Morality
I was perusing my weekly copy of Time magazine a few days ago, and I found an interesting debate concerning evolution versus creationism. The main point on the creation side was somewhat intriguing- the fellow asked how morality could be quantified without the inherent admission that a Creator was responsible for our existence?
I did a quick look on dictionary.com and found three different definitions for morality. All had to do with a subjective slant on standards, and one even used the phrase "good and evil," which I thought to be a bit much.
But here's the point- if there is no supreme arbiter who sets the standards for moral conduct, who are we to say what is moral or immoral? Why is saving someone's life better than drowning a puppy? I think most would answer "because the majority says it is," but I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer. Several periods throughout history (Salem Witch Trials, Nazi Germany, etc.) prove that society can rapidly devolve into chaos. If the entire world decided "to hell with it," would that be the new morality? I hope that what is "good" and "evil" is not subject to the vagaries of public sentiment. I would also hope that causing others to suffer simply to derive pleasure from that suffering would never be a good thing.
Evolutionists suggest that basic morality exists because we've realized it's necessary in order to form an efficient society- which in turn, benefits the individual. Thus, morality hinges on a sense of reason and the capacity for higher intelligence. The Neanderthal who was mean to everyone probably didn't get to share in the harvest when his crops failed, thus we've evolved to share resources.
I don't disagree with that, but I find it troubling. Because if one accepts that logic, it becomes clear that all morality is essentially based on selfish desires. We give to the homeless so our stature will be increased in society. We obey traffic laws so our record will be clean, not to protect other drivers. We're nice to others not to be nice, but so they might be nice to us later.
What this theory fails to take into consideration is the fact that humans are capable of truly selfless acts. The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades isn't thinking self-preservation; he's thinking of helping others. Some people pick up litter, even when no one's watching. Those examples don't appear to be based on evolutionary principles. They are simply good deeds, one which a pure evolutionary approach can't seem to explain away.
For the record, I find much of evolution appealing- natural selection makes a ton of sense. The slow squirrel gets eaten and the fast squirrel gets to make fast squirrel babies. No argument there. Not to mention the fact that I think there are several possible ways to enjoin the debate by combining the two theories. So please don't take this as a slam on evolution, but more as a representation of my internal thought patterns on this complicated topic.
I did a quick look on dictionary.com and found three different definitions for morality. All had to do with a subjective slant on standards, and one even used the phrase "good and evil," which I thought to be a bit much.
But here's the point- if there is no supreme arbiter who sets the standards for moral conduct, who are we to say what is moral or immoral? Why is saving someone's life better than drowning a puppy? I think most would answer "because the majority says it is," but I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer. Several periods throughout history (Salem Witch Trials, Nazi Germany, etc.) prove that society can rapidly devolve into chaos. If the entire world decided "to hell with it," would that be the new morality? I hope that what is "good" and "evil" is not subject to the vagaries of public sentiment. I would also hope that causing others to suffer simply to derive pleasure from that suffering would never be a good thing.
Evolutionists suggest that basic morality exists because we've realized it's necessary in order to form an efficient society- which in turn, benefits the individual. Thus, morality hinges on a sense of reason and the capacity for higher intelligence. The Neanderthal who was mean to everyone probably didn't get to share in the harvest when his crops failed, thus we've evolved to share resources.
I don't disagree with that, but I find it troubling. Because if one accepts that logic, it becomes clear that all morality is essentially based on selfish desires. We give to the homeless so our stature will be increased in society. We obey traffic laws so our record will be clean, not to protect other drivers. We're nice to others not to be nice, but so they might be nice to us later.
What this theory fails to take into consideration is the fact that humans are capable of truly selfless acts. The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades isn't thinking self-preservation; he's thinking of helping others. Some people pick up litter, even when no one's watching. Those examples don't appear to be based on evolutionary principles. They are simply good deeds, one which a pure evolutionary approach can't seem to explain away.
For the record, I find much of evolution appealing- natural selection makes a ton of sense. The slow squirrel gets eaten and the fast squirrel gets to make fast squirrel babies. No argument there. Not to mention the fact that I think there are several possible ways to enjoin the debate by combining the two theories. So please don't take this as a slam on evolution, but more as a representation of my internal thought patterns on this complicated topic.
Labels: Musings
Thought provoking. As you may have seen on my blog, I come from an intensley religious background, and I have (putting it mildly) rejected that path for myself. I remember when i was going through the separation process from the ideology which had become my world, and a friend of mine and I were talking - she told me she could not come to terms with the thought that the Bible was not Truth, b/c if that were the case, then there was nothing to aspire to. There was no cap on her behavior. Somehow, she truly felt that if God or the Bible didn't tell her what to do that there would be no internal check - that she would become a Slut (I'm not being flip - that was her true concern).
I didn't/don't understand that at all. How could there be no check? no self-control? Especially since really, the bible, and the threat of hell fire and damnation did not provide me with what I needed to behave according to those rules. But today, with no religious force prescribing norms for me to follow, I am very proud of my behavior and my decisions on a daily, monthly, yearly basis.
Community. That, I believe, is somehow the answer. Putting the whole above the self.
sorry for rambling ...
Posted by
Zuska |
10:10 PM
I don't believe one can totally abandon one's beliefs. At least the average folk can't. And I may personally not need to be a Christian to know better than drown a puppy, but it certainaly helps me when dealing kindly with idiot customer service folks and sales clerks. God is my internal check and I am happier for it. That being said-I am not sure I believe that the litter picker-uper doesn't have a real good feeling even if nobody is watching. And if you will excuse my rambling, I think God pretty much has to be a scientist and that can truly go hand in hand with much of evolutionary thought. Now can you post on the gay penquin book. I am curious to read your opinion.
Posted by
dawnsia |
5:08 AM
I read and really enjoyed that article. I remember Collins making a claim like yours, and Dawkins’ attempt to refute it. Dawkins mentioned that in earlier stages of existence humans lived with their extended families. Most are willing to do favors for family, and so modern altruism, Dawkins said, might have its roots there. It’s more of a social than biological evolution, but I don’t think it’s less plausible. Less probed and proven maybe, but still seems plausible. I don’t understand religion or science very well. But what about murder? If altruism sources from God or the qualities He possesses, does evil source from the devil? Or satan? Or whatever he is termed. I think the two scientists in the article discussed the group versus the individual, but … this is a little hard for me to explain. Saving lives, like Oskar Schindler did, is a way to ensure the existence of our species. But you’re saying also it’s less selfish than that, but Dawkins would probably say it’s not. Either way my argument is the same. If someone feels an urge to save a life and risk his own, that’s altruism, something learned from God. Then does the urge to murder, to take away life, come from the devil? I think we only know what we read from religious texts, and what we feel from personal experience. What in the Bible is there about the devil that could be blamed for the malice of the world? There are violent crimes that happen now that I don’t believe can be blamed on leftover aggression from the times of hunting mammoths and sabers. You mentioned Nazi Germany: I don’t think genocide was ever necessary means to obtain personal security. What’s its source? Why would anyone ever want to drown a puppy?
Posted by
Amy |
1:02 AM