Hey guys, this is an essay I wrote concerning morality for my English class. It's very long in terms of online posting, so I don't expect anyone to read it. BUT if you do and you have any thoughts, I'd be glad to hear (read?) them.
Morality’s Foundation
In belonging to a society, human beings necessarily interact with other thinking individuals whose thoughts, desires, and motives are completely alien to their own. Since their goals are different, there is an unavoidable conflict amongst the individuals in any particular group. This conflict stems from the fact that not everyone can achieve, for example, the highest possible position in the group, or the most money. Simply, there are finite resources, with human interests competing for each and every one. In other spheres, such struggles are decided by a show of force, such as a duel between rival male elephant seals for a harem of females. This method of deciding supremacy, however, is simple; alone, it would not have allowed humans to develop from nomadic family bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agrarians. The rules governing human interaction are more complex and run deeper than a simple test of strength. This is especially true of the last one hundred years; the population of humans has more than doubled since the start of the nineteenth century. Evidenced by the intricate layers of human civilization of the present, there must be a set of rules or guidelines which govern the day to day interactions between people. These rules are often defined as morals or ethics, and they lie at the core of human behavior. These morals affect every action, imagined or performed, which could influence others. They also seem to have, with minor variations the world over, more or less universal applicability. That is to say, what is wrong in Canada is wrong as well in China. Of what is classified as wrong, there seem to be three major rules: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and stealing is wrong. These main conventions can be viewed as common to all humans, at least in theory. The question, then, is no longer whether or not a set of rules exists, but where it came from. For most of human history, religion was believed to be the only possible source of such regulation. Recently, however, forays into evolutionary psychology have uncovered surprising and persuasive evidence that human morality is in fact, “built-in” to the human animal. Although believers will no doubt balk at the idea, it is clear that human morality does not stem from that the Bible or other holy writings, but in fact are entirely products of evolution.
The idea that religion has a monopoly on morality is not new. In the western world, the classic example used is the set of Ten Commandments in chapter twenty of Exodus from the Holy Bible. This list, passed in the story down from the God of the Hebrews to Moses, extols the well known rules by which the God expected his people to live. They are the so-called golden rules that all followers of the religion (Judaism or Christianity) and cover murder to stealing (King James Version Bible Ex. 20). These rules, followed up by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, form the foundation of Judeo-Christian values. They foster good-will towards all, and could be taken, when viewed apart from much of the rest of the bible, as excellent behavior guidelines for a society. What is interesting is that more or less the same set of rules, with minor variations, can be derived from any major religion. The bible for Christianity and Judaism, the Quran for Islam, the Veda for Hinduism: all these collections contain within them the prescribed attitudes and comportments for their followers. However, to simply read the Christian Bible, for example, is not enough. Contained within it are “many admirable moral teachings [...], even beyond the obvious moral rules,” but therein can also be found acts which, by today’s moral standards would be deemed horrific. In Leviticus, hand in hand with commandments to feed the poor and the famous “love thy neighbour as thyself” are passages which condone the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and men who engage in sexual intercourse with their menstruating wives (King James Version Bible, Lev. 13.46, 19.10, 19.18, 20.10, 20.13, 23.22) Without a doubt, if all these rules were applied in society there would be considerable outrage. Of course they are not all practical in modern society- so, when Christians point to the Bible as their moral compass, it is clear that they are choosing, from the many writings in the Bible, which passages to follow. This of course, highlights the important point; Christians are in fact not using the Bible as a base for their morality. Anderson points out in “If God is Dead, is Everything Permitted?” that since doing so “requires that [they] use their own independent moral judgement, founded on some source other than revelation or the supposed authority of God, to decide which biblical passages to accept” (341). The particular standards by which believers make their choices from the Bible cannot, logically, be taken by them from the Bible itself. There must be, then, a set of moral values in each person, either learned or inherent.
