If a good/just/righteous God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?
This is a fun question to me for two reasons:
1. The question really doesn’t make a lot of sense without God.
2. With God, the answer is not as difficult as it first appears.
Allow me to elaborate…
IF THERE IS NO GOD, HOW IS THERE ANY EVIL IN THE WORLD?
Natural Development of Moral Law:
Let us assume for the sake of argument that God doesn’t exist. We are here then, by default, through a progressive series of naturalistic processes and humanity has survived as the fittest of Earth’s creatures. Obviously, we have a sense of morality, so we’ll have to assume that it developed naturally. Depending on which continent your ancestors evolved and which tribulations they faced, your society will have developed its own system of laws and some sort of governed morality intent on preserving the society as a whole. With few exceptions, every society develops a few common laws:
- You prohibit the killing of offspring (because how else would you grow your society?)
- You honor and respect your elders (maybe a selfish law, because you don’t want to be killed off in your old age)
Etc.
And, each society develops different societal laws depending upon various factors that the society’s thinkers believe will help shape the society. Through the generations, these laws are ingrained to the point that each society develops an internal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
You: So… great, Randy… didn’t you just fashion an argument that shows how natural processes and the evolution of societal principles can lead to a sense of morality?
Me: That I did!
Now, let’s let our evolved, natural minds pore over the situation at hand. We should be able to see that although we may feel (through conditioning and evolutionary genetic predisposition) that something is wrong, we can see rationally that the “crime” is simply something that goes against the societal norms. Furthermore, a criminal is really just a person whose genes and/or upbringing have failed him (not a sexist… it’s just easier from here on out to say “him” since English doesn’t possess an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun). The criminal is not “evil”. He’s just doing what he was predisposed to do. We can still legislate against crimes for the overall good of society and hopefully we can deter anti-social behavior, but when crimes are committed, it’s extremely insensitive to think of the perpetrator as “evil”. A child-killer is no more “evil” than a predator who selects the youngest and slowest antelope for lunch. It’s innate.
Survival of the Fittest?
Now, let’s fast-forward to today in the United States. We have evolved through natural processes and developed a sense of morality that values tolerance, altruism, and uncommon heroism above all else. How does this make sense?
One of the worst societal sins is intolerance. We ostracize those who think lesser of other races / genders / beliefs and preach love and tolerance for all. Even if someone disagrees with societal norms, our society cherishes the right to do so. Why appreciate diversity? Why allow people to vocalize dissention? Doesn’t this work to tear down a society?
Our altruism leads us to fashion laws for the creation of handicap-accessible buildings, to stage the Special Olympics, to fund collegiate sports that 1 in 100 people don’t even know exist, to mandate monetary donations to people having financial difficulties. Wouldn’t society prosper even more if we allowed these people to fend for themselves?
If a 25-year-old Marine officer were to push an 80-year-old handicapped lady out of the way of oncoming traffic only to die in the process, we would hail him as a hero. What in the world for? Our society has lost a productive member and we will be forced to continue to pay for the elder lady’s Medicaid bills. She may siphon off our societal resources for 20 more years!
We value the minority at the expense of the majority. We hold free elections, but give a voice to those who criticize our societal choices. We remove resources from the many to prop up the weak and care for the infirmed. What is wrong with us? Evolution has obviously failed the United States. Somewhere we took a wrong turn.
WITH CHOICE COMES EVIL
Let’s now assume that God does exist and He finds Himself at a pivotal moment. He is contemplating the creation of humanity. What are God’s options?
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans with an inability to do evil.
3. Create humans with an ability to do evil.
Option 1 is fairly straightforward and Option 3 would be what we have, so let’s look at Option 2….
Now, since God is judging good versus bad, “good” would have to be equal to “that which God would do in a given situation” (WWGD?). So, in creating humanity, God would be forced to create creatures who could not make decisions that weren’t in accordance with His own. So, all of humanity would be like-minded and the thoughts of humans would accord to the thoughts of God. What has God created, then? Is humanity at all separate from God? Is there a purpose for humanity? What the three options break down to are:
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans who are an extension of God.
3. Create humans who are separate creatures from God.
There is no fourth option: Create humans with “free will” who will not choose evil.
CONCLUSION
Evil cannot exist without an absolute standard of good. With no absolute standard, “right” is relative. A “criminal” is really just a minority. And, if the criminal act gains the support of a society, it ceases to be criminal. The act itself was never “evil”; rather, it was anti-social until it wasn’t. In fact, if we truly wish to embrace naturalism, a society may choose to “cleanse” itself through good ole fashion natural selection when times get rough. Adolf Hitler recognizes this sentiment in his book Mein Kampf:
"...[ the Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."
We recognize evil. We understand justice. We adopt laws and appreciate virtues that contradict natural selection. Is there any reason to believe that we could have adopted these traits through naturalism? Or is it more reasonable to believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that gives us the ability to recognize that survival is not paramount?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Great post Randy! I've often wondered how naturalists account for morality. Youre description seems fair. It COULD account for some things, but certainly not all.
