Darwin and the Descent of Morality

An important part of the current controversy over the theoretical status of evolutionary theory concerns its moral implications. Does evolutionary theory undermine traditional morality, or does it support it? Does it suggest that infanticide is natural (as Steven Pinker asserts) or is it a bulwark against liberal relativism (as Francis Fukuyama argues)? Does it rest on a universe devoid of good and evil (as Richard Dawkins has bluntly stated) or can it be used to provide a new foundation for natural law reasoning (as Larry Arnhart contends)?

The obvious place to go in the debate is to the source. Darwin himself considered morality of whatever stripe to be a byproduct of evolution, one more effect of natural selection working upon the raw material of variations in the individual. Nature did not “intend” to create any particular type of morality, any more than nature intended to create one certain length of finch beak. Nor does nature “judge” any particular type of morality as long as it does not violate the principle of natural selection. That, as we shall see, allows for such moral leeway that it creates insuperable problems for conservatives who might solicit Darwin’s help in their cause.

We find Darwin’s account of morality in his Descent of Man, a work published after his more famous Origin of Species. As should be no surprise, the arguments of the Origin provided the theoretical foundations for his natural history of morality in the Descent.

True to his naturalist bent, Darwin’s natural history of morality (or more properly, moralities) assumed evolution to be true and sought to explain how the existing moral varieties could have evolved in the same way that natural selection had brought about the great variety of existing species.

For Darwin the “moral faculties of man” were not original and inherent, but evolved from “social qualities” acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral.

From the beginning, then, Darwin rejected the Christian natural law argument, according to which human beings are moral by nature. Instead, he followed the pattern of the modern natural right reasoning of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which assumed that human beings were naturally asocial and amoral, and only became social and moral historically. That is why Darwin called his account a natural history of morality.

For Darwin, in order to become moral we first had to become social. “In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,” Darwin reasoned, “they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body.” As with all animal instincts, the “social instincts” of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival.

What we call “conscience” was also the result of natural selection. Darwin described it as a “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results . . . from any unsatisfied instinct.” Since the “ever-enduring social instincts” were more primitive and hence stronger than instincts developed later, the social instincts were the sources of our feelings of unease when some action of ours violated them. Such feelings of unease, Darwin explained, we now call “conscience.”

It might seem that Darwin’s arguments for human sociability and the moral conscience could be marshaled to support a conservative moral position. Yet mere “sociality,” even with a conscience grounded in evolutionary imperatives, does not at all mean that nature has created a definite moral standard, such as natural law. Quite the reverse. At bottom, everything is variable. As Darwin writes:

If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. Nevertheless the bee, or any other social animal, would in our supposed case gain, as it appears to me, some feeling of right and wrong, or a conscience. . . . In this case an inward monitor would tell the animal that it would have been better to have followed one impulse rather than the other. The one course ought to have been followed: the one would have been right and the other wrong.

The same variability holds as well within the natural history of human moralities as they actually evolved. So, for example, the “murder of infants has prevailed on the largest scale throughout the world, and has met with no reproach.” Indeed, “infanticide, especially of females, has been thought to be good for the tribe, or at least not injurious.” As for suicide, in “former times” it was “not generally considered as a crime, but rather from the courage displayed as an honorable act. . . . For the loss to a nation of a single individual is not felt.” Neither did infanticide or suicide cause the “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results . . . from any unsatisfied instinct.” Monogamy, too, Darwin informed the reader, was a fairly recent evolutionary phenomenon.

Yet Darwin balked at embracing the relativism he created, and insisted on ranking evolved moral traits. The unhappy result, however, was his espousal of views we would today call racist, and his justification of a program of eugenics. Ranking evolved moral traits meant ranking the races accordingly. Thus Darwin cheerfully asserted that the “western nations of Europe immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.” As a member of the favored race, Darwin embraced a typically nineteenth-century view of moral progress. “Looking to future generations,” he wrote, “there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance . . . [so that] virtue will be triumphant.”

But the engine of evolution, even moral evolution, is natural selection. Therefore, Darwin believed that the evolution of morality would require the extermination of “less fit” races and individuals—a process that could be helped along by artificial selection, or eugenics. This unsavory conclusion was derived directly from the principles of evolution. We see in animals that, “in regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper, etc., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts.” Since different races, like different breeds of dogs or horses, develop different capacities, it followed that distinct gradations in moral capacities would be found among human races.

Whereas St. Thomas’ natural law account began from the assumption that all human beings belonged to the same species (and were therefore all subject to the same moral demands), Darwin tried to determine whether human races should be considered distinct species. In the end, he was unsure whether to rank the races “as species or sub-species” but finally asserted that “the latter term appears the most appropriate.”

