What about naturalistic evolutionary ethics, in which we develop an awareness of right or wrong and moral obligation to help us survive/reproduce? Ethical awareness has only biological worth.5 Such an approach leaves us with the following problems: First, can we even trust our minds if we are nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution, trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce? Charles Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that since the human mind has developed from lower animals, why would anyone trust it? Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind?6 The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness/survival-not in true belief; so not only is objective morality undermined so is rational thought. Our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true. Belief in objective morality or human dignity may help us survive, but it may be completely false. The problem with skepticism (including moral skepticism) is that am assuming a trustworthy reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion that I cannot trust my reasoning! If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook: Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions.
In addition, we are left with this problem: if human beings are simply the product of naturalistic evolution, then we have no foundation for moral obligation and human dignity. This could easily undermine moral motivation. The sexual predator and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer acknowledged the seriousness of the matter: "If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for a God? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself."7
5Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 262.
6Letter (3 July 1881) to Wm. G. Down, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Abermarle Street, 1887), pp. 1:315-16.
7Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within, A&E Biography (1996).
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Naturalistic evolutionary ethics
From Paul Copan:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Have you yet reviewed Erik J. Wielenberg's book, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe? (Cambridge University Press, 2005). I don't think such simplisms, even if coming from my friend Copan, are worthy of what we in the opposition are actually saying.
ReplyDeleteJohn W. Loftus said:
ReplyDelete"Have you yet reviewed Erik J. Wielenberg's book, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe? (Cambridge University Press, 2005). I don't think such simplisms, even if coming from my friend Copan, are worthy of what we in the opposition are actually saying."
So what, indeed, are you actually saying, John? Here's a novel idea for you—why don't you try to refute what Copan said.
And let's remember that it's not just the Christians who argue that secularism lacks the resources to underwrite morality. There are a number of high-profile secular thinkers who candidly admit that as well.
ReplyDeleteThe world is not full of absolutes. E.g. There may or may not be a traffic jam on the way to work today. In the same way, it is unreasonable to absolutely distrust (or trust) your own reasoning. There must be some level of trust for your reasoning, however, since the ultimate penalty for bad reasoning is death (by stupidity), and if you are reading this, you are alive and thus you must have some level of working reason.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Dahmer's question: "If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for a God? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself."
If you want to live in society, you can't set your own rules. You have to live by the societies rules.
The proof: Where's Dahmer today? Dead. He was murdered in prison.
Richard said:
ReplyDeleteThe world is not full of absolutes. E.g. There may or may not be a traffic jam on the way to work today.
When philosophers speak of absolutes, are they referring to events such as traffic jams?
In the same way, it is unreasonable to absolutely distrust (or trust) your own reasoning.
Who claimed otherwise?
There must be some level of trust for your reasoning, however, since the ultimate penalty for bad reasoning is death (by stupidity)
Isn't it possible for someone to be stupid yet reason effectively in a particular case or scenario? By the same token, isn't it possible for an intelligent person to display poor reasoning in a particular case or scenario?
Also, is bad reasoning necessarily equivalent to stupidity? Or does it lead to stupidity? Or does stupidity lead to bad reasoning?
Not to mention if stupidity is a punishment ("penalty") for bad reasoning, then who or what administers the punishment?
If you want to live in society, you can't set your own rules. You have to live by the societies rules.
The proof: Where's Dahmer today? Dead. He was murdered in prison.
Is an inmate murdering another inmate part of "society's rules"?