of documented cases of feral children that have been raised in the wild. It takes out the variable of "nuture" since they were raised by non-human entities altogether.

    They didnt develop any of the moral standards we are used to and prefer the more primitive "fight or flight" responses their animal caretakers display. Even when they were re-introduced into human society, they weren't fully able to adopt human ways.

    • Perhaps this is another case of having different moral practices through different conditions but not necessarily different moral values. I haven’t seen the documentary but I’m guessing that the feral children weren’t killing other people around them come meal time. I’m also wondering if the moral practice difference that are seen in the documentary were really about moral practices and not merely etiquette. I’m not sure, I’ll try to search for the video or the case as I could only speculate about it at the moment.

      • these feral children would attempt to hurt strangers in an attempt to show dominance or protect their territory much as a wild animal would. Even wild animals wouldn't kill for no good reason. If they're not threatened in any way, they would just maintain a wary state.

        If any action beyond killing or stealing is merely "etiquette" instead of a "moral decision", then even animals (especially social animals that follow a group-hierarchy) may be thought of to be following a moral code. Ants don't go around slaying the queen in an attempt to usurp the throne and even pack animals respect the alpha males.

        • Hi Wes, I began looking into the feral children case but started with the internet’s bastion of knowledge – Wikipedia. 🙂 hehehe Anyway, I think I see what you mean. I think it is important to distinguish between morality and social behavior. The case for the feral kids seems more focused on social behavior rather than the status of moral judgments. I tend to differentiate between morality and etiquette. Making good eye contact when conversing with another person, for example, I consider etiquette. On the other hand taking another person's life would of course be subsumed under the rubric of morality. Also, it is one thing to be able to recognize morality and another thing to follow it.

          • the question then becomes – how can we objectively separate "true morality" from instinctive behavior? seems kinda specie-st to assume that only humans have developed conscious morality. Even primates have been observed to go rebellious sometimes and become social outcasts in their little monkey cliques.

  3. i agree with the notion that morality is evolution-based. it was because of evolution that we came to have such complex brains that allows us to discern between right and wrong and to go beyond the basic animal instincts of self-preservation or survival of the fittest. we evolved into human beings and not remain primates. and it's because we are human beings that we came to develop such concepts as morality and apply it into our lives.

    regarding the extermination of the sick and aliens raping humans that you were talking about, these are concepts of self-preservation and survival of the fittest. you say that morality is not evolution-based because it doesn't adhere to those. so you are implying that self-preservation and survival of the fittest are about as far as human evolution goes? we have evolved beyond that, our brains capable of overriding primitive instincts.

    morality, first and foremost, came from our brains. and our brains function as it does now through evolution. and that is why i say morality is evolution-based.

    for me, the idea of morality as evolution-based is a response to religious individuals questioning the basis of morality in a godless society. i have been told, "our morality came from god and without god, evil will triumph". for that i think it is safe to respond that morality is evolution-based as opposed to bible-based (or whatever doctrine). but if we really wanna get technical and cite specific areas of science or psychology responsible of the human concept of morality, i still think it would not contradict the idea that it exists because of evolution.

    • Hi Stephanie, thanks for reading! Here is a problem that is perhaps worth pondering on…

      Your premise is: “Evolution took us to have complex brains that allows to discern between right and wrong”. Your conclusion is: “Morality is evolution-based”. The problem is that you need to also have a valid bridge premise; you need to show that brain complexity specifically causes discernment of right and wrong. I think your conclusion, as it currently is stated, does not follow from your premise.

      • i am not implying that evolution is fully and completely responsible for our concept of morality. i am saying that it triggered the inception of it. many other factors are most likely involved. that's why i said "if we really wanna get technical and cite specific areas of science or psychology responsible of the human concept of morality, i still think it would not contradict the idea that it exists because of evolution." you can take it as: evolution is the base.. and there are many levels and layers on top that eventually led to the formation of the concept of morality. before those levels could come in, we first had to evolve.

    • On the extent of evolution, I’m sorry if my statement came to you that way but no, I am not implying that self-preservation and survival of the fittest are about as far as human evolution goes. What I was trying to suggest was that evolution, through the natural selection framework that promotes survivability and gene propagation, appears to be insufficient in wholly accounting for morality. There are moral issues that do not necessarily have any relevance to survivability and moral issues that do not necessarily rely on a consequence-based condition.