Similar rules to those in the Bible are also found in Buddhist, Taoist, and Greek writings- so they are not, as many modern believers claim, solely to be found in the writings passed down by their God. In fact, “every stable society punishes murder, theft, and bearing false witness; teaches children to honour their parents; and condemns envy of one’s neighbour’s possessions (“If God is Dead...” Anderson 335). The fact that people have existed in societal groups since at least the Lower Palaeolithic is evidence enough then that morality existed and was valued long before the advent of the major monotheistic religions (Jelinek, 1-22). It is not very difficult to understand that a society or group without such social regulation would be doomed to self-destruction. Without some type of moral standards, the individuals in any given group would be at odds; each individual’s effort to obtain as much wealth (in the sense of money, food, or mates) would clash with every other member of the group. Solving this issue, morality can be viewed as “a means to resolve social conflict and thereby make social living and cooperative action possible” (Teehan 748). A civilization lacking such structure given by morality would be unable to compete with one whose members were working together. Put simply, a society where murder and theft goes unpunished would be completely unstable or at least, would soon have a severely diminished population and be easily defeated or assimilated by a civilization which did not condone such acts. The societies which survived, by the same logic, would be the ones whose members had a cohesive moral system which allowed them to live harmoniously. The question remains, however, as to why and how morals in fact originated; morality, an element essential for a society’s existence, was developed at some point. There is no doubt that partly, “moral knowledge springs not from revelation but from people’s experience in living together, in which they have learned that they must adjust their own conduct” in response to others (“If God is Dead...” Anderson, 335). It is likely, however, that morality got its start very early in human development.
Human evolution has undoubtedly given rise to and shaped morality. There are two probable forces which gave rise to moral tendencies in humans: selection of reciprocal altruistic behaviour and sexual selection. The first, reciprocal altruism, is an expansion of a basic evolutionary concept; genes for aiding kin will tend to propagate in a population (Dawkins 88-108). At its most basic, this is parenting- if human parents nurture their children, the genes for nurturing will survive in the children themselves. However, such behaviour applies not just to offspring; the brother of an individual in all likelihood shares one half of the genes of the individual, which is exactly the same as the genes shared by the children of the individual (Dawkins 93). Expounding this idea, Dawkins gives different degrees of relatedness- even a first cousin shares, in all probability, one eighth of an individual’s genes (93). Because of this relatedness, a gene which promotes altruistic behaviour towards, for example, any supposedly related organism would quickly spread through a population. It is necessary to note here that evolution is not directly shaping an action; rather, it is shaping the emotion which accompanies the action. For instance, the “feeling of pride and love that motivates” parents to care for a child is the incentive to care for a child, rather than the distinct knowledge that doing so will propagate the parents’ genes (Teehan 752). With this basis, Teehan points out, what is known as reciprocal altruism can “extend the influence of morality beyond the clan ethic supported by kin selection (751). However, the extension of altruistic behaviour cannot account for all morality; sexual selection was another major driving force. What are often viewed as “romantically attractive traits” such as kindness, fidelity, and bravery are in fact a kind of indicator (Miller 97). Fidelity would be a very valued quality in a mate for a human female, for example. It would be sought as a loyal mate would have a much higher tendency to help feed the female during pregnancy and the child after birth. Similarly, bravery could indicate a willingness to fend off predators or other dangers. Sexual selection, then, could drive such traits very high in the population. Combined with kin selection, this presents a very simple and elegant way in which human morals could have evolved.
Morality is part of everyday life and affects nearly every choice made involving human interaction. They are part, it would seem, of human nature. It is indeed interesting that some people find it necessary to ascribe their morals to a God; they only do good in order to please their deity. On the face of it, this seems as though they are acting as they should in order to be in whichever religion they happen to belong to. However, it is difficult to justify the idea that doing what is seen as right only because there is a God watching is truly moral. Since, luckily, it is not only the religious who are moral, it would seem that morality is derived from something more visceral; humans do not need a constant watchful eye in order to do what is morally right, they need merely be human.
Works cited are available if anyone wants.
