It's a dangerous thing to let philosophers talk to high school students, in the main, for we tend to drown our audience in terminology and deep concepts (many of which turn out to be not so deep), but I do try to communicate clearly when it is needed. My kids indicate that maybe I am not so successful as I might think, but this is a letter I received yesterday from a student that I thought might be useful for others. Named have been erased to protect the innocent (i.e., not me).
Mr. Wilkins,
My name is Alex ***** and I am a junior in high school. I'm doing a research paper on the moral effects of evolution. I read your article "Evolution and Philosophy" from talkorigins.org. I have come up against an arguement for creationism that I'm not sure how to speak against. Because evolution states the purpose of life as passing genetics onto the next generation (reproduction) and simply surviving, the evolutionary theory would be promoting actions such as cheating on tests, stealing food, rape, premarital sex, and many other things that in actuality are considered immoral by nearly everyone on the globe. I'd appreciate any assistance that you could offer. Thank you for your time.Alex *****
Dear Alex
The fact of evolution has no more moral import than the fact of gravity or chemistry. So just because things happen, it doesn't mean they are what should, or should not, happen. I like to use the example of my then-5 year old daughter who fell out of a tree and broke her leg in conformance with the laws of gravity, strong materials and biology. In no way did I think that had to occur, or that it was right that it did.
Evolutionary biologists do sometimes talk as if the "purpose" of life is to reproduce and survive by any means necessary. But that makes a formal mistake that in moral philosophy we call the problem of "Is-Ought" - how can you get an "ought to be" claim out of an "is" claim? Answer: only by adding an ought claim. For example, to say all these things ought to be, you have to add the premise that if things usually are that way, then they ought to be that way. What makes that premise a sensible or valid one? And you are back with the problem you started with - how to justify a moral claim.
In fact, as it happens, evolutionary processes often, maybe even mostly, produce cooperation and social agreement among animals that are social. Very rarely is there what in human terms we'd call cheating, violence, rape and so on, but many people simply do not get this. There is a problem in biology called the "altruism problem" - how will cooperation evolve if everyone is "out for themselves", and if it does, how will it resist invasion by cheaters? the answers are not easy, but in many cases it turns out that most organisms will be fitter in a species if they abide by the "rules" (not actual rules, as they do not have them in mind, but whatever behaviour that they have evolved as normal). This is a major field of research in both philosophy and biology.
If some cheating survives, it is because there is not too much of it. If everyone was a cheater, we'd all be worse off, and if everyone was a rule-follower, then a cheater who happened to arise would be much better off. The evolution of cheating and cooperation tends to find a balance at which neither behaviour, and consequently neither organism, will do better by there being more or less of the other. This is called an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy. Similar situations happen in economics, war and diplomacy, and in football. :-)
A lot of people worry that without some moral absolutes, moral behaviour is impossible. I think this is wrong, because we evolved to be a social species, and that means that ordinarily, humans are cooperative and well behaved. But the question how moral behaviour evolved and how to justify a moral standard are two different things. Myself, I think that if a moral duty is a duty, that is justification enough. But I am a bit outside the mainstream on that.
Finally, even if this was an insoluble problem for evolutionary or ethical theory, it would not automatically mean that the creationist view was correct. Many people with religious views (I am not one) believe sincerely that evolution and God's providence can be consistent with each other. They think that whatever the physical facts of evolution, God planned it that way so there would be moral rules and goals. I leave that up to you to decide for yourself. But note that something can be true, and yet unpalatable or undesirable. Just like my daughter's broken leg.
I hope this helps.
Regards
John
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That's a good and comprehensive and informative answer. But I think it can be put much more concisely.
Simply, the genes that survive evolution include those that promote altruism, self-sacrifice and co-operation. If you look through history, remember that it only needs a particular "pattern" to survive and propagate, not the particular "instance" of that pattern.
Further refinements in game theory help to adjust points of equilibria as you touched upon, but the basic facts above remain. And they seem obvious to me.
That seems like a terrific response to me. I hope it wasn't over the student's head!
I agree, it's a well written response and covers all the points. I don't think this will be over the student's head.
"stealing food" and "premarital sex" "are considered immoral by nearly everyone on the globe".
