An Atheist's Perspective - Last Updated : 14 November, 2009
- Preface
- Part I - Why God is not necessary
- Part II - A Meaning To Life
- Part III - Animal morals
- Part IV - God and morals
- Part V - A biological foundation to morals
- Part VI - Morals in modern society
- Part VII - Moral dilemmas of a modern age - Not finished
- Part VIII - Moral dilemmas of vegetarianism - Not finished
- Part IX - Examining criticisms - Not finished
- Part X - A quick conclusion - Not finished
Why are we here, and how did we get here? What is our purpose? These are all questions that religion promises to answer, and all provide different, long winded, farfetched answers. Answers that are less than satisfactory and answers that only create more questions; however, I believe that there is a simple answer to all of these questions, and the answer is very simple indeed.
The idea is perhaps the most important idea of our time, and perhaps of many future generations; never before has such a simple idea had such profound implications, and never before has a theory provided such a conclusive perspective on the diversity of the ecosystem, and our place in it.
This idea is the ingenious suggestion that animals can adapt to their environments through successive generations by small, natural mutations at a genetic level - in scientific terms, a change in allelic frequency over time due to Natural Selection and genetic drift. The idea is the Theory of Evolution.
Never has one sentence supplied such meaning to all that we know; never has one sentence been able to explain the diversity of life; to explain how such complexity of life can have arisen from basic, self replicating protein strands; to explain human and animal psychology; to explain social and sexual bonding between individuals; to describe life in purely naturalistic terms; to describe humanities morality - this single sentence, "a change in allelic frequency over time due to Natural Selection and genetic drift" provides us with the most profound, revolutionary and evidentiary supported scientific theory of all time, and has had the most impact on everyone's life, whether you choose to accept the fact that evolution occurs or not!
This article is not to argue against the presence of God, or even to provide reasons why I do not think God exists, though it can be used as a fundamental aspect in the debate. I do not believe in God because there is no necessary reason to. We can describe how life may have arisen, how the diversity of life may have developed, how the earth may have been formed, how the universe may have developed from its very early stages and what we're made of. The list can go on and on; furthermore, we can provide well supported and empirically backed natural explanations to many observable phenomenon and, those that we can't, we are working toward almost unduly.
Let us take the Sun as an example. We once knew nothing about the Sun and when we tried to understand this great phenomenon, we would propose explanations based entirely on superstition. We would assume it was, perhaps: a fiery charioteer, racing across the sky; a sun god, lighting our way; a dung beetle pushing a flaming ball of dung over our heads; or a supreme being who, on the first day of creation, announced, "Let there be light".
As science has progressed, we have uncovered natural explanations for these events. We now know that the sun is nothing more than a huge nuclear reactor in the sky, releasing light and radiation that warms and lights our planet. Photons are released from the Suns surface and travel at almost 300 million meters per second, bombarding our planet with the energy required to support life.
As time goes on, perhaps more myths and superstitions will be rolled back but, just because we do not yet understand an event, this does not mean that we should label it a proof of any God until a better explanation is proposed; this is simply the "God of the gaps" argument. Labelling an event as God's will simply negates its importance and truth.
Regardless, God is not a necessary entity. There is no evidence for or against God in a broad definition, but try to define God as any specific entity (such as the Abrahamic Gods, Jesus/Yahweh or Allah), with tangible attributes, and there are inevitably to be scientific or logical contradictions. Many aspects attributed to God are logically impossible, such as the idea of his existence for an infinite amount of time, or omnipotence "Can God create a stone so large that he can't lift it" argument. The common claim that "God is omnipresence and all good" is a logical fallacy. Either God sees evil and decides not to intervene, making him not "all good", or God cannot see all evil and hence not act on it, making him no longer omnipresent.
In addition, if we assume that God is not omnipotent or both all good and all present - and not the creator or bringer of life - why should the entity deserve a title of God?
We do not need a God to explain any of the once great questions of how we came to be, including the original development of life and abundance of complexity in life (see the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution respectively) or for the development of early planets, stars and galaxies (See the "Big Band" theory) or the processes by which nuclear fusion takes place, allowing stars to combust and provide heat and light for life (See the Atomic Theory) or how our stars, planets and even matter is held together (See the Theory of Gravity).
As our understanding of the natural work progresses, even psychological phenomena, behavioural attributes or concepts of beauty and aesthetics can be explained quite conclusively using philosophy and science. We understand that certain behaviours, such as guilt, anger, fear and love, are simply chemical reactions in the brain. We understand how these behavioural attributes occur and why.
So if there is no evidence for a god's existence and there is no reason for a god to existence, why believe in any god? There is no reason to believe in God, surely. This is essentially why I am an atheist. It can be pointed out, as a common and quite serious misunderstanding, that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Atheism is not a denial of God's existence and God may surely exist, that I do not deny. I simply do not believe in any God.
However, many oppose atheism because of the "cold, bleak outlook on life" that atheism inspires. A common argument against the atheistic view of life is the lack of purpose or meaning. The assumption is based on the mistaken fact that there is an absolute purpose in life, a meaning for our existence. People exclaim that there must logically be an existence for our life, otherwise why are we here? Essentially, the argument can be condensed into a fallacious axiom, which may run somewhat similar to this:
| 1. | Everything that is designed has a purpose, |
| 2. | Humans/life is designed, |
| 3. | I. Humans/life has a purpose. |
| II. If humans/life is not designed, they have no purpose. |
An analogous study could go as follows: If we take a household chair, or any other synthetic, man-made object, it is known that the object was designed to accomplish a task. Therefore, the object has a purpose; the object's purpose is to accomplish a specified task, no matter how trivial.
A chair's 'purpose' in existence is, essentially, to allow rest and support for a seated individual; A spoons 'purpose' is to allow the displacement of liquids from a bowl to a mouth; even a picture of art has a purpose in decoration. It can safely be said that everything that is intentionally designed - and usually unintentionally designed - must have some purpose, no matter how trivial.
If we choose to except that humans are created, or indeed any other life forms, then we must logically assume that there is a pre-set purpose for their existence. This is generally referred to as "the meaning of life".
However, to assume that humans are not created does not assume that there is automatically no purpose to human life. This just assumes that there is no absolute purpose, a perspective that some find hard to accept. Here is another analogy, though, to help understand this perspective.
