Dear Marvin,
We suggested earlier that our sense of right and wrong does not only DESCRIBE human behavior, it PRESCRIBES what behavior we should have.
Could this ‘OUGHTNESS’ be explained by evolution? What about “Star Wars” dualism – the idea of two equal forces (Dark Side and Bright Side) in an eternal conflict?
I agree with you that we do have complex and conflicting sets of motives or desires when we make decisions. Ceteris paribus, we always choose what we want most. That’s a fair description of human behavior.
But morality doesn’t merely describe how we choose. It prescribes for us how we ought to choose. And when we fail, we are ‘tormented’ with guilt.
For example, I may explain morality as a clash of personal ‘likes or dislikes’… Some people like chocolate ice cream while others prefer vanilla. In the same way, some enjoy rape while others find it absolutely disgusting.
That would nicely explain the (descriptive) fact that people may disagree on their preferred morality or their favorite ice cream flavors.
But this “explanation” does not tell us why we OUGHT NOT indulge in rape (prescriptive statement). If morality is reduced to our personal taste, then to say rape is wrong is about as absurd as someone calling me immoral for preferring vanilla ice cream.
This ‘explanation’ makes nonsense of our human experience of what morality is all about
A similar problem applies to dualism, in my humble opinion.
Consider if there are two ULTIMATE poles of morality – Dark Side and Bright Side. That would describe the fact that people disagree.
Some people obey the Dark Side by being selfish. Others follow the Bright Side by being selfless. But again, this view does not prescribe why we ought to be unselfish.
Why should I follow the Bright Side since the Dark Side is equally ultimate?
But when we argue about morality, we appeal to something higher that judges our behaviors – “How do you like it if someone does it to you?”
Unless there’s a higher law that measures what is dark or bright, our hope for the ultimate defeat of the ‘dark side’ seems misguided.
This experience only makes sense if there is ONE Ultimate Standard by which good and evil is measured… Morality is not nonsensical because (as you pointed) the devil is a lesser being. He is not ultimate, God is.
If compassion and cruelty are two sides of the same coin, we have no reason to suppose why good is “better” than evil. They are just different.
Another interesting observation about evil is that ‘it’ is not a thing in itself. For example, sex is not sinful in itself. Neither is the self morally bad.
But when we love our ‘selves’ without due concern for interests of others, we find the vice of selfishness. Or if sex is done outside the context of a mutually loving and committed relationship, we find the evils of rape or adultery.
It seems that evil exists only as ‘parasites’ of what is good. When something good is in a wrong relation with other good things, we call it evil. That’s why C.S. Lewis described evil as the ‘privation of good’.
Does natural selection fare better as an explanation for morality?
Natural selection may be a viable description of human behavior in the past. Our genes and environment develop variations of social behaviors, and only behaviors tat increase our chances of survival will be retained.
In the last analysis, “Do unto others what you want others do unto you” is not a universal moral law. It just happens to help us in the game - survival of the fittest.
We don’t have any transcendent obligation to survive now, do we? We just do it because that’s how our instincts wired us - a sort of biological determinism.
An evolutionist wrote, “It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel AS IF we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy…” (Robert Wright)
In the final analysis, morality is not explained by natural selection. It is denied.
Evolution conjures up an illusion of a transcendent moral law. But in actual fact, if everything came about by “chance plus time plus matter” there can be no moral absolutes to live by.
If so, why ought we try to be moral tomorrow?
If we say that we have a moral obligation to evolve, then C.S. Lewis has succeeded in making his case. There’s a transcendent moral law, after all.
If we don’t have any real moral obligation, then it’s very hard to see why we are not ALLOWED to adopt the law of the jungle - killing for resources, finding multiple partners to spread our genes or stealing.
(If we don’t do it to our friends, why not do it to our competitors?)
One may well be justified to adopt “might-is-right”… or eliminate handicapped babies, the weak, old, ‘useless’ or plain boring persons so that our chances of survival as a species will be greater.
Morality, then, is not so much explained by natural selection. It has been denied.
But if moral law does exist, as testified by our human experience, then natural selection seems to be an inadequate explanation.
Indeed, presupposing a Moral Lawgiver seems to be the only explanation that does not reduce our shared human experience to absurdity.
(PS: Thanks to Beckwith/Koukl for the chapter on Bongo morality, the experiment on moral behavior in chimpanzees... Bongo a selfish chimp got punished for hoarding bananas...)