Uh? Seems like these two aren't exactly considered immoral everytime everywhere... This would be in need for an Addendum, wouldn't be?
Most people would readily forgive a starving guy for stealing food, while premartyral sex has more to do with Amor than amorality.
you could add some of the moral issues arising from the implications of the creationist argument, too. It may be (has been) used to justify some things that your average high school student could recognise as wrong in a common sense way.
Maybe it's better to stay positive the way you did, but someone's a little out of touch with reality if they're making the argument that creationist cosmogony is some sort of prophylactic against the ills mentioned by the student.
Nicely done.
Gravity is indeed an amoral law. It should be repealed. Or at least amended.
A very well written response. I find that most people I talk to about evolution miss the amazing balance that a simple system can provide. Whether it be neurons or organisms or electrodynamic particles, it only takes a surprisingly small set of rules to produce substantial and complex macroscopic behaviors. Most arguments for evolution really do boil down to suprizingly simple concepts, some of which are so clean and simple that I have a very hard time convincing other people of them ;)
In this case, its simply that abiding by basic moral principles is a better survival strategy than not doing so.
I have to say that I find it fairly depressing that a high school student includes premarital sex as an immoral action alongside cheating, stealing...and rape??
Perhaps this student didn't mean to imply that these action were equally immoral, but all the same...
No concept of immorality guarantees survival as you don't survive by cheating, stealing, rape, sex or any of those things.
The concept of immorality that helps the human being to survive is when the individual chooses whether to allow a great being to act in their stead or to commit the act on their own cognition and ability.
When you allow the higher being to act for you, morality results. When you choose to act for yourself, even though you most likely will fall short of the activity if done by a higher being, then you are most likely considering that it is preferable to be wrong rather than submissive at all times.
Morality is a very dear treasure to us, but I don't think anyone wants to overuse it. Rather, we wish to receive the instruction that permits us to perform more along the lines that we are capable of observing the higher beings active in. This permits us occasionally to invite the higher being to add its input where we recognize that we have a need or are missing something.
Survival means to me that even though I will perform as a human rather than as a girasas, I will do it because I need to recognize this level of functioning as my own and the higher level of functioning as belonging to a higher kingdom. While I may on occasion observe and understand what they are doing, on the large part, I cannot fathom either whether or how their action is right or wrong because I have limitations that do not allow me to measure the results of their actions on a grand scale.
Allowing the girasas to act is both dangerous - since judged by our fellows - and mysterious.
You are a great professor and I wish that I could teach you what I have learned so that you could share this theory of evolution in my stead.
Faced with this dilemma of publicizing a theory of evolution that is new to the world, does at times make me ponder on the energies that I appear to be entrusted with.
How do I choose whether to assert the girasas kingdom by charging them into all those whom I meet and encounter or to wait until those affected are capable of addressing what I am doing to them?
I would feel so much more comfortable and at ease if I could first speak honestly to the individuals (at risk) and allow them to recognize that I am not acting as a separate human being, but at times have been overtaken by a foreign and mysterious energy which I did not completely understand when I began my investigations and practices.
If others can know FULLY what it is I am attempting, then if powers or victories occur, we can properly attribute these acts as they should be attributed and not let fall on my shoulders the responsibility for producing things beyond my ability.
It doesn't seem fair that I am capable of INFECTING a population without their knowledge. First, I want to tell you what I have found so that you can 1) choose any defenses you might wish to use, 2) participate for the fullest expression and benefit, and 3) be enlisted in any fights that might develop.
A fundamental and very important distinction that I think is nearly always glossed over or missed when describing evolution is the fact that evolution is something that happens to populations, not individuals.
I think it becomes a bit more intuitive why cheating/stealing/rape/baby-eating/etc. are not obvious paths to evolutionary "fitness" if this can be made to sink in. A population as a whole tends to be harmed by substantial amounts of self-serving acts by individuals, and that's what matter when discussing evolution.
The same point applies to the existence of people with traits that greatly reduce their own reproductive rates as individuals among an otherwise reproductively strong population. (Bees are an extreme case of this, but one might imagine similar if more subtle situations in human populations.)
Alex: "Because evolution states the purpose of life as passing genetics onto the next generation (reproduction) and simply surviving, the evolutionary theory would be promoting actions such as cheating on tests, stealing food, rape, premarital sex, and many other things that in actuality are considered immoral by nearly everyone on the globe."