      • from my first response to your first response (hehe), i do not disagree that "evolution is insufficient in wholly accounting for morality". but just because evolution is insufficient, that doesn't mean that morality is NOT evolution-based. it still is. i think our disagreement is more on the application of the term "evolution-based"… for you, i think, you take it mean "evolution is wholly accountable for" while i take it to mean "evolution is the or one of the bases of". but i think we agree that evolution has some effect on morality.

        • Well, I think this much I can agree on… that the insufficiency of evolution to account wholly on abstract issues like morality only means that we ought to take a pause on making conclusive claims on it despite how strong our personal biases seem to be. Similarly, the insufficiency of theistic (whatever they may be) claims on some aspects about the nature of things ought to give them a taste of a big slice of humble pie as well. Take care, Stephanie! 🙂

    • Regarding morality coming from brain dynamics, I see your point. However, if I may ask for a little indulgence, do you think abstract things like morality and beauty ceases to exist without the mind? Do you think basic logical truths such as “a thing cannot both exist and not exist in the same sense at the same time” will cease to exist without our mind? I am a little wary about this as it seems to touch very much on solipsism.

      • for me, morality is a concept created by the human mind. i don't think animals have such concepts because their way of life is more on survival instincts and their minds do not have the capacity to think "oh let's not eat the zebra because its family will be sad without it". while we have the capacity to think "we should eat only veggies because it's inhuman to eat animals" – that's why vegetarians and animal rights activists exist. (even if somehow animals have concepts of morality, it's most likely to a very less and limited extent.).

        about morality existing without the human mind… yeah sure, if you put it in some ways, it could. but no one will be around to call it "morality" or to give meaning to it. so if you put it that way, then no, it couldn't. i think of morality as the process or interpretation of certain things. the act of killing may exist. the onset of sickness may exist. the act of killing the sick may exist. but the concept of it being moral or not is the result of how our human minds interpret it. even if, let's say, absolute morals are in place. like for example we say it's absolutely wrong to kill the sick, without human minds, it will just be reduced to the act of killing the sick. there is nothing there to label it as absolutely wrong.

        as for beauty and logical truths, sure, why not? but what does that have to do with morality? i do not associate morality with truth. if they are related, maybe not closely.

        • I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on morality being a creation of the mind. However, I think we also have to be careful on making definitive conclusions on our speculations. Very much like on things like god, humans approach abstract things with human analogy. Do animals have the capacity to think? I do not know for sure… I can only speculate based on my human understanding on what or how it is to think for a human being. I have no means to understand what or how it is to think for a non-human animal.

        • Yes, I see what you are saying. Kind of like the proverbial question “If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, would it still make a noise?” I think your approach on this is strong on pragmatism. But some things may be pragmatic but not necessarily true; others may be true but not necessarily pragmatic.

          • I think that your example with the tree is not comparable because noise can be clearly defined, unlike morality which within it holds further concepts. Er, what I mean is, morality contains within it the concepts of right and wrong. Noise is, well, noise. It contains within it, well, noise. In your example, it is merely describing the sound the tree makes when it falls. But morality does not describe, it judges.

        • The context of my statement merely categorize beauty as an abstract issue like morality. As for logical truths, the argument suggests that very much like beauty, their existence is independent of the human mind. The question now is, is morality also something that is independent of the human mind? That it is something that is merely recognized and passed on but not necessarily created or invented by the human mind? Consider this… Why is it considered immoral when, say, a person stabs another? The act of stabbing alone is not immoral; it only becomes immoral when the act destroys something we value (like human life). If human life did not have value, would the stabbing of a human still be immoral? The question now is, where and how do we derive this value? If the human mind creates this value, can it change very much like how social conventions get changed by humans? I’m not too sure.

          • My answers…

            Is morality also something that is independent of a human mind?
            No.

            Is it something that is merely recognized and passed on but not necessarily created or invented by the human mind?
            No. It is created by the human mind.

            Why is it considered immoral only when the act destroys something we value (like human life)?
            Because the human mind judges it to be so.

            If human life did not have value, would the stabbing of a human still be immoral?
            No.

            The question now is, where and how do we derive this value?
            From the human mind.

            If the human mind creates this value, can it change very much like how social conventions get changed by human?
            Yes.

            I see morality as one of the effect of humans judging humans. If a human stabs a pillow, the human is not immoral. If a human stabs another human, the human is immoral. If a monkey stabs a human, it's an accident.