All right, ethics!
THE MARINE
Why do you suppose that the young Marine saving the older woman is not of benefit to society? You seem to imply that altruism has no actual benefit, which implies that it is not actually good. We just think it is good for the arbitrary reason that there is a God who programmed us, apparently for no reason, since the altruism serves no purpose.
I think most people would say that the Marine's heroic act did serve a good purpose and was not meaningless. It contributes to a sense of community, the tribe working together, our own existential feelings of being connected with everyone else, the resistance of being alone and therefore in a weak position.
Surely altruism has great benefits for society as a whole and for us as individuals? Do you disagree?
EXTERNAL SOURCE OF AUTHORITY ON GOOD/EVIL
Your fear that we will all turn in to Nazis without an ironclad external source of authority (while possible!) has problems.
1. Nazism occurred partially because of too much faith in an external source of authority (Hitler). People, in a grave time for their country, turned to a strongman. By putting forth something as an absolute standard, aren’t you asking people not to trust their own reason? Also, don’t the vast majority of folks have the same values despite their different cultures/views? And when they don’t, in any kind of organized way, isn’t it usually because they have suspended their personal judgment in favor of an external source of authority? or because they’re mentally ill?
2. A lack of trust in the individual’s sense of reason doesn’t make too much sense in our context, as this whole blog is about pursuing the individual’s sense of reason. Do we just trust our own and not everyone else’s? I think that’s sort of true for all of us, but still, on what grounds does one accept an absolute source of authority? Is it not based on the conclusions of our own reason? Then why should we not trust our own reason to find what’s right?
SURVIVAL
"Or is it more reasonable to believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that gives us the ability to recognize that survival is not paramount?"
Christianity says that survival IS paramount. A literalist interpretation of the religion teaches to do good in this world for the purpose of attaining rewards in the next world. It is ALL about survival.
"Surely altruism has great benefits for society as a whole and for us as individuals? Do you disagree?"
I think you missed the question I was asking.
"Your fear that we will all turn in to Nazis..."
I never mentioned such a fear. I just said that the Nazi philosophy would be justified (read Nietzsche) if our impulses stemmed only from biological programming. I assume that - just like today - people will think emotionally rather than rationally.
"Christianity says that survival IS paramount. A literalist interpretation of the religion teaches to do good in this world for the purpose of attaining rewards in the next world. It is ALL about survival."
Naturalism is about earthly survival. Christianity is most certainly not. If I'm being honest here, Steven, I don't think you read this particular blog very closely... or I was really unclear in how I presented it, so I don't want to pursue these arguments too intensely.
As to the "external source of authority", yeah, I was jumping too far ahead in the discussion.
have you ever played chess and thought many moves in advance, and then you can't remember the original hypothetical move? I'm good at that. And I'm bad at chess.
An absolute standard of good? yeah, I'm fine with that! Most people agree on that in the abstract. We just get wrapped up in the details of expressing it - the practical application of ethics.
Have you read much about bioethics? It is interesting to explore what we naturally think is right and wrong.
If a train is bearing down on 3 people who are stuck on the track and the conductor pulls the lever, switching the train's course and killing one poor guy who was on the alternate track, most people would say that was the right decision.
But if there are 3 dying people in the hospital awaiting different transplants, and the doctors run out to the waiting room, grab a healthy guy, kill him against his will, harvest his organs, and save the three, most people would say that was wrong.
But the net effect is the same - saving the 3 at the expense of the 1. Interesting!
I fixed my posts from earlier. Not enough sleep or patience to write an on-topic, coherent reply. I hope I have fixed this!
“Fixed” Post
Sorry if it seems I didn’t get your point. I have been under some pretty big time and sleep constraints lately, but I wanted to try to comment on your blog this week. I assure you I read this one 2 or 3 times trying to get your point. I thought your point was that altruistic behavior was not explanable from a naturalist perspective. This would imply, of course, that there is no tangible benefit for the individual or society for certain actions that we deem “good”. If there are tangible benefits, then doesn’t that explain our morality in naturalistic terms?
The marine suspends his own physical well-being, because he is serving society. This, in turn, gives him a sense of meaning and community which outweighs his physical concerns. I would agree that this is spiritual, but you're arguing that the spiritual and the physical are not always the same, as far as benefits. I agree, on an individual level. But I'm not sure that I agree on a societal level.
The marine's actions are beneficial to society in the promotion of our mutual care for each other. This collective psychology may contribute to society's physical well-being more than enough to offset the apparent inequity of physical potential in those two individuals. However, If we needed every young person on earth to die to save all the old folks, few people would see that as right. Especially the old folks.
FREEWILL
As to God’s creation of man with freewill, you put forth that ”There is no fourth option: Create humans with “free will” who will not choose evil.” This is a paradox in that “freewill” is no longer about a choice of good or evil, but rather just being a different being than God. Fair enough, but surely “freewill” is not the correct term here. If man is created differently, then he has no choice but to be evil, according to your view. Anyway, we can keep discussing it. We probably agree more than we disagree, but in these dicussions, the disagreements are brought up in hopes of clarifying our positions.
