Evolutionary ethics

It’s funny how irate some unbelievers become when a Christian points out that secularism has no principled basis for morality. Unbelievers often take this as a personal affront.

Yet it’s not meant to be insulting. We are not judging them by our own code of conduct. Rather, we’re judging them by their very own yardstick.

But some of them deny this. They think that secularism is quite able to ground morality. They appeal to evolution. Here’s a representative statement:

***QUOTE***

The field did, however, not get off the ground until Edward Wilson published his Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975. According to Wilson (1975: 4), "sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior."

In Wilson's view, sociobiology makes philosophers, at least temporarily, redundant, when it comes to questions of ethics (see quote in introduction). He believes that ethics can be explained biologically when he writes (ibid. 3 - my emphasis):

The hypothalamus and limbic system ... flood our consciousness with all the emotions - hate, love, guilt, fear, and others – that are consulted by ethical philosophers who wish to intuit the standards of good and evil. What, we are then compelled to ask, made the hypothalamus and the limbic system? They evolved by natural selection. That simple biological statement must be pursued to explain ethics.

Ethics, following this understanding, evolved under the pressure of natural selection. Sociability, altruism, cooperation, mutual aid, etc. are all explicable in terms of the biological roots of human social behavior. Moral conduct aided the long-term survival of the morally inclined species of humans. According to Wilson (ibid. 175), the prevalence of egoistic individuals will make a community vulnerable and ultimately lead to the extinction of the whole group. Mary Midgley agrees. In her view, egoism pays very badly in genetic terms, and a "consistently egoistic species would be either solitary or extinct" (Midgley, 1980: 94).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evol-eth.htm

***END-QUOTE***

But even if this were the source of our moral intuition, that would fall far short of warranting our moral intuition. What we have here is a case of descriptive ethics rather than prescriptive ethics.

Indeed, the argument is self-defeating. You see, in order to mount an argument for evolutionary ethics, you must first become aware of your evolutionary programming. But as soon as you become aware of your programming, you are in a position to override your programming.

It only works as long as it works at a subliminal level. But as soon as you become self-aware, then you are no longer controlled by your programming.

Let’s take a couple of examples. For a Darwinian, the biological function of sex is reproduction—nothing more and nothing less.

Does this mean that the average Darwinian only has sex in order to propagate the species? Not at all.

Because sex is so enjoyable, he overrides his programming and has sex whenever he feels like it. Indeed, he’ll even invent contraceptive devices to thwart the biological function of sex because it interferes with his pleasure.

Same thing with food. What’s the purpose of food? To nourish the body.

Does this mean the average Darwinian limits his intake to nutritious food? And does he only eat as much as he needs? Not at all.

Because eating can be so enjoyable, he overrides his programming in order to consume whatever he wants and as much as he wants. Because not all food is equally flavorful, he may consume more flavorful, but less nutritious, food. He may consume food with no nutritious value, or consume food that’s bad of him, because it tickles his taste buds.

Why should a Darwinian feel bound by instinctive morality? After all, natural selection is an amoral and irrational process. So if his instinctive morality is the result of an amoral and irrational process, and if he is aware of its amoral and irrational origin, then why should he feel duty-bound to do what nature programmed him to do? It’s not as if he had an obligation to natural selection. How can he be obligated to an inanimate process?

An egotistic species may become extinct, but why should he place the survival of the species above his own survival or well-being? Since he’s going to die sooner or later, he has no personal stake in the welfare of the human race. If he must choose between self-interest and self-sacrifice, why would he lay his neck on the chopping bock of natural selection?

So evolutionary ethics is an utter failure. What’s the alternative?

Social conditioning instead of biological determinism? But the same objection carries over to social conditioning. Once you become aware of your social conditioning, you are in a position to override your conditioning.

And what is society if not a collection of individuals? So why should a secularist feel duty-bound to uphold social conventions—especially when they interfere with his personal gratification?