            I think that morality is not independent of the human mind. Even if we say that the monkey finds itself immoral for stabbing such a poor creature, then yeah that monkey's morality will be independent of the human mind, but it's still dependent on the monkey mind.

            My point is, morality is a creation of the mind. It needs a mind to exist. And that mind came about because of evolution.

    • Religionists have their own model of understanding. We may think their understanding sounds stupid as they do not conform to our scientific understanding but this alone should not make us dismiss their case, outright. Personally, I think that arbitrarily disregarding a proposed explanation (just because of our personal biases) would be one of the most irrational things we can do. We can certainly put the religious model to scrutiny, just as we can (and should) put non-religious models to scrutiny as well.

      Thanks for reading! 🙂

      • maybe you are trying to be pragmatic, but in my case, i used to be a devout catholic and i used to believe that morality came from god. it was BECAUSE of "putting that religious model to scrutiny" that i came to the conclusion that morality is evolution-based and not god-based. so i was NOT "arbitrarily disregarding a proposed explanation". in our country, religion is the default, and usually when someone deviates from that, it's mostly because he/she has "put it under scrutiny" by means of reason or logic.

        • Pragmatic? Maybe. It’s funny… I just said the same thing about you a few minutes ago. 🙂 hehehe Anyway, my statement was in reaction to what you said that your conclusion comes as a response to religious individuals questioning the basis of morality in a godless society. Maybe I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say but I do not intend to question your embrace of the non-religious worldview. The important point is, as I said, arbitrarily disregarding a proposed explanation (just because of our personal biases) would be one of the most irrational things we can do. Of course this does not necessarily mean that you are arbitrarily disregarding a proposed explanation here.

  4. Regarding your alien rapists:

    Let's up the ante. Suppose, by some freak whim of xenobiology, that these aliens require regularly raping other sentient species in order to survive.

    Would they be wrong to want to rape us? No.

    Should we lay down and surrender our orifices to our rapist overlords? Heck no!

    That's like saying it's okay for a lion to eat us because it is hungry and because our morality has no bearing on it. Yes, our morality has no effect on the lion. Why then should the lion's apparent lack of a moral code akin to ours impede us from upholding our own code? ("Well, if that lion doesn't think my life is precious, at least I think MY life is precious. So bye-bye, lion!")

    In war during ancient times, troops from Greek, Roman, and Persian armies would routinely rape women and children from conquered towns. For these soldiers rape was one of the expected rewards for their toil. For them, rape was RIGHT. Did that make rape right for the victimized women and children? Will that prevent us, with our modern sensibilities, from condemning their actions?

    You said, "In fact, on the evolutionary model, it may even be argued that rape is ethically good because it gives the rapist pleasure." Well, this is just the tail-end of what I think is a flawed argument, but I'll point out why it's wrong anyway. It is CONSENSUAL sex that is often good because both (or more) parties are given pleasure. Rape cannot be good because only one party gains pleasure while the other suffers horror, indignity, and powerlessness to prevent abuse.

    You seem to say that there MUST be something more to morality than just a "feeling," it MUST be universal and unchanging (and sent from up high?), or else we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we must follow these paths of behavior. You seem to imply that any time, one of us might, like the alien in your example, suddenly turn to killing, raping, stealing, maiming, and lying when he or she discovers that morality is "just an illusion."

    Just because morality probably arose from societal pressures, just because it is not completely universal nor constant, doesn't mean it's "not enough." It's good enough as a working blueprint (or rather, flowchart) of how we should act such that society doesn't crumble. It's good enough for us to have survived for thousands of years. Our moral code is a work in progress, that much is evident. Though we are taking baby steps, it seems to me that our morals are changing for the better as the centuries pass.

    • I think I'll just break down my response into different posts (for now) so that we can continue our discussion here and not in my blog. But if my responses will be too lengthy that's when I may take it to the comments section of my blog.

      (Unless someone here can teach me how I can post lengthy responses. My settings seem to limit the length of my entry in the response.)

    • As you pointed for the case of the alien overlords and the lion, I think these are good cases that point the consequence of accounting morality to evolution. Different evolutionary development in different species may result in conflicting moral standards. With that, we may have difficulty in condemning acts we hold as immoral as such immoral acts may be deemed moral (or amoral) to other species. The moral statements will conflict with one another and both can still be correct. The statement’s truth is dependent on the inclination of the speaker. However, under this scenario, the most that is revealed is information about the speaker holding the viewpoints. Speaker A may hold that rape is moral while Speaker B may hold the opposite; but neither viewpoints really establish the truth about the moral status of rape.

