The Roots of Morality
March 6th, 2008
by Daren Jaques
I often hear the question, “how can you conceive of a just world without god?” Usually it is intended as a rhetorical question; the inquirer typically has no training in anything but dogma, and thinks this to be a stupifying question (I can think of another adjective for this question with the same root word, anyway). Responding to this question is not easy. It’s kind of like asking “what is the universe?” to a physicist. Likely, he wouldn’t know where to start.
So, where do we start? First, I’d like to point out that I am an objective moralist, and a naturalist. That is, I believe that there are concrete “right” and “wrong” actions, and that we can explain how those rights and wrongs came to be purely through natural explanations (without resort to any kind of supernatural, or spiritual phenomena). I hope to gradually illuminate how I got to this mental place through this blog; though I will also tackle other ethics related questions. So you know, few atheist ethicists are also moral objectivists. Many embrace cultural relatavism (that your ethics and morals depend largely upon the cultural in which you were raised), or a form of utilitarianism (that which is good brings the most benefit to the most people). For reasons we will discuss at length on this blog, I reject cultural relativism outright, and reject much of utilitarianism.
Stated as simply as I can, I believe that humans are social animals. Social animals must cooperate in order to survive. Actions that impede social progress, trust, and survival are “wrong.” Things like rape, murder, and theft undermine our social order, and they are wrong no matter what culture you are from. Thus, they are not a simple matter of opinion.
One of my problems with utilitarianism is that it fails to adequately explain human compassion. For example, whenever a person catches a contagious disease it actually benefits the most people to kill that person to stop the spread of germs instead of caring for that person. Humans do, however, make some utilitarian judgments, so it is not entirely devoid of merit as a way of viewing morality.
If you agree with me, I’d like to see your answer to this question: what if the human race is wiped out? Are the actions still right or wrong without a human population to which the actions relate? I’ll post my response in the next installment. If you disagree with me that right and wrong are objectifiable - by all means take it up in the comment section; I’d love to discuss with you.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Okay, I’m not sure this is where you’re going with this but I’ll give it a shot: Lower species of animals than humans exhibit cooperative behavior, compassion, etc. I would guess that were these animals to have a language system as sophisticated as ours they would use terms like “right” and “wrong.” But do these terms really mean anything that can’t be explained somewhere else? Does “right” really mean “mutually advantageous for the species”? My point is this, I think that right and wrong are overly-simplistic ways of describing our behaviors. This is where I’m going to sound utilitarian: maybe killing the sick one would be more advantageous in the short-term, but it would create a distrust that would have long-term detrimental effects. Everyone would be asking, “Dude, am I next?” rather than acting for the good of the pack, for example.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Well, I think you’re on the right track - though I think “right” and “wrong” actually mean exactly what they’re supposed to mean. Those things that are wrong - rape, murder (unjustified killing) are always wrong - it is no mere opinion.
On your point about the distrust engendered by the killing of the sick one, what if the sickness is very contagious and very deadly? The potential for distrust is far outweighed by the danger to the species due to the rapidity of the morbidity. Clearly, the utilitarian solution is to kill the infected and burn their bodies. Even if your mind says, “yes, that is the logical solution,” I think your inner human, chimp-like ancestor says “no.” To illustrate, now imagine that a close loved one has this illness. It should offend your innate sense of right and wrong, which harkens back millions of years before the part of your brain that makes such judgments was even formed.
Does your utilitarian logic convince you to kill and burn your very sick and highly contagious loved one? I doubt so, but if you think it does, do tell.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I should add that “objective” to me means that it is real in a cognitive way, and not subject to an opinion based intrepretation. So when I say that right and wrong are objective, I mean that the human mind can arrive at a factually correct conclusion when addressing many issues of ethics/morality.
I do not mean that right and wrong can exist as a “truth” completely outside the context of the mind.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Moral objectivism seems to too concrete and algorithmic to me. If you take conditions A,B,C,D and apply moral rules E,F,G, and H you get required action Z where Z=right. While I agree for the most part that we can cognitively arrive at EFGH I think the implementation can get quite subjective. The priorities of each rule and in what order they are applied can greatly change outcome Z. For example the relative importance placed on individual freedoms and rights vs better for the whole. If the highest priorities are placed on the better for the whole side then you get outcome Z=kill the sick. If highest priorities are placed on individual rights then Z=care for the sick.