What I got out of this blog is that Randy is stating that if God did not exist, this is what would happen: Since people of the earth started to come together and form communities (tribes, clans, settlements, nations, etc.) there has been a morality in the peoples' laws that is based on "what is best for the community" So, morality still would exist if God did not exist, but the morality would be purely about the self-preservation of the community.
However, since people do many things that don't seem to necessarily be of value to the self-preservation of the community (his example, saving an 80 year old's life when she is a drain on society, not an addition, and losing a young man's life instead), then that type of behavior, in Randy's opinion, is something that could only come from God existing and being in the young man's life. Why else would he want to save an 80 year old's life than if his own life and preservation, and that of his community, was not his primary thought. His primary thought was WWGD?
Did I get this right? I am trying to dim it down so I can see if I got the message right. I can't really comment much till I am sure on what I am commenting on. Ethics discussions and proving God exists through the behavior humans exhibit gets pretty overwhelming.
Also, anyone here seen Logan's Run? Just a side note.
John- I got the exact same thing out of Randy's post. And I think it's a good point!
I agree with you John, that this is Randy's point.
I would still challenge the idea that the Marine's actions are not beneficial towards society's overall survival. I think the Marine might take issue with that as well, as it might be seen to denigrate his sacrifice.
One young healthy person sacrificing himself for One elderly lady = good. The affirmation of collective morality and personal sacrifice strengthens community, which strengthens our collective ability to survive.
But imagine a scenario where ALL young, healthy men sacrifice themselves for ALL elderly ladies. Would people still view this as morally right?
THE MARINE
Steve, you’re basically right on my assertion: society does not benefit in a physical or economic way when a “hero” sacrifices himself for an individual who does not contribute to society in a physical or economic way. The benefit to society is the good feeling we get (usually for the few minutes the story appears on the local news) when we hear about another’s selflessness. The question, then, is: why would a survival-of-the-fittest, naturalistic processes lead us to evolve those “good feelings”? The feelings are fleeting and there is a net loss in productivity for society. As a reasonable, quick-thinking creature, the marine should be able to quickly assess the situation and realize that society will benefit more from his life than from the old lady’s life.
Seem harsh? Yes, it does! Now, ask yourself why. Wasn’t that last statement a reasonable one? It’s tough to even discuss this without feeling for the hypothetical old lady. That’s because humans hold to a morality that is not simply based on the value of the society or the individual. So, if society’s most lauded moral principles are those that are detrimental to the economic and/or physical well-being of society, is it reasonable to assume that these moral principles are a product of Darwinian evolution? We’re not just talking about the marine and his anti-societal decision… we’re talking about the people who read the story and call the marine a “hero”. Consciously, after the fact, we call him a hero. Our society extols actions that lead to survival of the weakest. There is no getting around that. From a naturalistic, survival-of-the-fittest viewpoint, the guy is just an idiot and we’re all idiots for praising his actions.
WILL
“If man is created differently, then he has no choice but to be evil….”
The above statement absolutely must be true. If God exists and God is good, man cannot be good. That may be the Judeo-Christian theistic view in a nutshell. I don’t see this as a bad thing, nor do I see a paradox here. Let me explain:
Different from God = Not Good
It’s a bit of a funny little situation, isn’t it? It’s somewhat akin to having children. Let’s say that you have an idea in your mind of what it means to be good and you want to pass this idea on to your children. When you have a child, you have absolutely no doubt that your child will fail (in some regard at some point in his/her life) to live up to your definition of good. If you are the absolute standard against which your child is to be compared, your child – by definition – will not be good. The end result is no different if we look at God. God is good. Different from good = not good.
Not So Bad that God is Good:
If you hold to a belief in God, don’t you want him to be better (i.e. “more good”) than you? God’s goodness is not a bad thing. If man differs from God, man cannot be good. So, the fact that man is not innately good is just a result of the nature of God. It comes with the territory. The other choice would be a God capable of evil. Check out some Roman mythology for the fun that might ensue….
Paradox:
I understand what you’re saying about the paradox. In a way, you’re correct and in another way, you’re slightly off-the-mark. You are correct in saying that anything that is not God cannot be good, and thus we do not have the free will to be good. You’re speaking though about the essence of man (or indeed anything that is not God) and not man’s choices. It’s almost tantamount to saying that we don’t have the “free will” to BE God. That’s absolutely true. The ever-so-slight difference here is that man can choose good in any given situation; thus the choice of good or the choice of evil is a free choice.
