Notes and Quotes on Origins of Morality
I think that one of the reasons I haven't been writing so much recently is that I've been sort of "researching" instead. I've been investigating what has been written about evolution and morality. In this post, I'm going to offer a collection of comments on the topic.
Yesterday I had the privilege of hanging out with a philosophy professor emeritus from NYU whose specialty is Ethics, and who has a real interest in bring philosophy into real life. My new dream is to involve him in my drive to name some of these important biological findings that impact on human notions of morality, and to get them considered a part of the canon of Western philosophy. Wow what a humble little peanut am I.
Actually, I'm just astonished that this hasn't happened already. I think there must be some silly reason like philosophy and biology being on different sides of the university campus or something. I might not believe in my own eloquence, but I'm a great believer in the ideas themselves. That's why I have the gumption to run around and expect something to come of all this. I hope that even if religion and biology can't be united, perhaps at least philosophy and biology could be to some extent.
Anyway, here are some notes and quotes on the origins of morality. In case you haven't detected, I think these are IMPORTANT, worth thinking about. They really are different from the religious beliefs most all of us were raised with, or the philosophical ideas we were taught:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."
On the other hand, here is George C. Williams explanation for the origins of morality. I think it comes closer to hitting the mark. He's not claiming we're entirely selfish, yet he's starting with natural selection in his explanation of the origins of morality:
"I account for morality as an accidental capability produced, in its boundless stupidity, by a biological process (natural selection) that is normally opposed to the expression of such a capability."
Frans de Waal says something similar, in his nearly magnificent book Good Natured The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and other Animals.
"In biology, the very same principle of natural selection that mercilessly plays off life forms and individuals against one another has led to symbiosis and mutualism among different organisms, to sensitivity of one individual to the needs of another, and to joint action toward a common goal. We are facing the profound paradox that genetic self-advancement at the expense of others- which is the basic thrust of evolution- has given rise to remarkable capacities for caring and sympathy.
Instead of human nature's being either fundamentally brutish or fundamentally noble, it is both-- a more complex picture perhaps, but an infinitely more inspiring one."
I think that that profound paradox is one of the most difficult aspects of understanding evolution. I think hardly anyone understands it- maybe including me.
Williams has said:
"If this enemy (yes, natural selection is the enemy) is worse than Huxley thought, there is a more urgent need for biological understanding."
And as Peter Singer explained in this exactly context:
"The more you know about your opponent, the better your chances of winning."
Singer also said
"...far from justifying (wicked) principles that are shown to be "natural," a biological explanation is often a way of debunking the lofty status of what seemed a self-evident moral law."
Dawkins said
"We must rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
And according to Lopreato, morality should be:
"the ultimate negation of the commandment of natural selection."
Which makes some sense. Natural selection can be described as a process that maximizes short-sighted selfishness. And what woudl be more moral than long-sighted compassion?
posted by Lizzie @ 9:44 AM
8 Comments:
So, the notion of good and evil - the basis of ethics - would turn out to be a biological accident? How wonderful, for we would not have had people like Stephen Hawkins, since he would not have survived because he would have potentially degraded the species with his physical challenges. We would not have had Picassos, van Goghs, Mother Theresa or John Paul II for that matter.
Love, on the other hand, would probably be an inexistent concept. Maybe this was the original bio-accident that gave birth to ethics, and thus, morality. Self-preservation would play a key role in this happening. Lack of love is what we would referr to as evil, and its presence as good.
Yes, I agree, this talent and concern for greater humanity you mention is quite a wonderful accident.
It may interest you to hear that love probably has biological origins, and is a behavior likely quite rewarded by natural selction. So I wouldn't agree that love would be an accident. I believe biologists would say that love originates from the bonding of family members in certain mammals, and the bonds of parents working together raise their young. I believe it's all related to those origins, in general, and then gets expressed and cultivated in some different ways as well.
(However, the very desirable and admirable extension of love beyond our family and close allies might indeed be something of an "accident".)
I haven't read any of the original sources you quote, but I think the only one that is even trying to be objective is Franz de Waal, and even he says:
"genetic self-advancement at the expense of others- which is the basic thrust of evolution- has given rise to remarkable capacities for caring and sympathy."
