What does it mean to be good, virtuous, moral, or just? Philosophers have debated these questions for centuries. Another question lies just below the surface of these. On what basis can one decide what is good, virtuous, moral, or just? The answers I have encountered may be divided into several overlapping categories.
Tradition: We were taught right from wrong as children and accept those lessons as truth. We often assume that the traditions we learned as children go back for generations, though in the 20th and 21st centuries, this is seldom the case. Tradition is a reasonable basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong because what has worked well in the past is likely to work well in the future, even if we do not understand why it worked. But situations change and traditions change so tradition may not provide the answers we need.
Self-interest: What is good for me is good, and what is bad for me is bad. This narrows our field of investigation in determining what is good or bad to a single individual, but provides no intelligible basis for determining what is good or bad for that individual. Neither do broader versions such as enlightened self interest provide an intelligible basis.
Revelation: A deity, oracle, or some other supernatural source may have communicated with some group or individual clarifying what is good and what is bad. In some cases, an individual claims to have regular communication with a deity to determine what is right and wrong for an entire community. This seems like a solid basis, but revelation is often difficult to understand, generating as many questions as it answers, and people typically interpret revelation based on tradition and self-interest. Additionally, many people doubt the existence and authority of these supernatural sources, as well as the motives of their human mediums.
Self-evident principles: This is a basis I have encountered in several writings. The author, trying to avoid reliance on tradition and revelation, holds a core-belief that cannot be logically deduced from available evidence, and so simply assumes the core-belief as a self-evident principle without providing further basis. But not everyone agrees on which principles are self-evident, and what the writer perceives as self-evident is likely influenced by tradition and self-interest.
Science: This is possibly the weakest basis of all. Science is a method of investigation not a source of answers. Facts are the input of science, not the output. If we see a hawk catch a rabbit, that is an observation, one step of science. If we speculate that they hawk caught the rabbit to eat because it was hungry, that is a theory, another step of science. If we follow the hawk to see if it eats the rabbit, we are testing our theory, a third step of science. None of this provides any basis for deciding if it is right or wrong for a rabbit to die so a hawk may eat, or even if it is right for us to follow and observe it. Attempts to determine right and wrong based on scientific theories contributed to the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
A Proposal
Despite science being the weakest basis of all, and self-interest providing no intelligible basis, I propose a basis of morality combining science with self interest. (This may not be a new proposal, but it is one I have not read elsewhere.) The theory of evolution provides the most-credible explanation we have of how life on earth has developed, and the study of DNA provides clues as to how biological traits are passed between generations. Combined, these theories imply the answer to the question, “What is our purpose?”, may be, “Our purpose is to pass on as many as practicable of our genes to surviving future generations for as many generations as possible.”
Genetic studies indicate that while we share more genes with close relatives than with the human-race in general, we still share almost all of our genes with every other person on the planet. Plants, other animals, and even microorganisms share many of our genes. So genetic survival provides a basis for advancing not-only our personal interests, but those of other people as well, and even of non-human species.
Few, if any, species can survive on their own. Most, like humans, require many other species for support. And to thrive and reproduce, humans need other humans as well.
Observation of human and animal behavior finds creatures acting to protect their offspring, themselves, their relations, and others of their species, sometimes risking their lives in the process. To do so appears to be evolutionarily advantageous, because even if an individual does not survive, other individuals containing many of the same genes will. I suggest that the most moral choice may be the one that continues reproduction of as many of our genes as practicable for as long as possible.
The goal of ensuring long-term survival is both selfish in that each of us has a slightly-different collection of genes to share, and magnanimous in that we share a significant portion of our genes with every other living thing. Therefore we, individually, have an interest in seeing that our offspring and other relatives have the opportunity to survive and reproduce, but that interest, perhaps to a lesser extent, also extends to other people and other species.
We can see that survival of the human race depends on maintaining many other species and the environments in which they live. We also recognize that the survival of individuals, including ourselves, depends on survival of the society that supports us. Few of us could survive and raise a family in total isolation without the assistance of tools and supplies from others, and even if we could our children would then have no other people to mate with. So our enlightened selfishness requires us to make sacrifices that benefit other humans and even other species.
So far, so good, but how does any of this help us make practical, day-to-day decisions about what is good and what is bad? It is not often possible to predict how our current actions will affect the long-term survivability of our genes. How could we possibly evaluate the likely effect of our actions on other people and other species forever? It may be that we mere humans will have essentially no influence on the long-term path of the gene pool. Some scientists have predicted that the human race has only 100 years left on earth; others tell us the sun will blow up and consume the earth in 7.5 billion years. Both numbers are finite, so however and whenever it ends, our days on earth are limited.
Despite the difficulty, each of us must make ethical decisions every day. Applying enlightened self-interest to theories of genetics and of societal and individual evolution provides us with an alternative vantage point from which to to examine our moral traditions of varying vintage from different cultures, including those coming from revelation. If we can better understand why certain moral traditions have been successful in the past, we will better positioned to address the moral challenges of the future.
Posted 2021/09/30
Update 2021/10/03
A reader points out that the highly-respected psychologist and best-selling author, Jordan Peterson, has publicly discussed the relationship between morality and evolution. I do not recall having seen a video of him addressing the subject, but might have heard something that influenced my thoughts on this matter.
Another reader suggests that the moral theory of 18th-century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, provides a framework within which one can evaluate a proposal such as this.
Finally, my most-loyal reader points out that happiness can result from doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, and loving our neighbors as ourselves. I cannot disagree with that.