John,
Does this discussion clarify for you? You’ve got the gist of it. Basically, the question is: How could we evolve morals through natural process that do not embody the best physical/economic outcome either for society or for the individual? One clarification would be that I don’t think the marine was thinking WWGD? I just think that we have innate un-taught morals that benefit neither ourselves nor our society as a whole. Sometimes we heed those moral tugs; sometimes we heed worldly tugs. Still, those innate morals come from somewhere. If the source is natural, then you would expect that there would be a natural benefit (i.e. the individual or the society would gain) aside from a fleeting “good feeling”. If they’re spiritual, as Steve suggested, then there is a supernatural (i.e. not natural) source for them. If (option 3) they’re natural, but there is no natural benefit, then evolution has somehow taken a turn with regards to humanity, and we’re headed the way of Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand book… yes, I know she was an atheist), overseeing our own demise (assuming we continue to devolve). Insert Obama joke here.
By stating that “humanity has survived as the fittest of Earth’s creatures” you have indicated that we are talking about a naïve version of evolution by natural selection. Just as a reasonable physicist would not say that our sun is distinctly special, biologists are keenly aware that awarding the crown of “fittest creature” to humans betrays a poor understanding of the term fitness.
This is not to say that humans are not special in any way. Of course our encephalization quotient and our cognitive abilities (among others) are outstanding – but by saying we are the fittest, we are not factoring in what fitness actually refers to. We are being specie-centric. I’d be willing to bet that if fleas were deciding who was the fittest of all, the ability to jump 200x times one’s body might trump the ability to self reflect (or mice and number of offspring / gestation period; or cacti and the ability to survive/reproduce with very little water; and so on…).
Fitness is a term referring to the ability to successfully preserve copies of genes into future generations. Observation shows that nature is indifferent to how this is accomplished, other than if it is good enough to continue the chain of replication and if it is it being done at a rate that is sustainable in relation to competition. As anybody who has observed nature, watched PBS Nova, or read on the subject of biology has noticed, there are a plethora of ways to be fit – that is to say make a living well enough to successfully preserve genetic copies into future generations (read diversity is a good thing). Some ways may be better than others right now, but that is dependent on the ebb and flow of our dynamic environment.
Altruism is a difficulty viewed through a naïve understanding of natural selection. On the surface, it is hard to understand why an organism would act in a manner that is costly to itself and beneficial to another. And why do we see behaviors that seem to be detrimental to individuals or their community? These questions are a problem only before well founded principles such as inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, and genetic lag are factored in. In light of principles like these, the altruism “problem” ceases to be a problem starts to become a testament to the beauty of natural selection.
Remember that when we are talking about fitness, we are talking about preservation of copies genes into future generations. It is also important to remember that each individual is not holding the only existent copy of a gene. Other individuals are also carrying exact copies of the gene in question. In fact, a copy of a gene can be transplanted from one individual to another with no consequence. In addition, remember that fitness does not refer to any type of ideal criteria; good enough to successfully reproduce and at a sustainable rate in comparison to competition is good enough.
Inclusive fitness is a term to remind us that fitness is about copies of genes into the future – and not just “my” copies but all copies, even those that lie in other individuals. An altruistic act such as sharing my hard earned food with another individual makes sense insofar as that individual shares identical genes with me. For if I have more food that I need to survive and I can share it with another who can use it to survive and be more likely to make copies of “my” genes, more of “my” genes will be preserved into future generations – in other words increased fitness.
Reciprocal altruism refers to the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” principle. I don’t think it is necessary to expand on the mutual benefits offered under this arrangement other than to point out that certain behaviors may appear to be detrimental on the surface, but taking time and the probability of repeated interactions into consideration, these detriments can be repaid. Through reciprocal altruism, many of our moral concerns (such as fairness, cheater detection, cooperation reward, etc.) can be understood.
Jump to Present Day United States (or anywhere for this matter)
I disagree with your unsourced statement that we value “tolerance, altruism, and uncommon heroism above all else,” but I do see the point you are trying to make. For more current information about moral psychology, check out Jonathan Haidt or Marc Hauser (or many others). “Above all else” not withstanding, we do see value placed on tolerance, altruism, and heroism that is not easily understood through a naïve Darwinian perspective.
In order to understand why we see these things valued beyond what appears to be beneficial, we need to jump back to a time before present day United States.
Jump Back to the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)
The EEA is just as it sounds. It refers to the environment present during which the adaptations of an organism evolved. For humans, many of our adaptations evolved in a time where we were in small groups. Archeological and anthropological evidence suggests groups in the EEA were relatively small and consisted largely of others with a high degree of shared genetic material.
In such a group, behaviors that increase inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism are likely to flourish. Hard and fast heuristics such as “help nearby humans that are in need of help” would fair quite well because the odds are that the humans in need are either close relatives or somebody who is likely to be a trade partner (and so on). Other simple heuristics can be added to further refine such as considering appearance, language/sounds, smell, etc. The point is that living in small groups of highly related individuals, simple heuristics for fairness, reciprocation, and assistance lead to altruistic behavior being developed and fitness being increased.