Not even mentioning the specific history of this particular disease. If I know with 100% certainty that my mother is going to die in a week of a horrible deadly highly contagious disease and that by euthanizing her now we can save many other lives I would be the one to push the plunger on the syringe. My heart would be broken but I would know it was the “right” thing to do. I’m pretty sure my mother would feel the same way. One extra week of her life is not worth the rest of several other people’s lives. However, if you reduce that down to 50% certainty I would feel different.
Is the certainty of death one of the conditions fed into the moral algorithm? Is my attachment to my mother? is there a quantitative value that can be placed on her life vs others? Am I immoral for thinking she should have a 50% chance at survival even if she could infect others? Would I be immoral if I would still off my mom? And if I would be immoral for either of those last two what would be the cutoff probability of death? Who would decide that and what moral authority would they have over me?
Is there a quantitative value placed on human life vs any other? Why? Hypothetically would it be worth the life of a serial killer locked up in prison for life to keep dolphins from going extinct? How about 100 serial killers? How about 1 upstanding citizen of the world? How about instead of dolphins its some obscure specie of insect in the amazon?
I can imagine many different answers from many different people for all these questions, and all of them would be equally factually correct. Their answers would vary depending on where their priorities lie on a variety of of issues.
Most of those priorities are culturally influenced. This to me means that right and wrong are not concrete and different minds can arrive at different moral decisions and be equally factually correct.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:12 am
If humans are wiped out are the actions still right or wrong?
I admit that I am a bit confused by the question. To what actions do you refer?
I think I can say that what is right for humans is not necessarily right for ants. If we accept that caring for the sick is always right for humans can we extend that to ants? When an ant is sick it is carried as far from the colony as possible and left to die. Have ants evolved to be immoral, we just forgive them because they aren’t smart enough to figure it out? If humans were wiped out and ants evolved into the highest form of intelligence on the planet, as smart or smarter than us, and they still exiled the sick would they be an immoral society? I say no.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I don’t think I was clear enough. What I mean is that SOME moral questions have right and wrong answers. Two examples: rape and murder. My claiming of the title of moral objectivist does not mean to say that I think all moral questions are reducible to a single “right” answer. Secondly, your point about ants, I think also misses the mark. I did clarify in one of my comments that to me “objective” means real in a “cognitive” way. That is that the “right” answer exists in the human mind. Because it is purely of human cognition it is a non-sequitur to even attempt to apply it to a different animal.
Can you give me an example of when the forcible rape of another human is ethically/morally justified?
March 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I am reading “Phantoms of the Mind” by noted neuro-psychiatrist, Dr. V. S. Ramachandran…check it out. I only understand a little but I believe “right” and “wrong” are triggered in the limbic system…which evolved to help the brain prioritize processing/attention based on values and emotions. If this is true then right and wrong may be totally relative to humans. Also, people with seizures affecting the limbic system typically believe their view of right and wrong is superior to all others…that they have been chosen to bring new spiritual knowledge to others…sound familiar? Exactly what was that bright light Paul (aka Saul) saw on the road to Damascus?
Right/good and wrong/bad based on my limited knowledge are purely human emotions. Nature appears to care very little about human ideas of right or wrong. Gravity will break your leg regardless of your “moral” standing in the world of humans. If I act with “compassion” and save someone who has a disease that wipes out mankind Nature will not care. From a bacterial point of view my action will be “good”…lots more munchies! From a human point of view my action will be “bad”…no more humans. So I guess from Nature’s point of view the question of good vs bad is meaningless.
So what to do? Do I try to act from Nature’s point of view and treat each decision as relativistic? Or do I try to formulate some objective (actually subjective) absolute of goodness and badness? Clearly I cannot act purely from Nature’s viewpoint. I lack the perspective and power to do so. I am required to act from my purely personal human viewpoint.
For me, I act with compassion as much as possible because when I do things work out better for me. I tend to be less of an asshole, have more friends, and generally enjoy life more. I believe acting with this type of compassion is like paying attention to gravity. It has no “inherent” goodness just as gravity is neither good nor bad. Failing to pay attention to gravity can result in broken bones. Failing to act with “compassion” results in a poorer quality of life for me. Also, in my case I have found that failing to act with compassion can aggravate my bipolar disorder.
