A while back I gave a talk to a group of theologians on the question of Darwinian accidents. It had no ethics content. The first question I was asked was “If you are an atheist, how can you have moral rules?” Like many others who talk about Darwin and evolution, I have been asked this a lot, and my answer is always the same:
“I am an ape. That is what apes do.”
Social apes (arguably all the apes) are evolved to function in social groups and norm-following is a crucial aspect of this. It would be remarkable if humans, who evolved from the other apes, did not follow group norms, not that they do.
Ethical philosophers (I mean, philosophers who do ethics, not good people who do philosophy) call the view that all moral content comes from a God or Divine source as the Command Theory. It seems to be the default view in western nations and probably many others. It boils down to the following claims:
- Moral values are absolute and real
- If you aren’t told to live by these values by an authority, you will act savagely and horribly.
Whether or not moral values are real (a view known as, obviously enough, “moral realism”) or not (a view called “error theory” on the basis that it is just an error to think moral values are real), it is the second claim that is seriously in question.
It appears to imply that we are all sociopaths at best and psychopaths at worst, and that without Divine Command and Threat of Punishment, we would all be rapists, murderers and thieves. My response is that I really do not want to be around people who, if they lost their faith for any reason, would default to such behaviours. Ordinary folk, however, will not. And atheists are ordinary folk, nearly all of the time.
So, since atheists are apes, and apes follow group norms, it appears the moral monsters here are the theists who think they’d automatically become rapists and murderers, etc., if they ceased being Christian. The real question is, “Why would a Christian need to think only theists are moral?” And the answer to that is “Because it makes being Christian (or theist) more important in their eyes.”
I am not an atheist in the philosophical sense, I’m an agnostic, and the question came out of the blue, but the question highlights the real concern people have about moral questions and evolution. If we evolved, what does this mean for our moral values?
Many people believe that we can have morals only if God commands them (and enforces them). Others believe that morals are what any rational being, human or not, would choose to enact. Still others think that morals are facts about the world. It’s confusing and complicated.
Still, I think the main issue is easy: are moral values real or are they constructed? If we evolved, many may think that moral values are constructed by organisms, and yet a good many thinkers believe that any rational evolved creature will trick onto the same moral values. If those aliens are coming, we might well hope they share our values, although that inference didn’t work so well in the film Mars Attacks.
It boils down to this: the world is thus and so. Does it include moral facts or not? If you say it does, whether these facts are facts about the natural world or about what rational agents will converge upon, then you hold moral realism. If you say it does not, and that moral values are constructed (that is, you think they are at most facts about us), then you are a moral antirealist. The term “antirealism” is basically just a word we apply to those who deny realism about some issue or other, and so it can have many different ways of being accepted.
Let’s start with moral realism. There is an argument, due to the ethicist Guy Kahane at Oxford, called an evolutionary debunking argument. It runs roughly like this:
• Something evolved through natural selection
• Natural selection tracks fitness
• Truth is not the same as fitness
• So if that thing evolved, it can be said to be fitter, but not true.
He calls this the problem of “truthtracking”. Consider this argument:
• We evolved our ideas about the world and God
• If the idea of God has evolved then it is a fit idea, but not necessarily true
• Hence we do not have a reason to think God is real because people tend to believe in God
That is, the idea of God is to some extent debunked by explaining belief in God as the outcome of evolution. Now apply this to moral values:
• We evolved moral values and our ideas about them
• If the idea of moral values evolved, then they are fit ideas, but not necessarily true
• Hence we do not have a reason to think that moral values are real.
Note that while an evolutionary debunking argument does not disprove the ideas that have evolved, it does tend to undercut our reasons for believing it to be true, because its success can be explained by increasing fitness not truth. Evolution tracks fitness, not truth as such (I’ll discuss whether that means we must think our ideas gained through evolution must be questioned later in the series on what evolution means).
Paul Griffiths and I have called this a Milvian Bridge. On October 28, 312, the contenders for the post of emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantinus and Maxentius, fought a crucial battle on the Milvian bridge over the Tiber in Rome, which Constantinus won, eventually becoming the emperor Constantine. The church chronicler Eusebius recounts the story:
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant … Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. … He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
Consequently he won, and later formally converted to Christianity, making it
the official a legitimate religion of the empire. Now one might say that because he won, God supported him and thus caused the victory, but equally a more skeptical historian might note that most of his forces were Christian, and they won because they thought they had a divine mandate and fought harder than their opponents. One cannot argue from the success of the belief to the truth of the belief. The Milvian bridge will not cross over from success to truth.
The success of common moral values in human societies means only that those who hold them will tend to flourish in societies that reward those values. Does it mean that societies that hold those values are more closely approaching moral truth? Darwin tried an argument like this in his Descent of Man(1871).
No tribe could hold together if murder, robbery, treachery, &c., were common; consequently such crimes within the limits of the same tribe “are branded with everlasting infamy…” [I.93]
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase. [I.166]Darwin explains the origin of moral values as the outcome of the success of the groups that have “a high standard of morality”. This is a kind of natural selection, only of groups rather than of individuals. It is very similar to a view that dates at least from Aristotle, that moral values increase the “flourishing” of human societies.