Jump Back to Present Day United States (or wherever)
Why do we see humans working towards equal rights, tolerance of others, fairness, heroism, etc.? One thing we must consider when making the jump in time is how much our present environment differs from the EEA. Agricultural technology (among other things) led to much larger groups living together. Electronic technology has enabled us to connect with even larger groups and hear stories that occur 1:1,000,000 but our brains (evolved in the EEA) are not able to properly apply the statistical maneuvers and appropriate fear proportionately.
Our sweet tooth (a heuristic of eat large amounts of food that stimulate “sweet” receptors on the tongue because, in the EEA, these are often fruits of high nutritional value) is a good example of how a heuristic can work well in the EEA but no so much in present day. Our current environment offers condensed sweets in the form of candies and high fructose corn syrup that eating too much of has proven to be bad to our health. Our brains are still “wired” with EEA heuristics. The environment has changed at a greater pace than our genome; it is through our plasticity and cultural evolution that we have been able to sufficiently adapt. Extinction is always a real possibility.
The simple heuristics of altruism were not perfect in the EEA. They were just good enough to offer increased fitness over those who employed alternate heuristics. The formation of these heuristics had no foresight and were preserved only on conditions that mattered in the EEA. Given the changes that have occurred in our environment, inclusive fitness, and reciprocal altruism (among other findings in the fields of biology, psychology, archeology, anthropology, and many other fields), the problem of altruism tends to fade into a celebration of natural selection’s “cleverness”.
Towards the end of this blogpost, you commit a naturalistic fallacy. Natural does not necessarily equal “right”. “Right” is a biosocial construct that often has a “for” following it. As in “right for” achieving this goal (or whatever). A society may choose to commit genocide (though this is not natural selection but artificial selection, a practice that has been around for thousands and thousands of years) and that may be “right” if one wants to achieve the goal of eliminating a section of the population, but that does not make it “right” with respect to increasing diversity with the goal in mind of being prepared for whatever the future may hold (for example).
Whew. That is enough for one comment. Kristin and Randy and whoever has always wondered how naturalists account for such behaviors: You don’t have to wonder indefinitely. You can check out science books at your local library that lay out the evidence along with the proposed theories. Personally, I recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, but there are many, many other books available on the topic.
Randy,
I'll leave the freewill stuff, because I don't think it's too relevant to the following. Also, I don't disagree with your concept of an "absolute standard of good." I think that's true. Though, I think our views of what that is may be a bit different. But we'll get into that later.
Here's some thoughts on the idea that what is right naturally and what is right spiritually are possibly not in accord:
I agree with you, and yet you’re slightly off the mark! ;)
I think it’s just an assertion on your part that the Marine’s actions do not benefit society in a naturalistic manner. Those warm, fuzzy feelings you’re describing are the collective psychology of the group. If they are affirmed, then community is reinforced, which certainly contributes to our collective survival. The innate sense of goodness you’re describing in the Marine’s actions are directly related to our species’ survival in that it promotes working together and preserving the weaker members of society, which is directly related to the care that we show our young, for example. Once again, the Marine may take issue with the fact that his action does not benefit society in a direct, natural manner.
I have two questions:
1. If the Nazis had succeeded, do you believe that society would be physically healthier and in better shape for survival today? Barring any supernatural intervention, of course.
2. Can you envision a scenario in which ALL younger, healthier people would sacrifice themselves for older folks and people would see it as the correct moral choice?
Steven - "Though, I think our views of what that (an absolute standard of good) is may be a bit different"
I take back this statement. I mean to say that what we label this absolute standard is different. I think the substance is the same, although the difference in labels can create differences in practice.
"We must learn to be in touch with something greater than ourselves, whether we call it the Tao, God, the dharma, or the law of nature. There is a deep current of truth that we can hear." - Jack Kornfield
Skyhook,
I found your post well-reasoned and well-argued. I think we’re all naïve to a certain degree and I can truly say that I have not heard the argument you presented imparted quite that well before. If I’m being honest, the research I did for this post focused more on the implications of relative morality associated with naturalistic moral development (i.e. Nietzsche, Hitler, et al) than on possible naturalistic explanations for altruism and other seemingly selfless characteristics. I’ll have to concede that there may indeed be a naturalistic explanation for altruism. Well done. I don’t concede anything very often.
There was an episode of Friends years ago (yes, my sources are diverse) in which Joey makes the claim that no act is really unselfish – even those that appear completely selfless. Hilarity ensues as Phoebe tries to prove him wrong, only to discover that every supposed selfless act she can think of benefits her in some way.
(This week we tie Friends to Dawkins. Tune in next week when I will link Seinfeld to Gandhi)
Continuing with the honesty theme, relative morality necessarily associated with naturalistic moral law just “feels wrong” in much the same way that it “feels wrong” to think that we might all be wired into the Matrix rather than living out our lives here on Earth. I said in the past that I would do my utmost not to argue emotionally, so I’ll hold to that and stop there. If we can fathom a way in which altruism or the brand of heroism that I spoke of are truly beneficial to society, then (setting all other arguments aside) we have to assume that morality could develop via naturalistic processes. Some instinctual morality would obviously differ from our instincts to eat or flee from danger.