However, often when I think I am acting with compassion I later discover that the outcome of my “compassionate” action harmed others. Just like in your example of showing compassion for the person carrying a deadly disease…saving the one kills the many.
I guess in the end I would have to say “compassion”, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nature’s view seems to be: if our “compassion” aids in survival it continues; if it does not then it ends. Our obsession with the idea of good/bad seems linked to the way our brain evolved. Maybe as we learn more about the brain/limbic system we can put the issue to rest.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Dale, evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker has written on the same subject. I suggest reading him as well.
For reasons I will discuss at length in future posts, you and I largely agree that right and wrong are inventions of the human mind. However, a nuance that I assert is that some moral questions have only one correct answer. I ask again for a relativist give me a justification for forcible rape. I assert that such actions are so detrimental to human sociability that they are “wrong” and always wrong never to be right as a matter of opinion.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
OK, forcible rape…
you know how women are always saying “not if you were the last man on earth?”
Well, it could be construed as a matter of opinion that if there were a last man on earth and several women left unwilling to mate, that it would be his duty to the species to take matters into his own hands.
I’m sure that opinions would largely follow gender lines on that one. I will not for the record state my personal opinion, however, I think both positions are defensible.
I give up on your original question about if humans were wiped out. If morality is real only in a cognitive way and only in human minds then what is it to ask what if there are no human minds? It sounds strangely like if a tree falls and no one is around does it make a sound.
I know I don’t have the philosophy training you do and I’m sure that is where our disconnect lies. I guess I need you to dumb it down a notch for me.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Nope, Kyle, you’re getting me just fine. I’ve already written my next post which covers some of why even if humans cease to exist that some “wrongs” are still wrong … it has to do with the arrow of time. More on that later.
As for the rape scenario you offer. Perhaps you can rationalize it that way, but tell me something: Imagine yourself watching as a man violently forces himself upon a resisting woman. Even if it is one of the last women on earth, I am guessing your inner sense of rightness will tell you something is very wrong. There is perhaps no greater evil that can be inflicted upon the female psyche than forcible rape. Why aren’t your hypothetical women artifically inseminated against their will instead? Do you really want the kind of man wiling to rape a resisting woman passing his genes on anyway? Really? Rape is not a matter of opinion. Ever.
Any woman out there reading this? I’d like to hear from you.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’m sorry I’ve been so absent in the comments. I’ve been giving this last one a lot of thought. At first, when thinking about Kyle’s point, I thought that if it was truly the “right” thing for the last man on earth to procreate with the last woman on earth, then the woman would probably also realize that it was the “right” thing to do and it would not be rape.
But, then I realized that it couldn’t actually be the right thing to repopulate the earth from a single couple - think of how terrible genetics would work against the new human race! It would certainly take evolution in a new direction and would likely eventually lead to sterilization through inbreeding. So, really they wouldn’t be helping out the human race anyway.
And then, finally, I realized, how would the last man and woman ever really and truly know that they are the last man and woman on earth? They would have no way of knowing that for certain. So, they can’t know they are the last two and procreating for the sake of saving the human race is probably not actually the right thing for them to do so that brings me back to the fact that rape is never acceptable under any circumstances.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I agree, Jaime. I could make lengthy arguments as to why murder, and pedophilia are also universally wrong, but to me rape is the simplest to prove logically. Remember though, if one thing can be universally wrong to humankind, then it opens the door for other universals as well. Thus, some ethical questions can indeed be objective for humans.
I will discuss in my next post the differing classes of “wrong.” When someone says something is wrong, like stealing, it is different than when someone says “it is wrong to eat meat on Fridays.” What do you think?
July 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Nice website!!
August 13th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Your website is beautifully decorated and easily navigated. I have enjoyed visiting this site today and hope to visit many more times in the future.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am
I have been searching on the net for Home Equity and end up visiting your site. I really like the posts here, especially this one regarding The Roots of Morality. I already bookmarked your site and sure visit again.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view?…Online New Car Loans Calculater Amortization
August 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
You really poses much expertise on The Roots of Morality. I really enjoyed going through your posting. I really appreciate it.