      • If moral statements can conflict with one another and still be both correct, isn't that a strike against the universality of morality?

        I doubt that there can be a single, objective truth about the moral status of rape (or killing, or stealing). I think it just happens that our society would function better without rape, or killing, or stealing, that's why we made them taboo. But I could imagine scenarios in alien societies wherein rape, murder, and theft are the logical choices to make, and thus, moral.

    • With regards to the ancient soldiers, this strikes me as an “agreed-upon” value or a social convention. A social convention is like the case for traffic laws. In North America (and many other parts of the world) societies have decided that all drivers must drive on the ride hand side of the road. In England, their society has decided to drive on the left side of the road. Social conventions are different from logical truths. Social conventions are made up, rather than simply being recognized. Social convention at the time may have tolerated rape by conquering soldiers. However, unlike social conventions, which can and do change, moral principles appear to be fundamentally similar wherever we find humanity. Rape may have been tolerated by social convention but it doesn’t mean that the soldiers were acting morally. Or maybe, the belief back then was that women are not human beings but merely properties of men.

      • Well, I happen to think that morality = social convention, and not a single, immutable truth.

        I can think of cases wherein moral principles have changed, or can change. And I can think of cases wherein we have little idea what the correct moral stance is at all, for example, regarding stem cell research.

        I think that in the future, humans will diverge even more in their belief of what is moral and what is immoral. For example, imagine if technology enabled you to download your personality and memories to a robot. And then you died. Would it be immoral for us to destroy the robot containing your essence? I'm betting that different sections of humanity would answer that question differently.

    • I recognize the point you made in the consentual sex bit. However, please consider that my statement was in reaction to the notion that morality’s function is simply for the enhancement of human life. The mistake I made may be from being too simplistic about it, forgetting to consider the notion of consentual sex, as I was merely focused on objecting to the hedonistic claim.

    • Please know that implying a “Divine Source” is not my intent. I am not convinced at the moment to embrace belief in a theistic type of god if that is the concern. However, you are correct that I am alluding to the inclination that there must be something more to morality than just a mere feeling. What this something is or how we explain this mystery will be up to our individual sense.

    • Well, I’m not sure I can agree with you on the societal pressures bit. I think that there is reason to believe that there is such a thing as universal morality (or objective morality); moral codes or moral practices may change because of our constantly changing (or developing) understanding of non-moral facts like what qualifies an individual to be considered as a human being. But moral truths such as the virtue of human rights seem constant.

  5. You said, "if our moral convictions really do stem from the need to do whatever to promote the enhancement of human life, then shouldn’t we have the moral conviction to exterminate the sick, the aged, and the handicapped?"

    You're saying that if morals really evolved out of our need to survive, then we should have developed morals wherein killing the less fit members of our society is the right thing to do.

    I'm not sure that doing so would add to the survivability of our species (perhaps exterminating our sick might even decrease our survivability, given that it would be hard to implement without some resistance and it would add to our species' overall psychic pain as some of our loved ones–and eventually all of us–are killed for being weak); besides, taking that easy way out would preclude us from studying disease, old age, and infirmity in the hopes of some day solving those problems. I think the development of medicine is the evolutionarily better solution.

    (I would also like to point out that not only humans but some animals as well show caring for their weaker members. Yet we can hardly call something "a moral dog" or "a moral elephant"; we only call it moral when we humans do it, I guess to distance ourselves from them and to make our intent seem nobler and "God-inspired." Perhaps studying that kind of "illogical" altruistic behavior in animals may shed some light as to why it has evolutionary value.)

    Okay, now, let's assume that caring for our weaker members adds zero value to our survivability. Let's assume that it even negatively affects our survival, stealing away our resources, time, etc.

    There is a caveat in evolution theory here. Remember our appendix and our tailbone? Vestigial body parts. Not everything we have in our body is geared towards survival. Sometimes some parts which used to have a vital function remain even though they are now mostly useless.

    Similarly, not everything we do is geared towards survival. Some of our habitual actions are vestiges of what were once vital actions, such as some modern religious rituals arising from primeval rituals of appeasement of nature gods (of course early humans were mistaken in thinking that these were "vital" actions) (okay, many modern humans, too ;p). Another example would be horoscopes still being printed on newspapers, and being read even by people who are "not really superstitious."