Let us use the chair analogy again. A chair, as earlier established, was designed and therefore has a purpose. However, a chair is not the only available support for the human posterior. Let us now visualise a rock, remarkably chair shaped. This rock has not arisen by design, but simply by chance. A specific geological formation of the rock, perhaps, of maybe abnormal weathering has, by chance, eroded the rock into a shape that - from a human perspective - displays a somewhat resemblance to an armchair. The fact that it resembles a chair is purely arbitrary and is based on personal conviction of the observer, but a chance resemblance is there.
On a long hike a human passing by may choose to sit on this rock and, in doing so, they will provide a purpose for that rock; the rock is now, temporarily, a 'chair'. This rock momentarily has a purpose and a meaning in its existence. Once the human is gone, the 'chair' becomes a rock again, nothing more. This rock was not designed, but this rock still has a purpose. Not an absolute purpose, but a purpose nevertheless. We assign the purpose, but the purpose remains no less relevant.
It is often pointed out that this could, in some way, bear a resemblance to hypothetical and highly advanced artificial intelligence in a robot. It is inevitable that artificial intelligence will, at some stage, surpass human intelligence in all fields and, at least experimentally, robots will arise with basic feelings and emotions. Many would argue that this doesn't constitute as real 'life' though, as the robots are not really 'living'.
The similarity may be pointed out with the rock that it is not really a chair but simply bears resemblance to a chair. However, does this negate the purpose of the robotic life form? Despite the fact that the robot is artificial, it can still be assigned its own purpose in its existence. The often-fallacious argument against the sentiency of the robot does nothing to impair the robots purpose.
But regardless of this, let us now consider animals. Do you think that animals equally have a purpose in live? Many argue that animals are less than humans, humans being the "top of the environmental ladder". There are many problems simply with this statement.
Starting at the School-of-the-bleeding-obvious, it can be pointed out the there is no 'ladder' in evolution. To make an analogous comparison between the Theory of Evolution and a day-to-day object, you could describe evolution as a tree, with each leaf of the tree being an extant species (not extinct).
With this in mind, why is a human 'top' of the tree? What makes humans so advanced in an evolutionary perspective? Humans have many huge flaws in their 'design'. The common impediment of spinal injuries is a sign of the change in human evolution from moving on all fours to moving upright; our spine has yet not fully adapted. Knee and elbow joints are also a testament to the human's weaknesses.
Humans are also considerably slow movers compared to other, equally sized mammals, and weaker and scrawnier. We develop problems with ease, and useless organs in the body, such as the Vermiform Appendix (originally speculated to be used for processing tough plant roots), which is a vestigial structure, easily prone to causing death by infection.
Humans are instable and rely on huge amounts of resources to survive. By comparison, many single celled organisms are far more naturally adapted than humans. Remember, evolution is a process of adaptation, not increasing complexity.
However, it is often argued that what makes humans a higher being is intelligence, rational thought and self-awareness. None of these are unique to humans though. Elephants have been shown to demonstrate that they can recognise their own reflection in a mirror, showing self-awareness.
Again, octopuses show great rationality and problem solving abilities. When faced with difficult dilemmas such as escaping from a glass box, the octopus develops a memory for how it last solved the problem and can apply this to slightly different scenarios. Primates again show levels of logical thought, being able to be taught to use a tool for one purpose and translating the use to other, novelty problems.
Perhaps my favourite example of intelligence in animals is derived from parrots that have been shown to demonstrate an advanced understanding of the human language. One parrot, named Alex, was taught basic human words, including colours, numeric values from one to twelve and names of some fruits and localised objects. These two segments from Wikipedia demonstrate the extraordinary development of Alex's abilities:
Listing Alex's accomplishments in 1999, Pepperberg said he could identify 50 different objects and recognize quantities up to six; that he could distinguish seven colors and five shapes, and understand the concepts of "bigger," "smaller," "same," and "different," and that he was learning "over" and "under." Alex passed increasingly more difficult tests measuring whether humans have achieved Piaget's Substage 6 object performance. Alex showed surprise and anger when confronted with a nonexistent or different object than he had been led to believe was hidden during the tests.
Alex had a vocabulary of about 150 words, but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and was asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly. He could understand that a key was a key no matter what its size or color, and could figure out how the key was different than others. He asked what color he was, and learned "grey" after being told the answer six times.
Alex understood the turn-taking of communication and often the syntax used in language. He called an apple a "banerry," which Pepperberg thought to be a combination of "banana" and "cherry," two fruits he was more familiar with. Alex could even add, to a limited extent, correctly giving the number of like objects on a tray. Pepperberg said that if he couldn't count, the data could be interpreted as him being able to quickly and accurately estimate the number of something, better than humans can. When he was tired of being tested, he would say "Wanna go back," meaning he wanted to go back to his cage, and in general, he would request where he wanted to be taken by saying "Wanna go...", protest if he was taken to a different place, and sit quietly when taken to his preferred spot. He was not trained to say where he wanted to go, but picked it up from being asked where he'd like to be taken. If the researcher displayed annoyance, Alex tried to diffuse it with the phrase, "I'm sorry." If he said "Wanna banana," but was offered a nut instead, he stared in silence, asked for the banana again, or took the nut and threw it at the researcher or otherwise displayed annoyance, before requesting the item again. When asked questions in the context of research testing, he gave the correct answer approximately 80% of the time.
Once, Alex was given several different colored blocks (two red, three blue and four green - similar to the picture above.) Pepperberg asked him, "What color three?" expecting him to say blue. However, as Alex had been asked this question before, he seemed to have become bored. He answered "five!" This kept occurring until Pepperberg said "Fine, what color five?" Alex replied "none." This suggests that parrots, like children, get bored. Sometimes, Alex purposely answered the questions wrong, despite knowing the correct answer. Preliminary research also seems to indicate that Alex could carry over the concept of four blue balls of wool on a tray to four notes from a piano. Pepperberg was also training him to recognize the Arabic numeral "4" as "four." Alex also showed some comprehension of personal pronouns; he used different language when referring to himself or others, indicating a concept of "I" and "you."
In July 2005, Pepperberg reported that Alex understood the concept zero. If asked the difference between two objects, he also answered that; but if there was no difference between the objects, he said "none", which meant that he understand the concept of nothing or zero. In July 2006, Pepperberg discovered that Alex's perception of optical illusions was similar to human perception.