Do you think:
A. Our genetically-determined morality is a protect-the-herd instinct and that we therefore base our actions on what we believe will best benefit our society? OR
B. That humans have evolved genetic “knowledge” of right and wrong? OR
C. That humans have evolved a genetic predisposition to act in a certain “moral” way? OR
D. Some fourth option I haven’t thought of?
Again, very nice.
Steve,
"1. If the Nazis had succeeded, do you believe that society would be physically healthier and in better shape for survival today? Barring any supernatural intervention, of course."
I think that the Nazis would be physically more Nazi-y which is what they were going for.
"2. Can you envision a scenario in which ALL younger, healthier people would sacrifice themselves for older folks and people would see it as the correct moral choice?"
I can't envision that such a scenario would ever be possible. I also can't envision that the old folks would allow it. They have the same selfless gene the young'uns do.
Also, I want to apologize to the fleas for my complete diss of their species. My reference was more of a food chain thing.
Here is my attempt at sitcom humor relating to this blog. Not a perfect analogy, but it is a joke after all.
Jerry enters confessional, sits down on kneeler. Father Curtis opens sliding door.
Father: That's a kneeler.
Jerry: Oh. (Adjusts accordingly)
Father: Tell me your sins, my son.
Jerry: Well I should tell you that I'm an atheist.
Father: That's no sin.
Jerry: Oh good. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to science just for rationalizing his conclusions.
Father: And this offends you as an atheist person?
Jerry: No, it offends me as a scientist!
Skyhook-
A few questions about your naturalistic view:
1. Since fleas can’t in fact “decide” which species is the fittest, can we eliminate them from the running?
2. Why do you suppose we as a society generally consider rape to be “wrong?” Wouldn’t rape replicate our genes quickly? Isn’t that the goal according to naturalistic theories? On the same note, how in the world did monogamy become accepted as “right” when it is clearly the worst way to replicate genes quickly?
3. Your theory as to how altruism can help society makes sense in some ways. But I still am not clear on how naturalism can explain the feeling of altruism to begin with. Feelings, to my knowledge (although I haven’t read a book about this since college 6 years ago), do not have a natural explanation.
4. How do you explain the fact that moral laws are prescriptive (describing what we ought to do) when all other natural laws are descriptive?
I would love it if you would answer Randy’s questions as well. I have a few follow ups for those.
I have really been thinking about what it is that bothered me in Randy's original post. I should say that it was a good post on a great topic. In almost every way, I agree. Our spiritual, moral nature is what makes us human.
But I just don't agree that spirituality is not beneficial in a naturalistic manner. I think that if people did live with a high level of morality, our society would flourish in every way. I also view spirituality more holistically, as something that is in our nature. Obviously there are many aspects of nature that are QUITE amoral. Male gorillas or felines killing the young of other males, etc. Is the spirituality, the moral nature of humans, in opposition to this, or is it a more highly evolved version of this? I tend to view the latter as true.
Randy,
The idea of natural preservation operating on the level of “truly beneficial for society” and the model of the “food chain” are both antiquated. Like the Ptolemaic model, these models have provided valuable predictions and explanations, but they fail in important respects. Biology has had its “Copernicus(s)”, “Galileos”, “Newtons”, and “Einsteins”…, each offering models with better explanations, but not necessarily throwing out everything that is gained up to that point.
The discovery of genes (and subsequent genetic theories) has added yet another dimension to the unifying theory of biology. Some notions have been replaced while others stand firm. As it is today, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a scientific theory with nearly unparalleled predictive and explanatory power.
I completely understand that not everybody has been exposed to this information. Even though it is openly published and has been freely available for decades, many obstacles stand between the student and an objective review of the evidence. From a seeker to a seeker, I want to suggest that you set aside some time and attention to understand the modern version of evolution. Regardless of one’s philosophical view, there is a genuine beauty that seems to only shine brighter the closer you look at it
Behaviors that result from adaptations occurring in the EEA do not necessarily have to be beneficial to society (or at passing along genes) today. All that is required is such behaviors were better than rivals in the EEA; even slightly better, perfection is not a requirement. Bearing in mind the rapid change of environment, the occasional misapplication of simple heuristics is what we should expect to see.
Let me try another easy-to-agree-upon example: Playboy magazine. It is not difficult to understand how in the EEA the sight of nude females eliciting male arousal (physical and mental) might confer an advantage over those who are indifferent (or less aroused) to this sight. Jump to present day and you have a two dimensional page blotted with ink eliciting this same response. At first glance, this is very strange behavior indeed. Surely sexual behavior in the presence of paper and ink and in the absence of a female is not the best use of sexual resources! The modern evolutionary synthesis has empirically founded explanations for these seeming anomalies that require few assumptions. Definitely fewer assumptions than popular and traditional alternatives.