Morality’s Foundation
In belonging to a society, human beings necessarily interact with other thinking individuals whose thoughts, desires, and motives are completely alien to their own. Since their goals are different, there is an unavoidable conflict amongst the individuals in any particular group. This conflict stems from the fact that not everyone can achieve, for example, the highest possible position in the group, or the most money. Simply, there are finite resources, with human interests competing for each and every one. In other spheres, such struggles are decided by a show of force, such as a duel between rival male elephant seals for a harem of females. This method of deciding supremacy, however, is simple; alone, it would not have allowed humans to develop from nomadic family bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agrarians. The rules governing human interaction are more complex and run deeper than a simple test of strength. This is especially true of the last one hundred years; the population of humans has more than doubled since the start of the nineteenth century. Evidenced by the intricate layers of human civilization of the present, there must be a set of rules or guidelines which govern the day to day interactions between people. These rules are often defined as morals or ethics, and they lie at the core of human behavior. These morals affect every action, imagined or performed, which could influence others. They also seem to have, with minor variations the world over, more or less universal applicability. That is to say, what is wrong in Canada is wrong as well in China. Of what is classified as wrong, there seem to be three major rules: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and stealing is wrong. These main conventions can be viewed as common to all humans, at least in theory. The question, then, is no longer whether or not a set of rules exists, but where it came from. For most of human history, religion was believed to be the only possible source of such regulation. Recently, however, forays into evolutionary psychology have uncovered surprising and persuasive evidence that human morality is in fact, “built-in” to the human animal. Although believers will no doubt balk at the idea, it is clear that human morality does not stem from that the Bible or other holy writings, but in fact are entirely products of evolution.
The idea that religion has a monopoly on morality is not new. In the western world, the classic example used is the set of Ten Commandments in chapter twenty of Exodus from the Holy Bible. This list, passed in the story down from the God of the Hebrews to Moses, extols the well known rules by which the God expected his people to live. They are the so-called golden rules that all followers of the religion (Judaism or Christianity) and cover murder to stealing (King James Version Bible Ex. 20). These rules, followed up by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, form the foundation of Judeo-Christian values. They foster good-will towards all, and could be taken, when viewed apart from much of the rest of the bible, as excellent behavior guidelines for a society. What is interesting is that more or less the same set of rules, with minor variations, can be derived from any major religion. The bible for Christianity and Judaism, the Quran for Islam, the Veda for Hinduism: all these collections contain within them the prescribed attitudes and comportments for their followers. However, to simply read the Christian Bible, for example, is not enough. Contained within it are “many admirable moral teachings [...], even beyond the obvious moral rules,” but therein can also be found acts which, by today’s moral standards would be deemed horrific. In Leviticus, hand in hand with commandments to feed the poor and the famous “love thy neighbour as thyself” are passages which condone the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and men who engage in sexual intercourse with their menstruating wives (King James Version Bible, Lev. 13.46, 19.10, 19.18, 20.10, 20.13, 23.22) Without a doubt, if all these rules were applied in society there would be considerable outrage. Of course they are not all practical in modern society- so, when Christians point to the Bible as their moral compass, it is clear that they are choosing, from the many writings in the Bible, which passages to follow. This of course, highlights the important point; Christians are in fact not using the Bible as a base for their morality. Anderson points out in “If God is Dead, is Everything Permitted?” that since doing so “requires that [they] use their own independent moral judgement, founded on some source other than revelation or the supposed authority of God, to decide which biblical passages to accept” (341). The particular standards by which believers make their choices from the Bible cannot, logically, be taken by them from the Bible itself. There must be, then, a set of moral values in each person, either learned or inherent.