Some sort of loving relationship is common in mammals. A mother suckles and teaches her children, whether a cat her kittens, or a human her child. A mother needs no excuse to love her children: it comes naturally and it gives her pleasure. In humans, most want very much to love and be loved, to be thought well of by their friends and neighbors.
But there can be a strong evolutionary benefit to cooperation and altruism. In mammals, a mother sacrifices of herself to provide nourishment to her offspring, as well as providing time for her children to learn the complex skills needed for survival in adulthood. In humans, this cooperation is expressed not just in our families, but among our friends, and within our communities.
Gravity is indeed an amoral law. It should be repealed. Or at least amended.
Or signed, but with a signing statement attached. :)
I too like paul am shocked a student would consider premarital sex to be an immoral act "considered immoral by nearly everyone on the globe." Many cultures in the world and many philosophies and while some may consider premarital sex to be immoral many others would not. I would consider premarital sex to be the NORM in western societies. A failure of our educational system ?
Anyway this is a great response and while this is I think my first comment i love your blog.
It's worth noting that the modern conception of "marriage" dates from around the 17th century in Europe, as a way to ensure inheritance of wealth amongst the ruling classes. Something like marriage exists in most societies but the idea that sex before marriage was wrong is a very restricted idea.
I remember reading that there are some Christian sects that actively support pre-marital sex (between committed couples, not strangers) and only require marriage once a pregnancy is confirmed.
Answering arguments like this is actually good exercise so maybe we should all have a bash. This is my two quatloos-worth anyway:
This claim is good example of creationist arguments that sound impressive on first hearing but which fall apart when we take a closer look at them.
The failure becomes clearer when we disentangle several concepts which the creationist argument is twisting together.
The first is to clarify that the theory of evolution makes no assumption about "purpose". You could say that the function of evolution is to pass genes that are advantageous - or, at least, not harmful - on to to successive generations but for purpose you have to assume the existence of some intelligent agent like a human being or a Borg collective or God. It is why creationists object to the theory of evolution; there is no need to assume the existence of a god to explain the diversity of life on Earth so maybe there is no Supreme Being at all.
The second concept is that of evolution as a natural phenomenon like gravity or earthquakes or rain falling. Broadly speaking, it is the process of living things changing and diversifying over time. Like other natural phenomena it is neither right nor wrong in itself, it is simply something we see happening around us.
The third concept is that of the theory of evolution which provides an explanation of how the natural process of evolution works. It might seem like an obvious thing to say but it is important to remember that an explanation is not the same as the thing it is trying to explain. An explanation may be right or wrong depending on how accurate it is as a description of what is observed and whether it enables us to make predictions about the behaviour of the phenomenon we are trying to explain. The phenomenon itself just is.
The fourth concept is that of morality. If one human being deliberately kills another without good reason, it is regarded as immoral and treated as a crime. But if that same victim were to be killed by a lion or a bolt of lightning, we would not arrest the lion and charge it with murder or enact laws banning lightning. All the examples quoted by the creationist - such as cheating, theft and rape - are aspects of human behaviour and, if you think about it, the function of moral codes is to regulate the way people behave towards one another. And, in practical terms, it makes no difference whether they are believed to be ordained by God or whether they were developed by people, that is all they do.
What the creationist argument does is to imply that the theory of evolution is 'wrong' because it has been used to justify acts that society regards as immoral.
But the theory just describes and explains how the process of evolution happens. It makes no judgement about whether it is morally right or wrong; it does not "promote" any particular types of human behaviour at all. The fact that some people have used the theory of evolution to justify acts that we now find morally objectionable does not make it any more or less accurate as an explanation.
The final objection comes from philosophy and is known as the "is/ought problem" because it argues that there is no way to get from the way the world is to the way we think it ought to be. The fact that animals in the wild kill each other in huge numbers and in all sort of ways does not necessarily mean that we should go around killing each other willy-nilly. Similarly, if God exists, it does not mean that what He tells us to do is necessarily any more right than what we decide. He may have the power to make us do whatever He wants but, as they say, might is not right.
Where is the rest of Alex's Letter? The part with an argument for creationism? Oh well, most grown up creationists also don't understand the concept of an argument *for* something.