...
According to Dr. Pepperberg, the final time she saw Alex was on Thursday September 6. They went through their goodnight routine in which she told him it was time to go in the cage. She recalls that Alex said, "You be good. I love you." She responded, "I love you, too." He said, "You'll be in tomorrow," and she responded, "Yes, I'll be in tomorrow."
Upon first being presented with a red apple, and having learned no word for the fruit, Alex coined a new word: "banerry". This word is generally considered a portmanteau of the two fruits "banana" (for the texture of the interior) and "cherry" (for the color and shape). Dr. Pepperberg considered this an example of "complex two-way communication", wherein Alex was translating a concept as he understood it into a form comprehensible to humans by using his limited English vocabulary. This concept also translated when Alex referred to a green apple as a "banerry". Alex later referred to a golden delicious apple as a "banerry".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
Alex had a vocabulary of about 150 words, but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and was asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly. He could understand that a key was a key no matter what its size or color, and could figure out how the key was different than others. He asked what color he was, and learned "grey" after being told the answer six times.
Alex understood the turn-taking of communication and often the syntax used in language. He called an apple a "banerry," which Pepperberg thought to be a combination of "banana" and "cherry," two fruits he was more familiar with. Alex could even add, to a limited extent, correctly giving the number of like objects on a tray. Pepperberg said that if he couldn't count, the data could be interpreted as him being able to quickly and accurately estimate the number of something, better than humans can. When he was tired of being tested, he would say "Wanna go back," meaning he wanted to go back to his cage, and in general, he would request where he wanted to be taken by saying "Wanna go...", protest if he was taken to a different place, and sit quietly when taken to his preferred spot. He was not trained to say where he wanted to go, but picked it up from being asked where he'd like to be taken. If the researcher displayed annoyance, Alex tried to diffuse it with the phrase, "I'm sorry." If he said "Wanna banana," but was offered a nut instead, he stared in silence, asked for the banana again, or took the nut and threw it at the researcher or otherwise displayed annoyance, before requesting the item again. When asked questions in the context of research testing, he gave the correct answer approximately 80% of the time.
Once, Alex was given several different colored blocks (two red, three blue and four green - similar to the picture above.) Pepperberg asked him, "What color three?" expecting him to say blue. However, as Alex had been asked this question before, he seemed to have become bored. He answered "five!" This kept occurring until Pepperberg said "Fine, what color five?" Alex replied "none." This suggests that parrots, like children, get bored. Sometimes, Alex purposely answered the questions wrong, despite knowing the correct answer. Preliminary research also seems to indicate that Alex could carry over the concept of four blue balls of wool on a tray to four notes from a piano. Pepperberg was also training him to recognize the Arabic numeral "4" as "four." Alex also showed some comprehension of personal pronouns; he used different language when referring to himself or others, indicating a concept of "I" and "you."
In July 2005, Pepperberg reported that Alex understood the concept zero. If asked the difference between two objects, he also answered that; but if there was no difference between the objects, he said "none", which meant that he understand the concept of nothing or zero. In July 2006, Pepperberg discovered that Alex's perception of optical illusions was similar to human perception.
...
According to Dr. Pepperberg, the final time she saw Alex was on Thursday September 6. They went through their goodnight routine in which she told him it was time to go in the cage. She recalls that Alex said, "You be good. I love you." She responded, "I love you, too." He said, "You'll be in tomorrow," and she responded, "Yes, I'll be in tomorrow."
Upon first being presented with a red apple, and having learned no word for the fruit, Alex coined a new word: "banerry". This word is generally considered a portmanteau of the two fruits "banana" (for the texture of the interior) and "cherry" (for the color and shape). Dr. Pepperberg considered this an example of "complex two-way communication", wherein Alex was translating a concept as he understood it into a form comprehensible to humans by using his limited English vocabulary. This concept also translated when Alex referred to a green apple as a "banerry". Alex later referred to a golden delicious apple as a "banerry".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
So again, do animals have a meaning in life as well? Do animals equally have a purpose and, if not, then why not? What makes humans so much more important than animals? What makes humans so necessary?
Personally, I do not think that humans are any more important than other animals. We either both have an absolute meaning in life or, as I choose to believe, none of us do!
However, if there is no meaning to life aside from what we prescribe, what about morals? Many claim that, if there was no purpose in life, nothing absolute to aim for, surely we'd be able to do whatever we want? Well... No. This is a strawman argument. This would not be the case because it implies that there is no instinctive reaction not to murder anything else that moves. This in itself would cause societies to cease, so we know that this is not true. Being a strawman argument, there is not reason to respond to this comment directly.
I now wish to instead discuss why most of us abide by moral restrictions; examine why good is considered moral and bad is condemned as immoral; examine whether God is necessary to give us the distinctions; and how this instinctive knowledge of differences between moral and immoral behaviour may have arisen in an entirely natural way. In discussing these questions you will hopefully be able to see why the above comment is a strawman.
If there is no higher purpose, how do we know right from wrong or good from bad? How do we live a good and purposeful existence? It is often pointed out that computers don't know what is right or wrong unless we tell them and this can be a major argument in support of objective absolution. However, this counters previous claims about artificial life being truly 'alive'. You can't logically complain that computers are not really alive, then progressing to use their synthetic living existence to prove that humans have no natural morals. Secondly, what is the proof that good and evil actually exist?
It is argued that to have 'good' deeds, there must be 'evil' deeds in order to supply a comparison, but this is not a completely logical train of though. Good and evil attributes can be linked to actions and, if non of the evil actions were to be recreated, the good actions would not lose there positive effect. If we imaged two people counting from zero, one person counting up and the other down, we would have two geometric progressions of numbers, one positive and one negative, as with positive or negative actions. If we removed the person counting down, we would still have positive numbers. We would be able to simply measure the progression on the proceeding or preceding numbers.
Despite this, the argument that good deeds must be measured against 'evil' is, in itself, a fallacy. This implies that for a deed to be good, there must be a comparatively bad deed occurring. This is not true, as there only needs to be the possibility of this deed at the very most. As with the numbers, we can assume that '10' is a positive number without the presence of negative numbers, but simply with the knowledge that the number '-10' can exist.