Whether races are species or sub-species, it is easy to see how such reasoning allowed Darwin to rank the races on an evolutionary scale. Because natural selection must be the cause of the existence of different races, Darwin argued that the various races would necessarily have varying intellectual and moral capacities. So that, for example, the “American aborigines, Negroes, and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named.” As we have seen, the Europeans came out on top.

Darwin argued further that the different races created by natural selection were necessarily and beneficially locked in the severest struggle for survival. As he put it in the Origin, "It is the most closely allied forms . . . which, from having nearly the same structure, constitution, and habits, generally come into the severest competition with each other; consequently, each new variety of species, during the progress of its formation, will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to exterminate them."

This argument translated directly to his assessment of the evolutionary history of human races, and the necessary and beneficial extinction of the less favored races.

"The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope . . . the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

The European race will inevitably emerge as the distinct species "human being," and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, the Negro, and so on—will be extinct. Furthermore, natural selection functions not only between races, but also among individuals within races. Here, oddly enough, Darwin maintained that savage man has an advantage over civilized man. In savage man, the intellectual and moral qualities are not as developed, but such lack actually works to weed out the unfit: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.”

Unfortunately, the very development of human compassion which serves to mark the Europeans as more civilized also works against the principle of survival of the fittest.

"We civilized men . . . do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

What could be done to prevent the European race from devolving under the influence of the weak and the sick? Let the principles of natural selection be applied without obstruction. “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence,” Darwin reminded the reader, “and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle.” Turning to the wisdom of animal breeders, Darwin proclaimed that “there should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.” The worst, of course, should not be allowed to breed at all.

How forcefully ought this program to be carried out? Darwin was vague, but ended with the remark: “All do good service who aid toward this end.” What may we gather from Darwin’s evolutionary account of morality? To begin with, Darwin rightly understood that bare sociality allowed for a startling variety of moralities. In contrast to the very determinate list of requisite virtues, definite commands, and established ends in the traditional natural law account, evolution brings forth many different modes of group survival. Just as male lions, when taking over a pride, kill the young that were fathered by the ousted dominant male, so also human societies have flourished quite well with the murder of rivals to regal authority. And just as many female animals will let the runt of the litter die by refusing it nourishment, so also many human societies have survived for hundreds of years by exposing their unwanted and deformed babies. Merely having “social instincts” includes so much that it excludes almost nothing considered morally reprehensible.

Although many today would shudder at Darwin’s racism, we must concede that Darwin’s conclusions were correctly drawn from his evolutionary principles. If evolution is true, and the races themselves are the result of the struggle to survive, then how could intellectual and moral qualities not be diversely acquired by different races?

As for the survival of the fittest, contemporary liberals have attempted to separate Darwin from Social Darwinism, but Darwin’s own words advocating severe struggle show us quite clearly that he was the first Social Darwinist. Conservatives (who are often early modern liberals in outlook and temperament) sometimes look fondly at the purifying effects of “severe struggle,” substituting economic for natural battle. Such fondness is not rooted in the natural law of Aquinas, but, as Leo Strauss argued, in the modern natural right theory of John Locke (as filtered through Adam Smith). But modern natural right theory has led to the world according to Pinker and Dawkins.

Larry Arnhart, in particular, seems to have blurred this fundamental distinction, for he quotes Aquinas (“Conservatives, Darwin & Design: An Exchange,” FT, November 2000) as saying that “natural right [emphasis added] is that which nature has taught all animals,” when Thomas actually said that “those things are said to belong to the natural law [lex naturalis] which nature has taught to all animals.” In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas does not mean to say that natural law is shared by all animals including human beings—the natural law, as the “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,” pertains only to human beings (I-II, 91.2)—but that natural law includes natural inclinations shared by other animals, “such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring, and so forth.” But for Darwin, we don’t just share some aspects of our nature with animals. We are ultimately indistinguishable from other animals, and therefore subject to th e very same laws of evolution.

The effort of Arnhart and others to affirm the premises of evolution, and to affirm at the same time a morality grounded in natural law, inevitably fails. Natural law doctrine only makes sense in a universe governed by a benevolent Creator. Nor will it do to affirm both Darwinian evolution and a vague theism, for the engine of such evolution is, on principle, incompatible with any design or direction from above—and that includes moral design and direction. The Darwinism of Pinker and Dawkins, one must conclude, is much more coherent than that of Fukuyama and Arnhart.

This data file is the sole property of FIRST THINGS. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e.,"Copyright (c) 1991-2001 by First Things") and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.

This data file may not be used without the permission of FIRST THINGS for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.

Howdy! Thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic (a fundamental one at that)...

You've missed the point completely. The argument is not about morals per se -- anybody can invent a system and call it "morals."

True.

