Is Morality really connected to Evolution?

Debates and controversies on evolution and morals/ethics have taken place since evolution was discussed. I have turned to Wikipedia on Huxley and his view (I rarely do this but there is a long history and I do not have the time or interest to do a thorough search) - this extract is interesting:

"Perhaps the best known of these topics is Evolution and Ethics, which deals with the question of whether biology has anything particular to say about moral philosophy. Both Huxley and his grandson Julian Huxley gave Romanes Lectures on this theme. For a start, Huxley dismisses religion as a source of moral authority. Next, he believes the mental characteristics of man are as much a product of evolution as the physical aspects. Thus, our emotions, our intellect, our tendency to prefer living in groups and spend resources on raising our young are part and parcel of our evolution, and therefore inherited.

Despite this, the details of our values and ethics are not inherited: they are partly determined by our culture, and partly chosen by ourselves. Morality and duty are often at war with natural instincts; ethics cannot be derived from the struggle for existence. It is therefore our responsibility to make ethical choices (see Ethics and Evolutionary ethics). This seems to put Huxley as a compatibilist in the Free Will vs Determinism debate. In this argument Huxley is diametrically opposed to his old friend Herbert Spencer.

“Of moral purpose I see not a trace in nature. That is an article of exclusively human manufacture.” letter THH to W. Platt Ball."

1 Like

Interesting indeed. This seems to be the talk, about to give it a read.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html

Well, if he did, Paul didn’t see fit to pass it along in his writings. Do you think God was/is in the habit of needing to provide rationale for each commandment? Nevertheless, we are gifted (by God) to be able to discern just that in many cases!

In what way have I taken two different sides? If I’m guilty of an inconsistency (and I’m guilty of many I’m sure), at least point out to me which one you saw here so I can either address it or learn and grow from the attempt. Until then, you’ll be happy to know that my equilibrium seems to feel fine for the moment!

That seems like a good summary. Some notable passages:

As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best–what we call goodness or virtue–involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage.

Indeed, he seems to consider morality as an individual duty. It isn’t clear however why this duty would be assumed. I don’t think many people would state the issue this way today! “Duty” may have a somewhat different connotation after the interceding century.

I like this better. Our ethics are not one with the cosmos, but in fundamental opposition to its own ethos.

The comparison of the ultimate results of Indian and Greek philosophical systems was interesting.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

What is your current denomination? Maybe my knowing will help me understand your perspective.

I glanced quickly through the talk (thanks for the link) and my impression is he draws from various outlooks, esp stoics (who also emphasised personal duty amongst other notions).

Opposing the cosmic evolution appears to be at odds with current views of evolution, but I may be mistaken. I contrast the general view of personally arriving at an ethical/moral position that is implied by atheists and materialists, with the Christian faith that teaches us to grow into the attributes found in the Gospel and Epistles. Thus the notion of good and evil, and the view put by Huxley on pain, suffering and death, is ‘put in a reasonable perspective’ in that the Law of God teaches us to avoid the natural order (or human nature), while faith strengthens us to grown in the attributes of Christ.

I like Huxley’s remarks that I noticed on theodicy.

That’s an interesting way of putting it, thanks. As for atheists and materialists, although the individual is the ultimate judge, I wouldn’t really call it a “personal” process. It’s not as if one can create their own laws of morality on their own whim–you’re free to try but you may not get very far by doing so! As Huxley notes (and is mentioned in your original abstract), various aspects of our environment provide moral context. We may even have to grow into it :slight_smile:

Anabaptist, You still haven’t answered my question, though: I’m curious what my perceived inconsistencies were that you alluded to above. But if this is to be a further diversion on to other things, maybe we need to go to private messaging. The forum just sent me an auto-message getting huffy with me for replying to you three times!

I meant by personal, in a collective sense - and yes, we are part of a community and like minded people tend to congregate. The difference I was eluding to is perhaps summed up by a relativism as opposed to a way of life, or being, that begins with belief in God, and then based on personal reflection, committing to a way of life and being. I sense atheists are against this for many reasons, especially thinking God (or religion) forces people somehow.

In any event, we are born to our parents and grow into the norms of our community, so on that we agree - I do not think biological evolution, in whatever guise, has much to do with that, but it is part of a worldview and some may be born into that.