Similar rules to those in the Bible are also found in Buddhist, Taoist, and Greek writings- so they are not, as many modern believers claim, solely to be found in the writings passed down by their God. In fact, “every stable society punishes murder, theft, and bearing false witness; teaches children to honour their parents; and condemns envy of one’s neighbour’s possessions (“If God is Dead...” Anderson 335). The fact that people have existed in societal groups since at least the Lower Palaeolithic is evidence enough then that morality existed and was valued long before the advent of the major monotheistic religions (Jelinek, 1-22). It is not very difficult to understand that a society or group without such social regulation would be doomed to self-destruction. Without some type of moral standards, the individuals in any given group would be at odds; each individual’s effort to obtain as much wealth (in the sense of money, food, or mates) would clash with every other member of the group. Solving this issue, morality can be viewed as “a means to resolve social conflict and thereby make social living and cooperative action possible” (Teehan 748). A civilization lacking such structure given by morality would be unable to compete with one whose members were working together. Put simply, a society where murder and theft goes unpunished would be completely unstable or at least, would soon have a severely diminished population and be easily defeated or assimilated by a civilization which did not condone such acts. The societies which survived, by the same logic, would be the ones whose members had a cohesive moral system which allowed them to live harmoniously. The question remains, however, as to why and how morals in fact originated; morality, an element essential for a society’s existence, was developed at some point. There is no doubt that partly, “moral knowledge springs not from revelation but from people’s experience in living together, in which they have learned that they must adjust their own conduct” in response to others (“If God is Dead...” Anderson, 335). It is likely, however, that morality got its start very early in human development.
Human evolution has undoubtedly given rise to and shaped morality. There are two probable forces which gave rise to moral tendencies in humans: selection of reciprocal altruistic behaviour and sexual selection. The first, reciprocal altruism, is an expansion of a basic evolutionary concept; genes for aiding kin will tend to propagate in a population (Dawkins 88-108). At its most basic, this is parenting- if human parents nurture their children, the genes for nurturing will survive in the children themselves. However, such behaviour applies not just to offspring; the brother of an individual in all likelihood shares one half of the genes of the individual, which is exactly the same as the genes shared by the children of the individual (Dawkins 93). Expounding this idea, Dawkins gives different degrees of relatedness- even a first cousin shares, in all probability, one eighth of an individual’s genes (93). Because of this relatedness, a gene which promotes altruistic behaviour towards, for example, any supposedly related organism would quickly spread through a population. It is necessary to note here that evolution is not directly shaping an action; rather, it is shaping the emotion which accompanies the action. For instance, the “feeling of pride and love that motivates” parents to care for a child is the incentive to care for a child, rather than the distinct knowledge that doing so will propagate the parents’ genes (Teehan 752). With this basis, Teehan points out, what is known as reciprocal altruism can “extend the influence of morality beyond the clan ethic supported by kin selection (751). However, the extension of altruistic behaviour cannot account for all morality; sexual selection was another major driving force. What are often viewed as “romantically attractive traits” such as kindness, fidelity, and bravery are in fact a kind of indicator (Miller 97). Fidelity would be a very valued quality in a mate for a human female, for example. It would be sought as a loyal mate would have a much higher tendency to help feed the female during pregnancy and the child after birth. Similarly, bravery could indicate a willingness to fend off predators or other dangers. Sexual selection, then, could drive such traits very high in the population. Combined with kin selection, this presents a very simple and elegant way in which human morals could have evolved.
Morality is part of everyday life and affects nearly every choice made involving human interaction. They are part, it would seem, of human nature. It is indeed interesting that some people find it necessary to ascribe their morals to a God; they only do good in order to please their deity. On the face of it, this seems as though they are acting as they should in order to be in whichever religion they happen to belong to. However, it is difficult to justify the idea that doing what is seen as right only because there is a God watching is truly moral. Since, luckily, it is not only the religious who are moral, it would seem that morality is derived from something more visceral; humans do not need a constant watchful eye in order to do what is morally right, they need merely be human.
Works cited are available if anyone wants.
![[Image: Canadatheist3copy.jpg?t=1270015625]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i945.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad292%2Flukeyboy5%2FCanadatheist3copy.jpg%3Ft%3D1270015625)