Objective morals also rely on absolute immoral actions. This means that things that we consider to be wrong are always wrong and vise-versa. However, it is childish to perceive the world in such basic, black and white stance. A man can commit murder and not be an immoral person; likewise a mass murder can still perform good deeds, despite his horrific past. Let us consider the following scenario, originally inspired to me by the Harvard biologist and philosopher, Marc Hauser.
Let us imagine a runaway train, careering down the line. The train has no brakes and just past the end of the line there is a school full of children, unaware of the trains approach. This school is filled with kind, intelligent children, many wanting to grow up to be doctors, nurses, politicians, scientists and charity workers. They work hard and have their whole life ahead of them. Furthermore, on the train itself there are a number of scientists, doctors and lawyers.
Now imagine that there is a bridge over the track, on which a very large man is standing. This man is old, perhaps by 80 or 90 years. He weighs over 30 stone (or just shy of 200 Kg) and is critically ill. He has lived a life of crime, being a bully at school, driving other children to be miserable, himself leaving with no qualifications and committing theft, rape and paedophilia throughout his life. All in all, we can agree that he is an 'immoral' person, almost regardless of your definition of morality.
Now imagine that by pushing this man off the bridge and onto the track you can stop the train, saving the hundreds of children at the school and the hundreds more on the train itself. However, the man will almost definitely die. Now we have a moral dilemma and it becomes obvious that there is not such a simple answer: if you push the man, you'll be saving many people, but murder is an 'immoral' act.
Regardless of whether you yourself would actually be willing to push the man, I feel that many people would not condemn anyone who did push this man onto the track to stop the train. The world is not full of black and white, but subtle gradients of grey. How can we say that murder is always such an 'immoral' act?
Further, what is a moral act? Well, by the definition given above, we could deduce that a moral act is an act of positive contribution. This in effect means that a moral act is simply an act that is beneficial to those in question. So, morality is simply benefiting yourself those around you.
In biology, evolution is a process of change of genetic traits from one generation, which inherited to the next. Coupled with natural selection, evolution is essentially an adaptation due to mutation of genetic makeup in successive offspring; a change in allelic frequency over time due to natural selection and genetic drift.
I do not wish to divulge in depth regarding the trivialities or controversy opposing the Theory of Evolution - to attempt to do so is simply unnecessary. I assume a basic understanding of how evolution works on your behalf, but if we assume that evolution is correct then a basic understanding is all that is needed for the following sections. Please note that the Theory of Evolution is not "just a theory", but rather a scientific theory. Indirect observations and countless impartial evidence in a wide range of subjects, from biology and psychology to palaeontology and genetics, all unanimously support the Theory of Evolution. Such support to the theory has establish the process of evolution as a scientific fact, meaning that the occurrence of the process of evolution is considered - for all practical reasons - to be a truth.
If you think that you have any scientific proof that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, I look forward to watching you accept the first Nobel Prize for Biology! Likewise, if you think that you have any scientific proof for creationism, then you are certainly mistaken. By definition, scientific proof cannot be provided for any explanation concerning God, except the lack of; additionally, God can neither be proved or disproved using science - or any deviated discipline thereof - simply by definition. Now, let us continue.
One principle driving force behind evolution is the concept of Natural Selection, a process that filters out non-beneficial attributes. The phrase commonly associated with the term Natural Selection is "Survival of the Fittest", a simple yet powerful idea that makes the logical assumption that individuals that are less adapted to their environment - and hence less fit - will be much more vulnerable than the more adapted individuals of that species. This suggests that animals possessing non-beneficial attributes making them less adapted to their environment are more likely to be killed during their younger development and hence will be less likely to reproduce and pass on their inherited traits to successive generations.
In reflection, traits that are non-beneficial inevitably die out, and this includes behavioural attributes. Individuals that display behaviours that are likely to be non-beneficial to their survival present a greater risk to themselves than more cautious individuals. This means that non-beneficial attributes in an individual impair its chances of survival, as opposed to other individuals in that species. This ensures that not only the most physically adapt individuals survive, reproduce and pass on their traits, but also the most mentally dexterous.
From this, we can logically assume that animals that display traits that are beneficial will be more likely to survive than those who don't. Individuals that survive are hence surely more moral. Further, it is a benefit that animals are attracted to other 'moral' animals, so that the beneficial traits shared by both individuals can be passed on, helping decrease the change of non-beneficial attributes being passed on. It is a benefit to be beneficial to both individuals and societies that maintain that individual. This way, the animals will always progress in their morality, becoming more moral as time goes on. Societies that survive today must have natural biological repulsion against non-beneficial and hence immoral behaviour.
Also remember that minor declines in species can have dramatic effects on individuals and can easily lead to extinction. Even seemingly trivial acts can have grave consequences on a species. Hence, naturally, individuals that survive today must have beneficial attributes and would be attracted to other 'moral' individuals so that these beneficial attributes may continue with greatest efficiency.
So could this mean that morality is simply derived from what is beneficial through evolution? Do we not have a natural impulse to be moral because it is beneficial to either or both the individual concerned or the society that supports the individual? Let us examine specific morals and see what we can deduce whether or not this is the case.
Perhaps the most unanimously touted immoral act is the act of murdering at an interspecific level. But why is this immoral? Murder creates instability in a society and decreases reproductivity. There is only so much murder that can be committed in a society before the society collapses, and if an animal were prone to murder other members of its own species, this species would quickly diminish. Therefore, creatures that feel an obligation not to murder would be more likely to spread and prosper. This natural, biological impulse not to murder, perhaps in part responsible for the development of guilt in humans, explains why most humans see murder as 'wrong', simply because it is not beneficial.
It can be argued that murdering weaker individuals may be seen as a benefit to some, but even weaker individuals can have beneficial impacts on a large society. However, to be able to judge another animal's efficiency of adaptation and commit murder that is only beneficial takes very advanced intelligence and almost requires an understanding of the process of natural selection.
There may eventually even be an observable demonstration of this. As we understand the brain more, we may be able to detect the chemical reactions that occur before, during and after acts that are likely to cause great guilt, which can support this hypothesis. Unbeknownst to me, this process of evaluation may already exist.