However, this gives us no reason to think that moral values are real, only that they have a kind of instrumental value. Darwin’s target is a view, quite popular at the time he wrote and since, that what drives ethical decisions is individual selfishness. In the ethical philosophy known as “utilitarianism”, ethical choices should be aimed at maximising some sought good, like the avoidance of pain or the achievement of pleasure. To seek these out is a matter of personal value, not value in the world at large. Modern versions of utilitarianism, such as Peter Singer’s, however, treat the minimising of suffering and the maximising of pleasure as good in themselves for all beings, and so I don’t want to suggest that all utilitarians are selfish. Singer, for example, extends utilitarian values to all sensitive creatures (i.e., those that can feel pain), not just humans. Darwin’s nineteenth century targets are more like modern libertarians or neo-conservatives, sometimes called (wrongly) “social Darwinians” today.
A rival view in ethics is the Kantian view, derived of course from the late eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant. He held that what is true for moral value is that any rational (or reasonable) person or moral agent would choose to do what they would want others to do to and for them. Thus, as we do not want to be killed, so we should not kill others. Kant’s view is a philosophical version of the Sermon on the Mount: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, also called the Golden Rule. These are facts about the world: rational agents will always converge on the same solutions.
In evolutionary thinking, this is discussed under the heading of “game theory”. In the middle of the twentieth century, mathematicians like John von Neumann and others worked out a mathematics of social interactions. Starting with a problem called the Prisoner’s Dilemma, they assumed that rational agents are self-interested, and so developed a procedure for working out, as in cases where the Soviets and Americans faced off against each other with nuclear weapons, a way to predict what the competing sides would choose to do.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma works like this. Two criminals are being interrogated separately, and they cannot communicate with each other. They are both offered the following options: rat on the other and go free. If neither rat out, then they will both be convicted of a lesser offence and get less jail time, but if both rat, they both get the same large jail sentence. Their individual choices form what game theorists call a “payoff matrix” :
|Prisoner A doesn’t rat (cooperates)||Prisoner A rats (defects)|
|Prison B doesn’t rat (cooperates)||Each serves 2 years||Prisoner A goes free Prisoner B serves 3 years|
|Prisoner B rats (defects)||Prisoner B goes free Prisoner A serves 3 years||Each serves 10 years|
Now rationally, neither should rat, since by doing so they would minimise the time anyone spends in prison. But A will know that B knows this, and prefers that he gets no jail time, not caring about the other. However, A knows that B knows this too, and will therefore rat. But if they both rat they get a big sentence, and so on. They have to defect to minimise their own personal outcome. There is no solution that they can come up with that doesn’t end up in both getting a long spell in jail. This simple game can be used to describe many kinds of “transactions”, from the interactions of DNA in evolution or in social interactions between economic or political actors. That’s in a single case. In many cases, though, the dynamics are more interesting. When “iterated” or repeated cases occur, it turns out that if most people are inclined to cooperate, then someone who simply does to another agent what that agent did to them previously, but who starts off by cooperating on the first “move”, can on average tend to do better than many other strategies. This strategy is called “tit-for-tat” after a computer simulation in which economist Robert Axelrod submitted just this strategy.
Later work, though, showed that even tit-for-tat can do very badly in a population of noncooperators. In short, if you live among Chicago gangsters, it pays to not cooperate as a default. The end result is that cooperators get eaten alive, and you end up with nothing left but selfish economists. Greed is only good if that’s the society you operate in.
So it seems that game theory won’t solve our problem. What succeeds depends on whether your group is largely Hawks or Doves. A militant tribe might do very well if the surrounding tribes are too nice, to return to Darwin’s metaphor. One might cynically see this playing out in the modern world.
Many evolutionary writers, such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Ghiselin, made a lot of the early results of game theory in the 1970s. Ghiselin wrote,
Scratch an ‘altruist’, and watch a ‘hypocrite’ bleed.
And Dawkins argued that we are driven by “selfish genes”, which he meant that all our moral altruistic choices are in the end based upon genetic interests. We help those who are more closely related to us, genetically. This doesn’t mean that individuals are not psychologically altruistic, but that the reason they are is because cooperation helps the genes that make them psychologically inclined to help others. We are genetically selfish, but psychologically altruistic. Many evolutionary psychologists hold to the contrary that we are “eusocial”, meaning inclined to be more cooperative than a game theory account might suggest we would be, because we evolved in small groups of related people, and that now, in a larger society of less related people, we have a moral module in our heads that misfires, so to speak. This is the “faculty of empathy” that Darwin discussed at length in the Descent.
So we haven’t been able to cross the Milvian bridge for morality yet. In the next post, I will discuss whether selection can track a kind of moral fact.
Commenter Enon noted that Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome, but that Theodosius in 380 did. I had not read my Gibbon…
- Paul E Griffiths and John S. Wilkins, “When Do Evolutionary Explanations of Belief Debunk Belief?,” in Darwin in the 21st Century: Nature, Humanity, and God, ed. Phillip R. Sloan (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, In Press); John S. Wilkins and Paul E. Griffiths, “Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Three Domains: Fact, Value, and Religion,” in A New Science of Religion, ed. J. Maclaurin and G. Dawes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
- Similar ideas are proposed in other philosophies, such as Jewish and Buddhist thought. Gautama Buddha (5th century BCE) said “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” [Udanavarga 5:18] The Jewish philosopher Hillel (1st century CE) wrote “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. ” [Talmud, Shabbat 31a]
- The payoff can be any amount, so long as the individual choice is that ratting is preferable to not ratting for each possibility.