|
IV.4 The Natural Origins of Morality
Morality gives us the
rules by which we live with other people. It sets limits to our desires
and actions. It tells us what is permitted and what is not. It gives us
guiding principles for making decisions. It tells us what we ought and
what we ought not to do.
Robert C. Solomon
(1942-2007)
Society could not go on except for the
moral sense, any more than a hive of Bees without their instincts.
The very essence of instinct is that it's
followed independently of reason.
The highest possible stage in moral
culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
A moral being is one who is capable of
reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some
and disapproving of others.
Charles Darwin (1809-82)
Darwin will not deny the importance of
reason in the moral life of human beings, but he follows Hume in
regarding reason as primarily a problem-solving capacity--an
instrument that allows us to
determine the most effective means for attaining the ends by our
passions or desire.
Jeffrie G. Murphy (b.1940?)
If we answered love with hate, or came to
dislike those who acted fairly towards us, or were averse to activities
that further our good, a community would soon dissolve. Beings with a
different psychology either have never existed or must soon have
disappeared in the course of evolution.
John
Rawls (1921-2002)
Social morality is social harmony. No less
is it true that individual morality is individual harmony.
Lyman Abbott (1835-1922)
A dependable guide for life must state a
down-to-earth morality. Hence, we must move from theoretical constructs
and intellectual abstractions to the factually concrete that has to be
evaluated by the criteria of justice, utility, truth, and universality.
This writer
Introduction
A. The Natural Origins of Morality
B. Darwin Unites the Moral Sense with
Utilitarianism
C. Connecting to a Global Morality
Introduction
Today, no educated person would deny
that the biological evolution of the human from "lower" animals took
place. And perhaps not today, but tomorrow, no well-informed
individual will dispute
that human morality
originated from evolutionary processes over long periods of time.
However, human morality developed together with immorality and
with whatever assisted in the survival of the fittest. Hence, there is
sometimes no clear demarcation between what is moral and immoral. For instance, is the
eating of other animals moral? It has naturally evolved; however, this
fact does not make it right. Also, behavior that instinctively developed
is not necessarily a guide for
deciding what is truly right for future actions. But behavior and even
its written
codes change as human moral consciousness increases. As Richard
Dawkins points out:
Slavery, which was taken for granted in the Bible and throughout most of history, was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman's vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man's. In today's enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, Saudi Arabia), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted Abraham for child abuse. The task is to increase human moral consciousness, and a first step is to place it within reach of the faculties of the mind. And to really understand morality, like everything else, one must know its origins and development over time. Darwin's observation, as reported below, were foundational and have since been verified and expanded by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. E. O. Wilson (b. 1929), sociobiology's foremost scientist, investigated the biological bases of social behavior and concluded that certain behaviors are genetically based and that evolutionary processes favor those behaviors that enhance reproductive success and survival. In other words, an innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong helps an individual to survive and reproduce in a species with complex social interactions. A. The Natural Origins of Morality Charles Darwin concluded from his studies that there is a continuity between animals and man, and that both have biologically-inherited social traits. Moreover, he contends that humans are not different in kind, but that there is only a difference in degree. In The Descent of Man, published in 1871 (2nd ed., ch.3, 1874), he writes: It has, I think, now been shewn that man and the higher animals, especially the Primates, have some few instincts in common. All have the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,----similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they practise deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humour; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, though in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence. They are also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of man.However, already in Darwin's time, it was persuasively objected that the key qualitative difference was that only man has the moral sense or conscience. For example, the naturalist Leonard Jenyns (1800-93) wrote to Darwin with reference to On the Origins of Species (later changed to The Origin of Species): . . . Neither can I easily bring myself to the idea that man's reasoning faculties and above all his moral sense could ever have been obtained from irrational progenitors, by mere natural selection ----acting however gradually and for whatever length of time that may