I think the altruistic behavior demonstrated by our hypothetical strapping young man saving the elderly woman is likely to be a misapplication of a heuristic that once had fewer opportunities for misapplication. When properly applied, saving lives is obviously a good thing for fitness and the surrounding behaviors of others encouragement is not surprising. Consider the following conditions that could help give rise to such behaviors:
Life expectancy. The life expectancy during the EEA was not at all what it is today with current health related technology. When heuristics like this were formed, old ladies were likely to be extremely rare.
Relatedness. Our brains were members of small groups when such behaviors were shaped. The likelihood that our ancestors shared high levels of genes with others they encountered was much greater that it is today with our greatly increase groups sizes. Experimental evidence has shown that the willingness to risk one’s life to save another has a direct relationship with degree of relatedness.
Dangers faced in the EEA. While any action of intervening to help another carries risk, it might have been the case that ancestral assistance carried risks far less certain than being ran over by a bus.
“Because a behavior may have been adaptive in evolutionary environments, and therefore, contributed to the current structure of the mind, does not mean that such a behavior is desirable, moral, or inevitable.” (Malamuth & Heilmann, 1998).
It is important to remember that there will always be more questions generated at the end of every explanation. Science does not claim to offer explanations that are final, end of story, “that’s all there is to see here.” You will always be able to find a gap. You can take my explanation and ask a question one step further. We could consult with an expert in the field and she could explain that question, but we could ask one question further. And so on. As we have explained and demonstrated, this is the problem with acting like gaps in science point to something. Gaps are expected and predicted.
(If I did not cover your multiple choice question with all of this, feel free to rephrase it in a way that I might better understand. Also, I would prefer short answer / essay questions rather than m/c. :))
Kristin,
Some of the questions you have asked might require book-length responses to get you to fully understand the processes at work. I can give very brief summaries, but I encourage your to investigate these complex topics on your own. If you are interested in book/article suggestions, let me know. I am always down for informal study groups as well.
I don’t think you understand what the term fitness means in the context of biological science. If rereading my post is not helpful, perhaps you might try Google or Wikipedia. I don’t really know of a better way to explain it, but I don’t want you to misunderstand what I am talking about either. If you read a little bit about fitness and still have difficulties understanding, come back with another question, I will try to help you understand.
Rape is indeed a viable strategy for passing genes into the future. In fact, it is a strategy that we see employed all over the world. From the fraternity houses on Chautauqua Ave. to the Serbian organized rape camps reported during the Bosnian war. One thing to keep in mind is that all strategies have costs to go along with their benefits. The genetic benefits of forced copulation are easy to understand, but when considering these, one must also consider the costs.
One cost to regard along with rape is the fact that it is a dangerous activity. Women are by no means unable to inflict injury or death to an attacker. Furthermore, families and friends have been known to inflict brutal vengeance upon those who commit this act against their loved ones (we’ll get to why they view rape as “wrong” in a bit). Another cost has to do with the consequence of a successful forced copulation, nine months later.
The history of our ancestors involves the conflict of increasing head size coupled with a transition from quadruped to biped, which is not good for the wide hips required for birth. One of the many ways this conflict has been mitigated is by pushing birth days earlier and earlier. As an observer can attest, a newborn human is pretty much helpless – or premature to be surviving without great amounts of parental investment. Something which forced copulation often results in a 50% reduction.
Understanding this is just one of many reasons that demonstrate why monogamy is not “clearly” the worst strategy. If the parental investment required to raise a child to a successful reproductive age is demanding enough to necessitate two parents, then those who fertilize and leave will be at a disadvantage over those who stay and help raise the children. This is beneficial for the genes – the child, woman, and man.
Right off the bat, it should come as no surprise that ~50% of the population view rape as “wrong”. The violence and trauma that is inflicted upon rape victims needs no further explanation here. Perhaps one aspect you overlooked when asking why does society view rape as “wrong” is female choice.
Pregnancy is a costly endeavor for a female. At minimum, she has to incur the costs of nine months of gestation, but this is just the beginning. Since a female knows with a certainty that is not available to a male (prior to DNA testing) that that child is definitely hers, generally a woman will be willing to invest a lot of resources into her children. Often a rapist is not a mate choice that a female would prefer to contribute half of the genes for the child. From here, it is easy to see why anybody related to a rape victim would find this to be a bad situation (also keep in mind the small group size of the EEA).
Why do males find rape to be wrong? There are many reasons. Consider that every female is a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mate, partner, etc… Protecting these women from undesirable competitors is an obvious strategy. Or consider that polygyny may seem like the ultimate arrangement for males, but in fact it is just a great strategy for one or a few males. The average male stands a better chance to pair with the average female in a monogamous arrangement.
I am losing steam with this post. I might be able to answer more later.
As to feelings, I think you should do some reading and investigating on this matter. I assure you that feelings and emotions are more than just a complete mystery to the field of psychology. It might help if you think of feelings/emotions as evolution’s executers or drives. We can talk more about this later.
Same with descriptive/prescriptive. We can discuss these kinds of things at length, but this is getting to be too much for one comment.