    Other things that we do that seem to have no survival value are byproducts of things that DO have survival value. Let me give an example. I've often wondered what the survival value of video games are. Why expend so much brain power to create, develop, play, and master these games? I guess some of them train us to think more strategically, some of them are simulations of real-life situations and may therefore be somewhat useful, some help improve our memory and spatial abilities, etc. But then again, the amount of intellectual effort to make and play these games could well go towards something more concretely beneficial, such as cancer research or something.

    Then I remember that evolution is mostly a blind, unconscious process. We don't normally do things because we want to evolve a certain way. People don't really play video games for their survival value. They play video games because they have big brains–brains that they are itching to use for whatever purpose, be it to seek solutions for cancer or to just be entertained. And as we know, a big brain DOES have survival value. Playing video games is one byproduct of having a big brain.

    In much the same way, I think that cooperative behavior has great survival value. And strong altruism, or being compassionate to the point of diminishing one's resources, is one byproduct of that behavior.

    • Suppose you were Mr. X’s doctor and before Mr. X died he has re-written his will. You also know that he has become mentally incompetent in his last few hours before he re-wrote his will. Mr.X asks you to make sure his last will gets to his lawyer. But you realize that the will states cutting off his family out of it and gives all his fortune to a psychic chatline. Knowing that the document will most likely be thrown out of court but not before the damage to Mr. X's family is done, do you carry out Mr. X's last request? Why would your choice be the "moral” choice to do? There seems to be cases where morality doesn’t have any relevance to survivability (or genetic propagation).

      • That question is easy for me when I keep in mind the distinction between morality and legality. I think it would be moral but illegal to throw away his new will, and it would be legal but immoral to keep the new will. Of course others may disagree with that, and that's okay :p

        To answer your real question, I, too, am skeptical that morality is based on (and directly aids in) genetic propagation. While there could be genes that may predispose a person to violence (perhaps he overproduces testosterone and underproduces endorphins, thus making him aggressive and angry most of the time), I don't think there's an "evil" gene or a "goodness" gene. Genetic predisposition is not enough to account for morality.

        Genes are not the only things that can be propagated. Ideas can also be propagated; and this is how I think we came to develop morality. If we think of societies as whole organisms, we can hypothesize that those societies that heavily punish or prevent killing, stealing, etc. tend to be more stable and more cohesive, and thus tend to survive better, than those societies that are tolerant of killing, stealing, etc. Thus their ideas of these set of behaviors that promote harmonious relations among its members will propagate more successfully; and these set of behaviors we call "morality."

        (Of course, the more successful society will have members who will probably be more successful at procreation. In that limited, indirect sense, morality aids genetic propagation.)

        Take note though, I'm not saying that morality is subservient to the propagation of genes. Morality as an idea propagates itself, because it is a successful strategy for the society as an organism.

        In short, morality may have little or no relevance to the survivability of an individual, but it probably has great relevance to the survivability of a society.

        • I am wary about the idea of morality merely being ideas that promote harmonious relations and propagation. This strikes me as heavily consequence-based. As long as the consequence is good (i.e. harmony and propagation), an act can be considered as “moral”. This, however, does not take into account morality under intent. A deed’s consequence may be good but the intent of the doer may not be.

  6. i would love to read about that bridge where morality goes from the rational to the empirical. my naive mind is under the impression that morality is in the rational category. when a man rapes a woman, the empirical evidence merely gives a man copulating with a woman — that's the empirical data. "Rape" is a rational category as it interprets the copulation to be a crime.

    moreover, even if the argument would be to create an algorithm based on the judgment of 1000 people on the issue of rape, that is still rational 1000x. even if we have evolved to think it is a crime, that evolution is a rational evolution, not empirical.

        • I’m not sure if I get your question correctly, John Philip. I don’t think religion per se and morality can necessarily determine the rightness of the other. A critique at the Divine Command Theory of morality, I think, makes an illuminating case about this. (Just google Divine Command Theory and you’ll know what I mean) On whether religion is destructive or not, I believe, cannot be definitively answered. I would answer it with the qualifier “It depends”. I see religion as merely a tool that can be used for good and for evil purposes.