Other morals can be studied in the same way. Let us take the idea of theft, for example. Let us take two squirrels that both need to store nuts for the winter. Now, one squirrel is lazy and doesn't want to store nuts. He decides that he will steal them off other squirrel. If it is a minority that does this, then the species will most likely survive. But, if this "selfish" attitude spreads too far and most squirrels start to steal then this will cause problems. The lazy squirrel will collect no nuts and attempt to steal from the other squirrels, only to find that they employed the same tactic and have themselves no nuts. This will cause famine and the population will decrease and maybe become extinct.
Those that survive are the squirrels that collected nuts and hid them well, and these traits are passed on to offspring. For the society to remain stable and progress, there must always be squirrels that collect their own nuts and don't intend to steal when unnecessary. The societies hosting squirrels that feel an obligation not to steal are the ones that prosper. Theft is instinctively non-beneficial and viewed with contempt.
The same can be seen with humans and we know it is wrong to steal as it creates an unstable society and could lead to dangerous population declines. We therefore reach the conclusion that stealing is wrong because it is not beneficial, and we call this act "immoral". This is how we develop many morals - through attributing non-beneficial acts as "wrong".
As earlier mentioned, behaviours that are non-beneficial inevitably die out, whilst behaviours that are beneficial or indifferent will usually prosper. Love is a beneficial emotion as animals that develop special bonding are more likely to stay together and protect each other, providing a safer environment for offspring. This in turn increases the chance of successful reproduction and allows a species to progress more efficiently. Therefore, love is beneficial and perhaps 'moral' as well.
Adultery is considered 'immoral' as it creates separation between two parents. Adultery counters the benefits of love and in many mammals, including early humans; it impairs the parenting and protection for offspring. Parents that do not remain together to raise a child offer less protection for the offspring. This implies that parents that remain loyal are more likely to successfully reproduce and again pass on these traits, allowing those individuals to prosper. Therefore, adultery is immoral because it is non-beneficial.
Listening to parents is again an evolutionary benefit. In a natural environment, most mammal offspring have an inbuilt tendency to copy their elders. Animals that do not copy elders and instead try to learn by unorthodox means, or question why, will most likely progress slower in the early and crucial stages of development. Many will eat from foods that their parents do not eat from, which may be poisonous, or they may not flee when certain predators approach. This all impairs development and will decrease that individual's chance of reproduction.
We are inbuilt with a respect for authority when we are young. At puberty, human brains literally re-wire themselves and develop. Our brain's ability to learn slows and we pick up new talents slower; we develop more concrete opinions and become more authoritative ourselves; we finally pass on our knowledge and experiences to our offspring who, in turn, take in all of what we say and use it to their own benefit. We almost act as tutors to every successive generation, and students who don't pay attention, don't learn how to survive. Hence, respect for our parents in extremely beneficial, and hence a 'moral' act.
You may have noticed were this is going, especially by the last argument: the 10 commandments, of course. Many argue that we receive our morals from scripture, proclaiming with ignorant audacity, "Why else don't you murder or steal?" Well, this is it, to be quite blunt. We don't do these 'immoral' acts because they are non-beneficial. We have a natural impulse not to murder or steal, and we don't achieve this impulse by scripture or God, but by natural and biological means. In fact, apart from the commandments about deviating from the Christian god, which if you don't believe in God are irrelevant, all of the commandments can be explained by natural means.
This explanation of morality can even be applied to those much more taboo 'immoral' acts, such as bestiality. If an animal is attracted to "anything that moves", it will essentially mate with "anything that moves". This is not beneficial as reproduction is less efficient, and animals could develop bonds with other, incompatible species; further impairing reproduction. Additionally, an individual could end up mating with a different, potentially dangerous individual.
Those animals that are attracted to only their species will mate exclusively within their species can pass on their genes. Hence, those that are sexually repulsed by other species will be more likely to successfully mate with their own species and pass on their genes. Those who are sexually attracted to other species will reproduce less efficiently and inevitably be driven to decline. Bestiality is, therefore, severely non-beneficial and hence immoral.
Necrophilia works on the same principles, as does paedophilia. In both instances, no reproduction will occur and it is a waste of energy for animals to partake in this activity. This means that it is beneficial to refine our reproductive habits to healthy, compatible individuals. Reproduction is very important for many wild animals, and the efficiency to reproduce can determine, in some instances, whether a species will flourish of dwindle. Many animals extend this further by competing for mates, meaning that only the very fittest or most adapted animals will pass on their traits.
From this we can see that both necrophilia and paedophilia are non-beneficial to a species, and hence are deemed immoral.
This is possibly where homophobia stems from. As homosexual relationships are not an evolutionary benefit - it impairs population growth and expansion - this has naturally become an act that many refer to as "immoral".
However, bisexuality can be seen as perhaps a benefit as it creates social bonds between individuals in a species. This can be demonstrated very well in Bonobo monkeys, whose individuals display many homosexual tendencies. It is thought by some that almost all individual humans are, at least in part, bisexual, just most to the extent so small that they do not display this trait. Perhaps homosexuality is merely a deviation of this.
However, in a modern society, homophobia (rather than homosexuality) is now more non-beneficial as it is unnecessary and creates social division. With such efficient protection, security and health care among human beings, our need for efficient reproduction is now completely redundant. In fact, since our reproduction is so intelligently efficient, we have spread and overpopulated our world to the extent that homosexuality is a beneficial impairment to our reproduction. Shouldn't this mean that homosexuality, as it stands, is beneficial and therefore moral?
As there are currently benefits to homosexuality, and it is no longer non-beneficial, it can certainly have no honest 'moral' objection. In fact, there are logical reasons for a certain proportion of the population from refraining from reproducing (For example, the ChildFree movement - www.childfree.net).
As there are currently benefits to homosexuality, and it is no longer non-beneficial, it can certainly have no honest 'moral' objection.
But the implications of this go well beyond. Based on the same arguments as above, we can argue that smoking is an 'immoral' act. It is not only very non-beneficial to individuals who partake in the habit, but passive smoking can have non-beneficial effects on others in a society. Hence, smoking is a vastly, though at the same time quite subtly, non-beneficial to the whole society, and deeply immoral. Perhaps this is why, despite other habits having huge health risks, smoking is seen as such a "dirty habit".
The idea of racism is much more complex. Racism itself is immoral as it creates, like murder, instability in a society. However, the reason some people are racist is a perversion of a beneficial behaviour.
