Did a Concern for the Species Influence Our Moral Development?
Can sociocultural evolution
account for the formation of moral truth? I’ve heard this claim
repeatedly in discussions with non-believers, and I also accepted this
notion for many years: Ancient humans who accepted certain moral
behaviors and principles were far more likely to survive, and as a
result, those who were more inclined to accept certain principles
emerged through the process of Natural Selection. But this seems counter
intuitive given our present acceptance of many attributes we consider
virtuous. We humans recognize cowardice, selfishness, unfaithfulness,
and senseless cruelty as morally repugnant. Yet it can easily be argued
that these behaviors actually promoted the success and survival
of primitive people groups as they engaged the competing groups around
them. Sometimes cowardice (the simple act of running away) assures your survival. Selfish tribes (who think only of themselves) are often more likely to survive in a “dog eat dog” world. Unfaithfulness will lead to further propagation of a blood line with an even larger
number of children. And in the most primitive of times, vicious cruelty
(i.e. killing your enemy’s infants) would certainly guarantee fewer
enemies in the future. All of these moral “taboos” could easily be seen
as utilitarian virtues to primitive cultures, yet they are almost unanimously accepted as moral evils across cultural lines.
While
it may be true (although debatable) that actions such as these may have
a long term negative impact on the human race (even though they have a
short-term benefit for the particular group), why would we assume
primitive individuals would want to put the good of the species over the good of their own families? And more importantly, why
should they? When times got tough and ancient families found themselves
in desperate situations, do we really think these families submitted
sacrificially to some moral code benefitting the species rather than
their own family? Why should they want do this in the first place? Why should the long term survival of the species
matter at all to anyone? I have many friends who are childless. Why
should they care what happens to the species? Why should they make
sacrifices today for people they will never know in the next generation?
Even
if we accept a concern for the species as a virtuous moral objective,
where does this moral goal (of advancing the larger group even at the
expense of the individual) come from? It seems we have pushed the
“origin of morality” question back one level; now we have to account for
our transcendent desire to promote the species rather than ourselves or
our families. If we embrace an evolutionary explanation for moral development,
we must begin by accounting for the transcendent, counter intuitive,
often personally harmful importance of acting in a way that benefits our
species even as it may harm our personal chances of survival. We may
choose to affirm this over-arching, pre-existent moral goal, but there is no evidence we are the source
of this goal. Our own evolutionary struggle for survival is far more
personal than skeptics would like to admit. Those of us who decided to
act selfishly, procreate with liberty, behave cruelly and retreat when
necessary were often far more likely to survive in a brutal early
environment. The fact we eventually chose to embrace moral principles transcending our own personal wellbeing
is a significant piece of evidence. Our moral laws today are not a
matter of subjective opinion and personal utility. In fact, they are
often personally “inconvenient”. Moral truth transcends all of us and
calls us to submit our personal, human desires to a greater standard
that often seems unattainably sacrificial and unselfish. Transcendent,
objective moral truths such as these (including objective moral truths
about the survival of our species) require a Transcendent, Objective
Moral Truth Giver.
[By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.]