I agree. Some aspects of our capability for morality (like our sense of empathy) seem likely to have evolved, however. I’m not that familiar with the science to say for sure.

Thank you all for the 60+ responses. I have “quietly” been watching the long conversation and you all, with different views, have helped me a lot. Thanks!

1 Like

Belief comes first if one is born and raised in a family that believes. As an individual grows, that belief either matures and becomes informed by reflection, experience and knowledge, or it eventually disappears to be replaced by something else the person accepts. So in terms of faith, some I guess grow in it and others may loose it.

With those who are born into atheist parents, or agnostic (or any other term they choose to define themselves), my guess is they too reflect and mature in a particular outlook.

This to me speaks of personhood and community. Those who grow in their faith (at least Christianity as I understand it) accept the Bible as the ultimate guide, but that means having a conscience and seeking to understand and live what is good. All this is a constant process of growth. I cannot see how evolutionary outlooks would be relevant to this.

In a general sense, I suspect both believers and non-believers undergo a similar process of reflection, but the content obviously differs greatly. That is one reason I tend to categorise non-believers as either anti-theists or ‘don’t care atheists.’ If I understand some comments, it seems as if atheists think God forces (perhaps by threats) people to believe in Him, or some such outlook.

3 Likes

Thank you for your response. I guess this last part would primarily be a consideration in the case of reward/punishment scenarios based on belief or disbelief in an afterlife. In my understanding views on this vary among different Christians.

Like many aspects of the Christian faith, there are short popularised versions and lengthy, often difficult to fully study versions. Salvation deals with an afterlife based on the judgement by God, and the starting point for all of is that we have sinned and (in a semi-humorous way) we are all dead meat - no afterlife! So in one sense it looks bleak - but than along comes Christ and we are forgiven - all looks rosy. But than we are expected to do good and that is hard - I will not continue, but I hope that I have made my point on reward and punishment (as an aside, the book by Dostoyevsky is one of my all time favourites). :sunglasses:

1 Like

Once you run into dogmatic beliefs there usually isn’t any reason to carry on further.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:44, topic:35781”]
Any Christian would tell you, that if morality isn’t from God, it’s worth a lot less to us Christians (though, no doubt, not worth less to you).
[/quote]

If you look at previous posts you will see people who hold opinions of atheists that run the gamut from amoral to incapable of morality to having no meaning in their lives. Since atheism was brought up, I thought I would give the atheist position and view.

What I am saying is that Christians use their own personal judgments of what is and isn’t moral to determine which religions are moral. Atheists use that same sense of morality. We are all in the same boat when it comes to morality.

To put it another way, “Speak of the Devil, and He appears.” :wink:

There are other followers of other religions who believed the same thing about their God, and yet you would judge their actions as immoral.

1 Like

That is rather stunning since my family, friends, and community mean a lot to me. I guess we just view the people around us differently.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus, what people do can be downright confounding!

So, I would say, Mr. T., that the same boat we are all in is the boat called Humanity.

Christians believe their moral compass is defined by a deity.

Atheists do not. So you can say that we are all “the same” … but I think on the boat we are on, you are on the Port side, and Christians are on the Starboard side.

If that is so, then Christians can’t say that what God commands is moral, only that follow what the Bible says. Christians have no way of knowing if they are moral, only obedient. If God commanded something that was immoral they would have no way of knowing.

Personally, I believe Christians are no different than Atheists. We are all moral agents capable determining morality ourselves.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus

I understand why you say that … but you can’t make it true just by saying it.

What is “all the same” is that we all believe we are moral agents. What separates the Christians from the Atheists is that Christians believe the Universal moral code is established by a God.

Your test questions are certainly very cleverly crafted. They are really stating the same thing, but in ways that make them sound different.

“Christians can’t say that what God commands is moral.”
“Christians have no way of knowing if they are moral.”
“If God command something that was immoral they would have no way of knowing.”

These are epistemological questions … how do humans know any thing? Questions like this can be framed about anything we think we know. I could write the following sentences about you:

“Atheists can’t say that there is no God of morality (they simply believe it to be so).”
“Atheists have no way of knowing there is no God of morality.”

And my personal favorite!!!
“If God commanded an Atheist to do something immoral, they would be surprised as heck, because Atheists usually think if there was a God, he would sound more like Sean Connery!”