Whilst it is considered immoral to steal or murder our own species, stealing from other species has its benefits. Our survival is not so reliant on a squirrel's survival, so if we can benefit from stealing from squirrels then it is not an immoral act. We also have a natural tendency to feel certain contempt or superiority to other species. If we felt such great guilt in killing other animals, if would be much harder to hunt. This lack of guilt towards other species is therefore beneficial to most animals, including many humans.
Along with this, similar species would be likely to offer competition to neighbouring species, hence increasing the combative nature between the two species.
Whilst different races of human are genetically the same, as well as in terms of physical and mental ability, there are notable visual differences, mainly skin tone and some aspects of facial structure.
Perhaps initially racism was simply a 'miss-firing' of our dislike for other species. Perhaps we perceived that, because of such immediate visual differences between races, they were other species.
Now that our understanding of genetics has increased, we understand that we are all part of the same species and hence that racism is an unbeneficial stance, making racism immoral. So, despite racism itself being moral, there is a strong likelihood that racism itself was perversely derived from a beneficial, moral behavioural attribute.
You may argue this last case with the human altruism to other mammals, including the fact that humans keep cats, dogs and mice as pets. However, this again can be seen as a perverse deviation of a beneficial behaviour.
Moving back to the concept of 'love', parenthood is a beneficial behavioural attribute. Human children have very obvious and unique features compared to other ages: large eyes; disproportionately large heads; small button noses; light, fluffy hair and simple movements and actions.
Many mammals share these characteristics, such as cats, dogs and mice, and it is perhaps simply our natural, inbuilt impulse to be a parent that creates the adoration of other mammals in humans. We often treat pets like young children, playing with them, pampering them, feeding them and treating them as a member of the family.
Would it again not be sensible to assume that the reason we show such altruism in a counter-beneficial way is simply a miss-firing of our natural parenting impulses?
I personally do not believe that human morals are directly inspired from scripture, but that these morals are simply naturally built in as required beneficial traits. How else could you explain how isolated human tribes, unaware of mainstream religious convictions, develop core, fundamental morals such as "do not steal" and "do not murder", without ever seeing a Bible, the Qu'ran or the Torah? Because we instinctively and biologically know it is wrong.
We have a concept of 'good' and 'bad' because it is beneficial to hold this perspective and it helps our community to progress as efficiently as possible. This doesn't mean that there is such a concept as 'good' or 'bad' but this doesn't mean that 'good' or 'evil' actually exist; regardless, all moral behaviour is essentially quite selfish. Morality is simple being beneficial to yourself without creating negative impairments on your society, or being beneficial to your society without creating negative impairments to yourself.
However, whilst these views of morals act as a spectacular, solid foundation on which we can build our morals, they can often fail to explain many modern aspects of human nature. As human intelligence has allowed such great technological advances, from the use as tools for protection, walls for security and drugs for health, we have managed to defy nature in a sense. We understand evolution and how it works, and we have the power to manipulate evolution.
A good example of a human's manipulation of Natural Selection (we shall call this Artificial Selection) is the breeding and domestication of wolves into what we now consider 'mans best friend'. Yes, you guessed it: the common, house hold dog.
However, there is a major problem with our intervention in evolution: evolution is not a process with a goal in mind, and you cannot accurately predict how evolution will work in different environments, but humans bred dogs with a goal in mind - this goal was often aesthetic - such as with Poodles or Pugs - or for nimble sizes - such as Jack Russels.
The problem that has resulted is that the British Bulldog has been so excessively bred to have a flat face that they have resulting respiratory problems - so severe, in fact, that breeding British Bulldogs is now illegal.
However, the implications of us being able to understand the world around us do have positive affects on the world around us. We now have the ability to build on our preceding morals and shape our future moral behaviour. With the increase in technology, we no longer face such strong natural pressures; our dependency on the efficiency of our reproduction no longer exists as our medical care and general protection is so strong; we no longer need to be so efficient at hunting as we have guns, quick transport and armour; we no longer need such an effective immune system as we now have drugs.
Whilst evolution does undeniably - in my opinion - give us a strong foundation for our morals, many of these instinctive behaviours no longer apply. Humans now have the ability to control environmental pressures, and with this we can change the way in which we 'evolve', hence changing our perception of what is morally acceptable or what behaviour is deemed more virtuous. But this is already happening to a great extent.
One example that works very well is literature. Whilst language originally developed as an important means of communication, it has progressed so dramatically, especially over the last few thousand years. We cannot deny that the original development of language was simply to communicate important facts between individuals - such as where prey is, what prey it is, what tools they have - but as the human race developed, we started to define and refine this basic form of communication into a language.
Now, in modern times, we have books, works of literature and works of art. We see beauty in them, and we learn to admire certain books, to revere certain writers. All of this has a foundation in basic, core concepts that can be derived from evolution, but humans have played their part in altering our views through a form of Artificial Selection.
However, there are many parts of art that still have evident foundations in evolution. Many aspects of great design, for example, derive their ideas from natural form. Ratios also play a huge aspect in great design, with architecture especially taking appreciation in the golden ratio. Some of the greatest architects of the ages, such as Palladio or Vitruvius, all relied heavily on ratios in their works.
Many great designers attribute sexual desire to their works by adding in curves that are meant to abstractly represent that of a female's body, and patterns or familiar objects or features that are presented in novel ways are usually important to aesthetics of great designs.
Humour is another example of this mechanism. Humour is simply an unexpected change in pattern, which releases a certain feeling in humans that we may call laughter or happiness. All of these concepts have dramatically changed in modern society, but all have their foundations in evolution and natural intuition.
So whilst our foundation of morals is build on intuition and a pre-eminent knowledge or what we should do - all 'created' by a process of evolution - it is solely humans that define modern morals, and whatever is beneficial to a society or an individual in a society - as long as it does not impair other individuals - can be deemed moral. The way in which humans chose to live will inevitably change what we can do to benefit society, and hence our moral obligations are not absolute; they will change. There may still be core moral values, though, that are unanimous to all species - these are all set out by evolution.
One example of this is climate change. We now have a moral obligation to combat climate change, as it will inevitably damage our society if we do not. Other animals do not have this moral obligation as they do not have the ability; likewise, humans would not have had this moral obligation 2000 years ago, because we would not have the ability. Unlike what you read from the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah or the 10 commandments, our moral obligations are not written in stone (excuse the pun).