We suggested earlier that our sense of right and wrong does not only DESCRIBE human behavior, it PRESCRIBES what behavior we should have.
Could this ‘OUGHTNESS’ be explained by evolution? What about “Star Wars” dualism – the idea of two equal forces (Dark Side and Bright Side) in an eternal conflict?
I agree with you that we do have complex and conflicting sets of motives or desires when we make decisions. Ceteris paribus, we always choose what we want most. That’s a fair description of human behavior.
But morality doesn’t merely describe how we choose. It prescribes for us how we ought to choose. And when we fail, we are ‘tormented’ with guilt.
For example, I may explain morality as a clash of personal ‘likes or dislikes’… Some people like chocolate ice cream while others prefer vanilla. In the same way, some enjoy rape while others find it absolutely disgusting.
That would nicely explain the (descriptive) fact that people may disagree on their preferred morality or their favorite ice cream flavors.
But this “explanation” does not tell us why we OUGHT NOT indulge in rape (prescriptive statement). If morality is reduced to our personal taste, then to say rape is wrong is about as absurd as someone calling me immoral for preferring vanilla ice cream.
This ‘explanation’ makes nonsense of our human experience of what morality is all about
A similar problem applies to dualism, in my humble opinion.
Consider if there are two ULTIMATE poles of morality – Dark Side and Bright Side. That would describe the fact that people disagree.
Some people obey the Dark Side by being selfish. Others follow the Bright Side by being selfless. But again, this view does not prescribe why we ought to be unselfish.
Why should I follow the Bright Side since the Dark Side is equally ultimate?
But when we argue about morality, we appeal to something higher that judges our behaviors – “How do you like it if someone does it to you?”
Unless there’s a higher law that measures what is dark or bright, our hope for the ultimate defeat of the ‘dark side’ seems misguided.
This experience only makes sense if there is ONE Ultimate Standard by which good and evil is measured… Morality is not nonsensical because (as you pointed) the devil is a lesser being. He is not ultimate, God is.
If compassion and cruelty are two sides of the same coin, we have no reason to suppose why good is “better” than evil. They are just different.
Another interesting observation about evil is that ‘it’ is not a thing in itself. For example, sex is not sinful in itself. Neither is the self morally bad.
But when we love our ‘selves’ without due concern for interests of others, we find the vice of selfishness. Or if sex is done outside the context of a mutually loving and committed relationship, we find the evils of rape or adultery.
It seems that evil exists only as ‘parasites’ of what is good. When something good is in a wrong relation with other good things, we call it evil. That’s why C.S. Lewis described evil as the ‘privation of good’.
Does natural selection fare better as an explanation for morality?
Natural selection may be a viable description of human behavior in the past. Our genes and environment develop variations of social behaviors, and only behaviors tat increase our chances of survival will be retained.
In the last analysis, “Do unto others what you want others do unto you” is not a universal moral law. It just happens to help us in the game - survival of the fittest.
We don’t have any transcendent obligation to survive now, do we? We just do it because that’s how our instincts wired us - a sort of biological determinism.
An evolutionist wrote, “It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel AS IF we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy…” (Robert Wright)
In the final analysis, morality is not explained by natural selection. It is denied.
Evolution conjures up an illusion of a transcendent moral law. But in actual fact, if everything came about by “chance plus time plus matter” there can be no moral absolutes to live by.
If so, why ought we try to be moral tomorrow?
If we say that we have a moral obligation to evolve, then C.S. Lewis has succeeded in making his case. There’s a transcendent moral law, after all.
If we don’t have any real moral obligation, then it’s very hard to see why we are not ALLOWED to adopt the law of the jungle - killing for resources, finding multiple partners to spread our genes or stealing.
(If we don’t do it to our friends, why not do it to our competitors?)
One may well be justified to adopt “might-is-right”… or eliminate handicapped babies, the weak, old, ‘useless’ or plain boring persons so that our chances of survival as a species will be greater.
Morality, then, is not so much explained by natural selection. It has been denied.
But if moral law does exist, as testified by our human experience, then natural selection seems to be an inadequate explanation.
Indeed, presupposing a Moral Lawgiver seems to be the only explanation that does not reduce our shared human experience to absurdity.
(PS: Thanks to Beckwith/Koukl for the chapter on Bongo morality, the experiment on moral behavior in chimpanzees... Bongo a selfish chimp got punished for hoarding bananas...)
Comments