        • more than anything else, I view religion more as a social construct, an variation of of tribalism which has its own membership, customs, and codes of conduct. Its output is based on how people use it. It is amoral.. just like the concept of a "family" or a "baranggay" or a "country"

  7. morality as a byproduct of evolution? does this imply that our sense of right-wrong is somehow passed on as an almost instinctive form of genetic memory? that the first "adam and eve" already had it and thus passed it on to all its descendants? what then of our genetic cousins? the offshoot branches of hominids whose genomes are almost similar to humans? would they also share the same moral standards or at least part of it?

    if you're talking about evolution, you can't ignore the genetic basis. the two are virtually inseparable. it then follows that there is a "morality gene" that can be identified, modified, or even manipulated.

    • Hi wes,
      At the moment, I am not buying the morality as a byproduct of evolution bit. A "morality gene" sounds plausible and can even be argued to be logical. However, I don't think anyone has really isolated and validated a "morality gene". Maybe in the future this will be the case but at the moment it just isn't something concrete. Thanks for reading! 🙂

    • Hi Wes,
      I remember responding to your comment but I'm not wondering what happened to it so I'll just re-post…

      At the moment, I am not yet convinced that morality is a by-product of evolution and I am skeptical abouth the notion that morality is all about the propagation of genes (i.e. the gene pool). There are certainly cases where moral questions come in that does not have any relevance to the propagation of genes. As for the morality gene, I am not aware if any such genes have been isolated already. Maybe in the future this will be the case but until then my skepticism on the matter remains. Thanks for reading! 🙂

  8. A more serious nitpick: You said,

    "If we take the UN Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn in 1948, as an example, we would recognize the demonstration of this fundamental similarity in value systems around the world. Human freedom, dignity, life, liberty, security, and many other things are said to be morally good. Racial and gender discrimination, slavery, arbitrary arrest, torture, all forms of degrading treatment and other acts are condemned. Some may say that the UN Declaration is relatively modern and it may have evolved through preceding generations. But as the English writer, C.S. Lewis’ compilation of a list of ancient moral codes, we see a highlight of fundamental similarities between them."

    I think this is a bad example, because most, if not all, condemnable acts you mentioned were not "obviously wrong" during the early stages of human civilization. Slavery was endorsed in the Bible. Torture and horrific war crimes were the norm in past times. Rape was routine. Racial and gender discrimination? Still going strong now, imagine how it was back then.

    The ancient moral codes don't matter if people were not following them; they were like a Band-Aid to dress a gushing shotgun wound. How did the common people think about those moral issues back then? What were they actually doing?

    I believe (w/ plenty of evidence) that humans are more enlightened now than they have been in the past. The zeitgeist is moving towards a more compassionate society. (I'm not saying we're nearing utopia–far, far from it. Backward-thinking groups, such as the Taliban, still exist. I'm just saying that humans behave better now than they have in the ancient past.)

    There is a real difference in value systems over time. That, to me, indicates an evolution of morals. And this process is still ongoing. The Roman Catholic Church may be against homosexual relations now, but I think their tune will change once the LGBT community reaches a critical mass of power, influence, and respect. And once that happens, gay sex will no longer be considered by Christians as immoral. (Perhaps in a hundred years?)

    I believe morals shift, slide, change over time.

    And if they were really "fundamental" right from the start, and every ancient person knew them from instinct and felt the internal urge to follow them, why the need to codify them in the first place? I think they were created as laws to be obeyed for their respective societies to function better. Less morally-evolved humans thought them up and wrote them down. Which would explain why ancient moral codes are flawed and why they didn't get everything right the first time (hello, slavery).

    • You made some interesting points, kite. Maybe you are correct that the UN Declaration of Human Rights was a bad example. However, perhaps there is also value in looking at another angle. Maybe, say, slavery was acceptable during biblical times because the slaves were not necessarily thought of as humans but sub-humans. Even women’s rights were not honored during those times because women were generally looked upon as properties of man. They were even considered as mere receptacles of the male’s seed but science shattered this belief upon the discovery of genetics. Slavery and human rights may still have been morally wrong; the only difference is people’s understanding back then on who or what are considered humans. The status of a negro as a human being is a non-moral fact while killing a human being falls under the rubric of morals.

      • I can see what you're getting at here. Slaves then were not considered humans, so slave-owners may have been blissfully safe from feelings of moral guilt. Of course, one could also argue that people back then should have already instinctually known that women and people of a different race have the same rights as free men. If morality is fixed and universal, shouldn't have the realization of human worth come in the same "package deal" as moral values? And shouldn't we have already known what to do regarding contentious modern moral issues such as contraception, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc.?