Please note: the following sections are not finished and still need to be elaborated on. Whilst they currently contain the gist of the section, the sections are written in short-hand and may not be fully comprehendible in their current state.
Abortion and euthanasia are both controversial, not least in part because our evolutionary past did not rely on any of these principles and never before have these principles been necessary to our survival. Therefore we do not have an evolutionary basis for these issues and must derive our conclusions from other morals that pre-exist. I will discuss and expand on this soon as this section is not yet complete.
Politics is also affected strongly by morals. Capitalism superficially has strong points: it creates more economical competition, driving the market more. In depth it's evident that Capitalism's sole aim in progression is economic; capitalism doesn't encourage science or arts unless there is an economic benefit to it. Competition creates drive and pressure, main driving forces of evolution. 2000 years ago, some form of capitalism would be most efficient driving force in a country.
Equate to war: if war were not beneficial, the instinct to fight would not exist. War creates competition: some of the greatest technological advancements come in times of war - see Atomic Theory: creation of nuclear bomb to end war: after war, Atomic Theory is transferred to energy production and has many benefits to society. Most major advances pre-21st century is in times of war or great competition (such as drought, etc.). War lifts America out of 1920's Wall Street Crash.
However, in modern society, competition relating to war or economy is not so necessary: global warming is new drive of competition, as is equality. Large companies are driven to both offer fair trade and help combat global warming.
Economy is still a major factor in development of humanity, but as the world's population becomes wealthier as a whole, money will begin to play less of a factor. Newer driving forces are fame and celebrity status: celebrity endorsement can change the market. Also note that comfort plays a bigger part in lives. People want less working hours and more comfortable working conditions. A nicer job is often preferred to good pay (unless the pay difference is particularly distinguishable).
Communism allows more emphasis on arts or science; in modern society, capitalism is required in part to create competition. Personal belief that full communism creates less competition; however, communism is required in part to bring equality to a society. Inevitable decrease in class gaps due to technology will make communism become more acceptable and capitalism less acceptable.
In the current climate, countries remain economically driven. Therefore, competition requires capitalism of sorts, though as time progresses, people will inevitably find equality to be more beneficial to society. Whilst we still need competition, as equality increases, economy will provide less competition and hence the world will tend towards communism.
Consider medieval Britain. The lords of that time lived in greater squalor than those of us today who're considered 'depraved' in many senses. Authority gave them status, but the poor had little to work towards as there was no way of breaking the barriers between rich and poor. Demoralising, and creates less competition as there are less competing businesses. Economic growth of technology occurs when equality becomes more prevalent and there is more drive. More people have the opportunity to provide, etc.
This doesn't mean that economic capitalism is wrong and economic communism is right; indeed, 1000 years ago, communism would not function at all - if anything it would impair the countries progression. As with evolution, we must adapt to the 'climate' and, as the world goes on, communism will prove to be better adapted to the future climates of equality. As the world becomes unanimously wealthier, money will become less of a drive, and we'll need other forms of competition to drive us. Fame is already becoming one of these driving forces, as is intellectual pursuit (such as people spending more and more time in education).
A beneficial aspect of society is for the society to excel; this also means that individuals must excel. It is beneficial for us to show empathy, and hence sharing is moral as it helps a society to flourish. If all individuals in a society are selfish, that society will tend to fall apart much more easily and will perhaps be less adapted for survival. As we gain more of an ability to alter our sense of morality through Artificial Selection, we'll inevitably tend towards a weak, economic communist state.
The appearance of social degradation also supports this view. As morals become stricter, humans have not adapted fast enough. As pressure becomes less strong, humans have less pressure to 'evolve', so hence adaptations occur slower. We can't keep up with our morals. Whilst 2000 years ago, the behaviour of beating a child who is different would possibly be applauded, now our understanding of morals condemns this. We have yet to adapt to the moral climate as it is changing too fast as there is too much progression in technology and living conditions that is changing this climate.
Since morals are beneficial acts towards society, as we progress we will inevitably tend towards supporting society as a whole rather than individuals in that society. Goals of capitalism are economic growth, not growth in well-being. This benefits individuals, but not the society. As money becomes less of an issue (with increase in average wealth), money will become less of a driving force and communism will become more prevalent. Communism emphasises unanimous beneficial progression, which may be more moral in future political government. There must, however, remain a different competitive resource to money for populations to grow, and perhaps this could be knowledge or culture.
Not to say that past governments are less moral, as at the time capitalism allowed more progression. Morals will always change (see part X).
The moral aspects of vegetarianism will be discussed here: mainly argued will be the personification of animals due in part to the similarities of animals to young humans, how this creates a misfiring of inter-species altruism and how we feel an natural tendency to mother animals. Also note less altruism to insects and plants, as there are fewer similarities, so we feel less of this tendency. More tendencies towards dogs and cats as they have the most similarities to humans. This personification of altruism causes a feeling of empathy to animals. The feeling of empathy is real, but irrational – there is no logical basis of this altruism and empathy.
Animals have benefits to society as pets or food, but pets provide limited benefits, and the aim of vegetarianism is not to eat meat, so this negates from the animals benefits to society. We have other foods, so this is not counter-beneficial.
Note that perception of moral obligation is present and feels real, but no actual moral obligation. Also counter with facts that New Zealand cattle industry constitutes as the source of more than 50% of New Zealand's green house gas emissions. Moral obligation does exist toward helping environment, so must use less meat, perhaps eat more fish. Vegetarianism, in this aspect, is a moral obligation. Being as there are no non-beneficial aspects of vegetarianism in populations who can afford non-meat alternatives, eating less meat is moral - refusing to eat any meat is not.
As we control our pressures and hence our morality, we begin to adapt our morality. As we personify animals more, we begin to include animals in our 'society'. As time progresses, I predict that we'll personify them more, often to the extent whereby animals are often treated as humans and we personify them to the extent that they can be given rights, allowed to own property. In fact, this is already happening - again, no moral obligation, but personification. We perceive it to be more moral to be altruistic (but only inter-species) so in an effort to accentuate our morality (as we are attracted to moral behaviour, as argued above) we extend our morality to animals. Gives us the perception of being more moral, and hence we feel more moral. Not, in fact, the case.
Also point out that cattle survive and are bred for human consumption: to stop eating them, we'd have no obligation to protect them, so they'd inevitably become extinct. If world became vegetarian, all chickens and many cows and pigs would face severe population declines and possible extinction.