I'm not a biologist, but it seems like it's mainly just genetic self-advancement that is the basic thrust of evolution. I suppose limited resources come into play and it's only then that "at the expense of others" enters the picture, and even then it gets pretty complicated (you might not want to screw over your neighbor, and if there are no predators around you might not want to eat all the grass until there's none for anybody, not that these are good examples of 'complicated'...). I certainly doubt that the development of morality is an accident, at least other than in the sense that everything is.
from house of comments:
" it seems like it's mainly just genetic self-advancement that is the basic thrust of evolution"
Yes, yes. I think actuallly that Williams and Dawkins and pretty much all evolutionary biologists would quite agree with that statement, and actually probably (these days) deWahl's statement as well.
The "expense of others" equation has been studied at length, for years, by mathematicians. There are very specific, predictive equations that can be pulled out, where we know what an animal will do under certain ratios of harm and reward ( pretty much defined as genetic self advancement). Part of the trouble here is that I abbreviate- which is too bad. I feel quite certain that Williams said somethig to the effect of "screw over your neighbors when it is beneficial to do so." Which, from a moral perspective, is not such a great improvement.
I'll need to address the use of the word "accident' later- off to work I go!
The reason morality would be considered an accident is that, very generally speaking, it goes against the "goals" of natural selection. Meaning, morality often (hopefully!) encourages us to go against our own self-interest, and to place our efforts into helping unrelated kin. (Usually, of course, natural selection rewards reproducing one's own genes, and helping those who share some of our genes.) Looking at the world using the perspective of how natural selection typically works, morality is probably an unintended by-product (perhaps due to a hypertrophied brain?) of a process which typically rewards short-sighted selfishness.
I can barely do justice to the perspective here, but maybe that sort of clarifies what I think was meant.
By the way, to say that morality is an accident is not to say it is minor or inconsequential!
Lizzie- Sorry to pull this one on you, but could you provide some references for us? I ask only because I hope to be in the position to teach about this this issue, and would like to have the material at hand.
Oh, I was just happily typing away, and then lost everything I'd typed. If you tell me your email address, I'll write to you. (I'll even delete it if you want. ) That's really neat that you might be teaching on this. What is your field? In what context would you be teaching? Very exciting.
I think you're on the right track; morality is, in a sense, rooted in biology.
It is helpful, in my opinion, to first define terms. Morality: a system of right and wrong ideas. Right: whatever is appropriate. Appropriate: suitable to a particular person, at a particular time, in a particular place, etc. The important thing to realize, in any discussion of morality, is that morality requires the capacity to judge. Morality cannot exist before something exists which can make judgments regarding appropriateness based on a standard.
This requirement is simply based on the definition of the word morality but it implies a lot. The most important implication is that morality must exist within a particular environment. That environment is a mind which is conscious and rational so that it is capable of judging the appropriateness of something based on a standard. This means that morality cannot exist before a mind does, that it only exists within a mind, and that it is created independently by each individual mind in isolation.
As a bit of a tangent: this is why minerals, plants, animals, and children are not moral actors. They are not capable of judging the appropriateness of anything.
The truly interesting part, and I think the hardest to understand, is that because morality doesn't exist before the mind it must come into existence at some specific point which can be defined. The first experience of a mind is self-awareness, which is simply the definition of consciousness. Now, the important fact to remember, is that minds require a delicate biological process to exist. This process is, for lack of a better summarizing word, life.
When a mind becomes self-aware there is no morality, so there is no particular reason for the mind to make any decisions. However, if the mind does not choose to value its own existence it will not act to preserve its own existence and it will disappear. The biological processes (life) which are a prerequisit for the mind to exist require (pro)active maintenance. If the mind disappears, it no longer matters.
So, for a mind to matter it must arbitrarily decide to value its own existence. At that point, morality is created. Self-preservation becomes a standard by which to judge the appropriateness of everything else. This means that morality is the system of things that aid the maintenance of the mind's existence. Anything which contradicts this standard is immoral.
This doesn't, however, mean that a mind must continue to adhere to self-preservation as its standard of morality. The standard was arbitrary to begin with, although the effects of the choice are not arbitrary, so it can be abandoned at any moment. However, if a mind truly abandons self-preservation it will quickly disappear.
Post a Comment
<< Home