        • I’m not sure if I can agree with you on that one. I think it is one thing to recognize a universal moral standard and another to follow it. People back then may still recognize the virtue of human rights but we have to ask why they still, say, accepted the practice of slavery of blacks. Did they have different conditions as our present conditions? Did they have a different understanding of what it is to be human? I think so. The virtue of human rights may still be fixed but our understanding on where this is applied have changed. The understanding that whether a black man is considered a human being (a non-moral fact) is what changed but the virtue for human rights (moral fact) may have been the same in the old days.

          • I admit that this is a hard question to resolve, because I cannot know exactly how a typical freeman thought back then. I wonder how they treated slaves, i.e., if slaves were treated as nonhumans, I wonder if they conversed with slaves at all, or perhaps they talked to them as though talking to a dog. I have not the knowledge (yet) to answer that.

            But, I've been thinking that not all slaves were blacks. There were also slaves who belong to the same ethnicity as the slave-owners. Surely, the slave-owners were keenly aware that these slaves were human. I wonder how they reconciled that fact w/ their supposed morality. And the fact that slaves can become freemen, and freemen can become slaves, seems jarring to your hypothesis. Can you really think of a living human as becoming nonhuman, or a nonhuman as becoming human, simply by the change in his status? I find that difficult to believe.

      • "The status of a negro as a human being is a non-moral fact while killing a human being falls under the rubric of morals."

        Who the hell says the N word in this time and age?!! That is so racist!

  9. A fairly irrelevant nitpick, but I've always thought that the color red is used to signify "Danger" and "Stop" because it's the color of blood. And green is the "safe" color because it's the color of healthy, lush vegetation–the color of life.

    I don't know if the designer of traffic lights thought about it that way, but I'm guessing that if humans were to invent traffic lights again and again, majority of the time we'd choose red for "Stop" and green for "Go"–almost never the other way around.

    • Thanks for reading, kite! Another one I've also thought about was the order of the lights? Why is it almost always the case that red is on top, yellow in the middle, and green in the bottom? Or why is yellow always in the middle? Hmmm… mind-boggling! 🙂 hehehe

      • You know I wonder about those trivial stuff, too :p I read somewhere that people react most quickly to yellow hues. So I thought there might be something psychological going on there too with the red and the green lights.

        It may not seem obvious because I disagreed w/ you a lot, but I like your article and your style of writing in general. It is intelligently written, and while I disagreed w/ your arguments, they did not make me facepalm in frustration. They made me think, enough for me to try to collect my thoughts and weigh in my opinion.

        (I am so used to combative argumentation on the Internet, where the intelligence of the other party is often called into question. Often the belligerence of the other person has prevented me from willingly conceding the possibility that the other person may be right. Though we are mostly opposed in viewpoint, your writing is a breath of fresh air.)

        • Hi kite,
          You present very good points and your arguments are very lucid. Although we may disagree on a few issues, I am really enjoying discussing with you. As much as my articles are intended to incite critical thinking, your responses also give my mind quite a bit of exercise. So thank you very much for such a pleasant experience.

          I share your frustration regarding combative folks on the Internet. Even here at the FF I have been harassed and my intelligence (including understanding of science and evolution) and even personhood have been called into question. But I have been doing this for a while now so I just take it as part of the “game”. 🙂 Anyway, I hope you don’t mind if I respond to some of your posts in my blog as I still don’t know how I can post lengthy responses here at FF.

          • Please do continue to blog. Even if we may inevitably disagree, I like anything that raises the level of discourse here in our country beyond showbiz and political gossip.

            My time is short but I try to read your articles. Don't mind if I may criticize, it means I'm reading closely. :p

            Anyway, your topic here is deep. I can think of possible counter-arguments you may give to my criticisms here. And I can think of counter-counter-arguments to your possible counter-arguments. That shows how really deep the subject of morality is. Probably worth a book or two.

            I too am glad for the mental exercise 🙂

  10. The concept TRUTH is difference from the concept VALUE.

    Truth is the recognition or the product of recognition (identification) of whats in there that exist which is reality. Knowledge is the production of recognizing (identifying) of facts of whats in there. There is that something that exist and there is the recognizer (the mind, consciousness). Whatever the data the recognizer received from his senses and then process them to form conceptual knowledge (abstraction) results to the concept truth. A higher abstraction means higher possibility of committing an error.