There is no moral superiority to being a vegetarian, but there is to eating less meat and being more conservative. Therefore best solution is to eat less meat, but not necessarily stop eating meat altogether.
One criticism that may be offered is the argument that 'mentally/ physically disabled/ infertile people may not be beneficial to society, so should we kill them instead of wasting resources on them'. Strawman argument. Point out that Natural Selection doesn't have a goal to 'cull' people of less benefit. If people show non-beneficial traits, they stand a lower chance of survival: Natural Selection works as a means of trial and error and doesn't have a path it follows - it certainly doesn't have pre-supposed ideas about what will work, so it doesn't chose to 'cull' anyone.
Mention that not being fertile/ being mentally or physically impaired doesn't mean you can't benefit society. Infertile people can still contribute in terms of expanding human knowledge, helping others, being teachers, etc. We are too efficient at breeding anyway, so reproduction is no longer such an obligation to us. As to disabilities, examine people such as Steven Hawking and his undeniably great contributions to our society in terms of theoretical knowledge and scientific advancements.
Likewise, humans do not know what is necessarily beneficial. Examine human intervention with breeding dogs: British Bulldog and respiratory problems due to heavy breeding; additionally, ask the critics, 'who decides, then, what is beneficial?' Examine problems with technocracy in this matter maybe. What is beneficial, you'd need to be able to answer this fully before you can decide that someone isn't beneficial: before you can tell every way someone can be beneficial or non-beneficial, you can't decide on such severe and undoable actions against those you consider 'non-beneficial'.
May sound callous, but just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it isn't true!
Other strange criticism: this viewpoint is egocentric towards humans as it assumes that humans are more important. I actually claim that we help humans as oppose to animals because we're humans and hence humans are in our best interest. If you see both a dog and a human drowning at sea and you can only save one of them, you'd probably save the human! We see humanity as more important to us, but this is subjective; humans are not at all more important, but they are more important to us. Likewise, other animals such as wild dogs would see other dogs as more important that humans; are they spiciest too?
This article is a work in progress, and many ideas are still not fully defined. As time goes on and I discuss my ideas with all manner of people, many aspects of this article will be refined or elaborated on. If you strongly agree or disagree, I would be happy to consider your critique and, if you offer strong enough a case, perhaps I will review and modify my article as necessary: so please, I urge you, if you find an aspect of my article to be wrong, or wish to compliment or elaborate on any aspect - no matter how salient - please contact me using the address at the bottom of the page.
Likewise, it may be easy to misconstrue the aim of this article. This article is not in order to argue that evolution is the sole means of assessing whether an action is moral or immoral; this article simply argues that evolution is the foundation of modern behaviours such as guilt and empathy, and evolution can intricately explain our moral foundation, i.e. why the human race unanimously agrees that murder, theft and torture are all wrong; additionally, whilst this article argues that evolution can determine moral behaviour superficially, I must also point out that based on modern society, many of these morals may alter, as argued in Part VI of this article.
Needless to say, the underlying factor that determines our morals is still evolution, but simply by an Artificial Selection, as opposed to Natural Selection. As with biological evolution, there is no goal or point of perfection; there is no 'top of the ladder' and there is no 'perfect species'. Evolution is simply an animals adaption to an environment. Some very wrongly compare evolution to a ladder of growing complexity, with humans often at the top; a better analogy for evolution is a tree, with each branch representing a path of adaption and each leaf being an extant species.
As with my view of morality, there is no point of perfect morality: the morals can always change and adapt. The fact that humans can control these adaptations doesn't mean that evolution is not an important underlying factor - quite the contrary, evolution is the only factor. The process of the evolution is all that changes, as no longer is the evolution controlled by Natural Selection, but - as with, say, breeding dogs - there is a human driven Artificial Selection that controls the direction that morality must take. This is argued for in relation to changes in politics in Part VI of this article.
Likewise, to elaborate on this; we cannot tell where evolution is heading as, again, it has no goal. There will never be any set of absolute morals because the situations we find humanity in opposition of always change. As the climate changes, as will what is moral or immoral, and we cannot know beforehand what the future will hold!
We can make predictions about what might happen, but evolution doesn't have a set process of filtration; evolution works by trial and error. A random mutation occurs and, if beneficial, it will stay. Likewise, whilst we may uphold certain moral ideals, we do not know what is always best and we must observe morals by trial and error. We can't decide, "that person is non-beneficial because they do not work" for example, because they can still provide benefits that we do not consider. If we try to control evolution too strongly, only breeding certain individuals for certain criteria, we will end up introducing moral considerations that are not effective. Whilst certain traits may seem beneficial or non-beneficial, we can't known until we can witness the consequences of many repeats, and use trial and error to decide what is more moral.
To summarise, in evolution we cannot predict how an animal will evolve or how an animal will adapt to a certain environment. The best we can hope for is to create a working model of how evolution works, and use this to predict what features are likely to rise in certain environment. Likewise, being part of evolution, we cannot accurately predict how our morals will change to changing pressures; there is no moral absolute and no morally superior species. There is no top of the ladder, and no peak to the pyramids; evolution and morality are trees by which we can depict what we are and where we came from.
The best we can hope for with morality is to create a working model of how our morals may have arisen into the diverse social acceptances of the modern human society, and us this to predict moral trends. Morality will always adapt and change, but it also has a root. As humanity takes more control over the direction of this morality, perhaps accepted morals may become perverted, synthetic or controversial, but they will not necessarily be wrong as long as they remain positive acts of contribution.
One final point to make is that this argument as to the basis of morals does not justify the extent of how moral an action is. For example, this article was not written to argue whether murder is more immoral than theft, say, and I do not think that there is any golden rule as to determine this. In this respect, the intention and the consequences of the act must be taken into consideration - as with determining how harshly a criminal must be punished for either manslaughter or murder. I cannot stress how important that it is seen that Natural Selection is used to determine our moral foundation only!
So, my purpose in life is to enjoy myself; help others less fortunate; learn and progress my understanding of the world around me; and leave a gift to the future generations. I hope that my life will, in some way, benefit humans as a whole and, if I can die content that I have lived a joyous life, safely with the knowledge that I have improved the lives of even just a few individuals, then my purpose in life will have been fulfilled. This is my meaning of life...