Randy and Kristin,
At some point you are going to have to do some of this research by yourself. I cannot be here to answer so many questions about such well researched topics. I really do enjoy explaining the state of current evidence and theory, but I think it is reasonable to ask somebody to look up why Ptolemy’s is no longer the leading model rather than explaining question by question. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. In this search for what is true/reasonable, we ought to be examining these topics and these questions. But it feels like we are not applying the same standards to biological evidence that we applied to physical and astronomical evidence. As you guys get deeper and deeper into investigating the current state of biology, I will be happy to help with genuine questions that arise. But lets try to steer clear of “oh yeah, well…” type questions as they do not add to the productivity of this argument (not accusing, just commenting).
I hope what I have written this week opened a few doors. I have enjoyed it and I hope you feel the same way.
Skyhook,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I write something like: 'Your explanation was good and I can see (via your clear explanation) that there is a naturalistic way in which we might develop morals'? I seem to remember doing that....
The only reason for my series of questions was so that I didn't have to address every single possible line of thinking out there. You, Dawkins, and Kimura may have different 3 different views as to what it is that we have evolved into. I'm curious about yours so that I can address you specifically. I assume that - since you have spent a great deal of time researching this topic - you find one conclusion to be of better value than the others.
Randy,
You also said:
“If we can fathom a way in which altruism or the brand of heroism that I spoke of are truly beneficial to society, then (setting all other arguments aside) we have to assume that morality could develop via naturalistic processes.”
This indicates to me that you did not get it. I was trying to explain why we do not need to fathom in unnecessary directions. Also, I was trying to expand so Kristin might better understand this point of view.
Don’t worry about addressing my particular view. Address any view that can be considered reasonable. After all, reasonable doubt is all it takes, right? Reasonable doubt.
Hey...late to the party on this one,,probably going to get ignored:
quick and dirty:
"D. Some fourth option I haven’t thought of?"
That's the one! Morals started with a group of people who made a list of things that upset them. Some of them were no brainers "don't kill people, don't steal things, don't cheat at video games" and some were questionable "don't sleep with other women, don't sleep with the same sex, don't touch a woman while she is on her period, don't eat shelfish..." let's face it, the rules got out of hand. And over the years, the baseline "morals" were passed down to our young.
I mean, let's face the facts: we AREN'T survivng...so yes, our actions ARE contradictory to the survival of the fittest. We prolong the life of babies born without brains and we keep the elderly alive in nursing homes. We sign acts of congress to keep a brain dead woman alive because we think it's the right thing to do, but not EVERYONE is on the same page as everyone else. I know it's a little harsh, I know it's a bit mean, and I know I wouldn't be one to survive, but I think that with the population out of control and the amount of people who are watching American Idol every week, we NEED to allow nature to thin our heard. So I'm telling the marine to just keep walking, I'm telling the family of the old lady that a bus hit her and that's just a shame, and I'm telling the herd to do what makes sense.
With that in mind, I'm NOT saying we should kill people if they are weaker. But in a herd, the slow zebra is eaten by the lion...which gives the rest of us some time to get further ahead.
Since we are highest on the food chain, we aren't getting chased by lions. I'm just saying that an option that some could take would be a more...heartless approach.
I look forward to the Seinfield/Ghandi post:
Who ARE these people? And WHY are they all wearing diapers?
"I'm Kosmo Kramer...and I'm ON A HUNGER STRIKE!!"
Since I conceded the point about naturalistic development of altruism, heroism, etc, did anyone have any thoughts on relative morality?
I wonder how relative morality is. Don't most humans agree on what is right, in spirit at least? We disagree about the practice at times, though. But still, the essence of "right" seems fairly universal. Perhaps not? Of course, we can't argue that we are all prey to delusion at times. I have come to see "evil" as being synonymous with "mentally ill". And not necessarily in a clinical way (though sometimes) , but rather based on delusions of what life is about and who we are in the world.
Buddhists present morality as what is helpful and what is not helpful for achieving happiness. One advantage of this mindset, over the more Western idea of "sin", is that it avoids the pitfall of too much guilt. I think guilt can be beneficial, but it can also take away self-worth which is the true source of morality. Buddhism teaches that we all have a "Buddha nature" and if we rid our minds of delusion that we can find our true selves.
For instance, if we have a clear mind, wiped clean, and it becomes obvious that a person needs help, we jump to help. If we are attached to an unpleasant memory or we're stressing about something or whatever, then the images in our mind create a heaviness that compromises our ability to respond in the right way.
This may seem self-centered at first, but Buddhists stress that we are all interconnected, and that through meditation we become more aware of that reality. So by making ourselves better, happier people we make the world a better place. Also, Buddhism teaches that the very sense that we are interconnected, which is called compassion, is what makes us the most happy, peaceful and at ease.
I suppose that Buddhists appeal in the end to the reason of each individual. No teaching should be accepted without being tried personally. However, there is also a huge body of tradition, created by individuals to draw on.
I see the "authority" of objective morality coming from our own experience, coupled with learning from and comparing ourselves with the experiences of others.
Post a Comment