be required. This seems to me doing away altogether with the Divine Image that forms the insurmountable distinction between man and brutes. Hence, Darwin had to explain how evolutionary processes could produce the moral sense within individuals, with other words, he had to demonstrate a biological explanation for man's moral faculties. Hence, Darwin argues in his work The Descent of Man: The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable---namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man (Chap. IV, p. 471-2). And indeed, moral concerns begin with the parental, and in particular, the motherly instinct. Anyone who observes animals cannot avoid noticing that dogs will nurse and protect their puppies, cats their kittens, wolves their cubs, and even birds will hatch, nest, feed its young, and teach them how to fly. These activities appear to be the original source of moral caring and certainly had survival value. But those are all instinctual sentiments or desires and not yet "a moral sense or conscience." In order to understand Darwin's explanation for conscience and the moral sense, the philosopher Jeffrie G. Murphy (b.1940?) introduces a distinction between what he names primary desires and secondary desires. Murphy suggests: A primary desire is a desire to bring about a certain state of affairs in the external world--e.g., the gain of power, the assistance of someone loved, etc. A secondary desire is a desire about a desire--i.e., a desire to have certain desires or, more germane to our purposes, a desire to act out one sort of desire rather than another. Now, Murphy reads Darwin's account as saying, "the moral sense or conscience is the secondary desire to act out of certain primary desires, particularly those of sociability and sympathy that have the well-being of others as their object." It could also be said that a higher level of intellectual powers allows the processing, e.g., scrutinizing of primary desires to achieve a higher level of well-being for oneself thru the well-being of others who would eventually reciprocate. But scrutinizing primary desires does not guarantee that an individual will decide on the nobler product of secondary desires. So what will sway an individual one way or the other. Darwin explains the interplay of the desires as follows: At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the strongest impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men. But after their gratification when past and weaker impressions are judged by the ever-enduring social instinct, and by his deep regard for the good opinion of his fellows, retribution will surely come. He will then feel remorse, repentance, regret, or shame; . . . . . He will consequently resolve more or less firmly to act differently for the future; and this is conscience; for conscience looks backwards, and serves as a guide for the future. (op. cit., ch. 4) To summarize, Darwin's account of conscience has the following steps:
B. Darwin Unites the Moral Sense with Utilitarianism Darwin (1809-82) was mainly concerned with the biological and psychological task of explaining the origins of moral faculties of man. But he was also familiar with the moral philosophies of others; for instance, the work by Adam Smith (1723-1790) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), which asserted that the moral sentiment was grounded in sympathy for others. Moreover, he also knew the work by John Stuart Mill (1806-73) Utilitarianism (1863), which stated the fundamental grounds for utilitarian ethics (see John Stuart Mill in The Age of Enlightenment. Already in his younger years, Darwin concerned himself with Smith's and Mill's theories. In October of 1838, he concluded in his notebooks: Two classes of moralists: one says our rule of life is what will produce the greatest happiness.---The other says we have a moral sense.---But my view unites both & shows them to be almost identical. What has produced the greatest good or rather what was necessary for good at all is the instinctive moral senses: (& this alone explains why our moral sense points to revenge). In judging of the rule of happiness we must look far forward & to the general action---certainly because it is the result of what has generally been best for our good far back.---(much further than we can look forward: hence our rule may sometimes be hard to tell). Society could not go on except for the moral sense, any more than a hive of Bees without their instincts.So, according to Darwin, utilitarian ethics evolved from or expresses instinctive moral senses. C. Connecting to a Global Morality Out of the moral origins developed "The Common Moral Decencies and Ethical Excellences" during social interaction at some stage in human history. They, or like moral rules, were codified as soon as writing was invented. With the development of the sciences, and the frequent interactions of nation states, these common rules are now improved to incorporate new knowledge and to make for peaceful relations between the states. Humankind of modernity--today's world community--has realized that there are fundamental human rights that ought to be respected around the world at least as principles initially and hopefully with an implementation as law soon to follow. It should be noted that neither the Bible nor the Koran contain a doctrine of human rights. Earliest demands for human rights are found in:
|