    While the concept “value” is that which one acts to gain and keep. “Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “Value” presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible. the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
    For example, water is not a value in itself. Water becomes a value in relations to any living organism.

  11. [I’ve encountered a few self-professed atheists in the past who account morality to evolution. For these folks, at least the ones I encountered, they do not subscribe to universal values and truth. Also for them, there is no objective truth.]

    Well I am not one of these folks. My attitude towards objective truth is the same as Michael Shermer:

    "I believe that reality exists and that reason and science are the best tools we have for understanding causality in the real world. We can achieve an ever-greater understanding of reality but we can never know if we have final Truth with regard to nature. Since reason and science are human activities, they will always be flawed and biased."

    So I believe there IS an objective truth, and that we can actually arrive at such truth. We just can't know for sure if we already got there.

    [Suppose they (aliens) decide to begin raping humans at will and suppose we complain that rape is wrong and that they should stop, they would have a ready response to us by saying “Your morality is just a product of your evolutionary process. They are only like your other adaptations. Any other meaning is an illusion. It doesn’t affect us”.

    If morality were strictly an evolutionary product, they would be correct. If morality is only an evolutionary product, then acts like rape would not really be wrong, we just have the conviction, the feeling, the emotion that say that it is wrong. So in the case of the alien rapists, they would be fully justified and we would have nothing to say to them. So with evolutionary morality, it appears that there is no basis for condemning such acts. On the evolutionary model, acts such as rape are no more wrong for us than they are for the aliens.]

    I think morality, or at least the common perception of it, is applicable only within a species. If aliens more technologically advanced and/or more powerful than us began raping us, is that worse than what we do with our slaughter animals whom we not only murder but raise in cramped, cruel captivity all their short pathetic lives? Yet we (with the possible exception of the vegans) do not condemn the meat eaters as murderers.

    • I was once told that morality is basically a function of the best interest of propagating the genes. So for instance, murder is morally wrong because it will ultimately be detrimental to the propagation of the genes and our species. However, there are various ethical cases that do not have any relevance to the propagation of genes. This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about automatically accounting morality to evolution under the natural selection framework especially focused on the gene pool.

      By the way, thanks for reading, innerminds! 🙂

      • Yes, I agree with you that the evolutionarily-driven desire to propagate one's genes does not totally account for morality. I was merely commenting on your hypothetical alien rape example and comparing it to how we treat the "lower" animals. 🙂

        • Understood, innerminds. Sorry if there was a bit of confusion. My previous response did not address your previous comment on the alien example; it was more of an added information for the whole discussion. My bad! 🙂

          • No probs. 🙂

            By the way, I think I haven't really driven my point about aliens raping us and we raising animals such as chicken, swine and cattle for food. My point is this: You say that evolution cannot totally account for our morality, to which I agree. But my response to this is, are we right to call ourselves moral in the first place when we not only murder other animals for food (and leather and fur!), we systematically raise them in the most cost-effective way, crowding as many animals as possible in tight spaces to minimize cost without regard for their welfare (overcrowding causes stress, heatstroke and injuries – that's why we cut of the beaks of chicks [without anesthesia] so they don't peck each other and damage the meat). And for as long as we buy and eat farmed chicken, pork, and beef, we are guilty of perpetuating their suffering.

            So what I'm saying is, to those who say that we humans have some sort of morality that cannot be totally explained by evolution (hence, some would say our morality came from a Moral Lawgiver), think again if we really have such morality in the first place.

          • That’s a tough question to answer, innerminds, especially if we do not have a definitive and airtight answer yet for morality. I think the fact that dealing with moral dilemmas at least ought to make us pause for a moment and consider that our own personal biases regarding what accounts for morality (under religious or non-religious shades) may very well be subjected to humility. Have a great day! 🙂

  12. I don't think evolution-based ethics has ever taken off as a credible moral framework. If it were, then, as you allude to, rape would be the most admirable action a man could do to a woman. This is clearly not the case.

    I recommend that you read about the developing science of neuroethics, which seeks to anchor morality on the capacity of animal brains for well-being and suffering. Evolution is only relevant to ethics insofar as it has provided for us the brain in which morally salient experiences such as love, anger, jealousy, and contempt are realized. But our brain, the seat of consciousness and all of experience, did not evolve with the eventuality of modern medicine or weapons of mass destruction in mind. As human cognitive capacity developed, our ethical concerns outgrew mere reproduction, foraging, and forming bands of hunters.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here