To mention a thing or two that have not been mentioned, or at least not stressed:
Creationists are impervious to the fact that the capacity to have moral feelings is an evolved capacity.
The "the" fallacy (putting the word "the" in front of anything and thinking that the existence and uniqueness of that thing has thereby been demonstrated. "the purpose of life" -- and no one remembers existentialism any more.
The bizarre "having too many ancestors makes you bad" argument. It is OK to have a few hundred great great grandmothers, but if you have too many of them, stretching too far back in time, you have no morals. Huh?
Surely everyone knows "an 'is' is not an 'ought"? Well, know, evidently many do not know that. Or at least manage to forget it when the occasion arises. I sometimes think that the problem is that the USA to mention just one place is virtually a philosophy free zone. At the very least civilization needs a mandatory course in Thinking 101.
Still, the persons who preach that if you evolved, or think you did, as opposed to being taught you're a born sinner but don't worry you can be forgiven, therefore you must disbelieve science, must be aware that is is not ought and all that. The promulgation of this argument, presumably because it serves their purpose, is systematic antiscience propaganda. How about opposing it on that basis in addition to other bases?
It has always been my understanding that moral standards are created by whoever has the power and that, for the most part, they overwhelming benefit those who created them.
Assuming that evolution is true this statement may be true, however creationists don't believe in evolution so would see it as simply part of your belief system (faith) that you hold this to be true.
Not Thinking 101; rather Philosophy 101 or even better teaching Logic and Statistics/Probability.
Right Thinking 101 was apparently mandatory in the novel "1984".
We do seem to have adopted some of the things warned of in that book, newspeak is very common now.
Philosophy is a great danger to all dictatorships, this may be why it is one subject you won't see in any Saudi university (nor generally around the Middle East) and given the destruction of philosophy course in many western universities our political masters fear it as well.
Ignoring all of the philosophical, scientific and logical fallacies that are contained in the creationist claim in Alex's letter I just want to cast the spotlight on the list of immoral acts that he gives. Several people have commented that premarital sex has not been and is not considered immoral by many cultures and peoples. In the second half of the twentieth century all of the surveys done showed that in Europe about 75% of all brides walked down the aisle pregnant and the idea of a trial marriage (mentioned by DiscoveredJoys), i.e. living together until pregnancy ensues, was practiced in Scandinavia for centuries and up into the twentieth century. Of the other immoral acts rape is unfortunately and horrendously widespread throughout Western society and every single one of us has at least one rape victim within their family or close circle of friends. All modern surveys have shown that cheating on tests is almost universal amongst school children and students and in my own informal investigations as a private tutor and English conversation teacher 100% of all those asked admitted having cheated at some point and most admitted cheating regularly. Stealing food has been and is widespread where people need to steal to survive, as any list of the "crimes" committed by those deported to Van Diemen's Land shows. All of the immoral acts listed by Alex are in fact widespread and common traits of human behaviour making the supposed if-then argument of the creationists look rather silly.
Isn't the students letter self-refuting. If indeed "nearly everyone on the globe" considers those actions immoral, then they can't be "promoting" those actions at the same time. This would suggest to me that 'morality', whatever that is, is itself ultimately an evolutionary result. A name given to a set of standards we live by as societal organisms. If we were vampire bats we might share blood, but as humans, we don't steal or kill. As a general rule.
Even given the is-ought problem, there's an additional issue.
The problem is in part an assignment of what the entity is that might be "selfish". As Dawkins so cogently argues in The Selfish Gene, the gene may benefit from being selfish (in fact it's more complicated than that because genes exist in an environment composed in significant part of other genes that they must cooperate with to survive at all - the "truly" selfish genes tend to be collected into relatively small groups of genes that trigger a disease we call "cancer").
Even when genes are selfish, it is not correct to assume that the organism that they are contained in will necessarily be so - indeed it may benefit other copies of these already cooperating genes if they are very unselfish. And in fact we frequently see that organisms are not selfish.
It pays to distinguish two sense of "selfish" and "altruistic" in evolution. Selfish genes can sometimes be best selfish by making the organisms behave altruistically. That is, they can increase their spread if they treat those with the same genes better than those with different genes. This leads to behavioural repertoires of assistance to non-related individuals.