Rather, the argument is about absolute morality -- without which concepts such as "unalienable rights" make no sense except as a matter of convenience.

The standard-issue FR libertarians (and objectivists in general) claim that one can by reason alone discover and prove the existence of absolute morality. Such claims do not stand up to logical scrutiny, however -- and evolutionary theory (which they tend to defend with vigor)provides empirical evidence to that effect.

Ah, but "absolute" morality as I think you're defining it is what we Objectivists would call a "floating abstraction". You can think of morality as being absolute in its proper context: In this case it's the context of humankind. (Otherwise this same "absolute morality" should be enforced for lions when they ruthlessly gang up on a zebra!)

Morality is a tool we humans use to sustain civilized society, which is the only way a thinking species like ours can exist above the Ted Kaczynski level. This is obviously an objectively Good Thing for humans.

The plain facts are that homo sapiens is a species of thinking animals. In fact, we have little in the way of instincts that we can rely on to survive - that's why we need to live in the protection of our parents for 15 years or more. And all our knowledge of how the world works and how best to survive & thrive in it comes from using our rational capabilities to sift out truth from mere fantasy & wishful thinking.

Couple these two fundamental truths about our species with one more insight from game theory: In an environment where people interact with each other again & again over time (i.e. civilized society), the most profitable strategy by far is to cooperate honestly with everyone, except in order to retaliate against someone who lies or steals from you - even if you'd profit more in the short term by screwing the other guy first. These 3 things alone imply very, very much about what a proper, sustainable moral system for humans should look like. And you know what? It looks very much like the standard Libertarian code: "Non-initiation of force or fraud" + "Individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions, not groups".

I contend that these basic codes are so profitable a long-term survival strategy compared to anything else, that they have been selected for by evolution ever since our ancestors first started getting big brains & formed complex social networks. This is why it's utterly ridiculous when some on your side (not you, I don't think) claim that evolution encourages us to act like lower animals.

Logic demands that if unalienable rights exist, they must have a source outside of "objective reality."

That doesn't follow at all. If unalienable rights exist, they are objectively true. You're saying an objective truth cannot have its basis in objective reality??? Whazzup wid' DAT???

That's correct, but postulating a deity is very useful if you want people to follow those morals. Of course it would be wonderfull if everyone understands the reasonings behind those rules but reality shows that this is not the case. Only a minority really sees the consequences that can arise if you follow respectively do not follow those rules. For the rest the "do/don't do that because I told you so" argument should suffice.
Now if this "I" is an immortal god that knows and sees everything the chances are much higher that the people obey those rules as if it were a mere human.
As an example imagine what Islam would be today if Mohammed wrote in the Qu'ran that he said this or commanded that and not Allah.

Sometimes I'm willing to share such a pessimistic view of humanity. And if that was the case, maybe I could go along with it, re-learn all the stories & learn how to retell them to others with a sincere look on my face. But even then I wish there was a place where us religious leaders could all let our hair down & admit freely to each other that we're only spinning these mythical mystical tales to keep the lumpen proletariat in line. But none of the very knowledgable religious advocates here on FR are willing to come out & admit that. (Maybe 'cuz it's a public forum? If any of you creationists admitted it to me in private, I wouldn't tell.)

Well, I am not that pessimistic but I think to be a moral agent out of insight and not because of fear is dependent on your level of education. You certainly agree with me that the average individual in those ancient societies were not so educated than the average individual in our western society. And even for most people today it is not self-evident that morality can be explained with game theory. Societies only exist because of the so called win-win situations where cooperation (in a broader sense) is better that competition. If such win-win situations do no longer exist societies would dissipate.

But even then I wish there was a place where us religious leaders could all let our hair down & admit freely to each other that we're only spinning these mythical mystical tales to keep the lumpen proletariat in line. But none of the very knowledgable religious advocates here on FR are willing to come out & admit that. (Maybe 'cuz it's a public forum? If any of you creationists admitted it to me in private, I wouldn't tell.)

LOL, but maybe they don't come out and admit it because most of them really believe all that stuff and those that don't believe it are not going to tell anyone because that's part of the game ;->
A good example for this are politicians. While I don't deny the fact that most of the major politicians are devout Christian/Jews, I'm pretty sure that some are not that religious at all but they pretend to be because I don't know one who says that religion is of no importance to him. They don't have to be atheists but Christians who are not deeply religious and thus don't go to church very often or don't go at all. But as soon as they run for an office they go to church every Sunday and make sure they are seen doing so but as they are no longer in office and have no further political ambitions they don't go to church any longer. That may be hypocritical but it's necessary if you want to have success.

Why did space itself suddenly decide to expand?

Unknown at this time. There are some theories as to how, but "why" is more of a theological question.

How long had it been there "unexpanded" before it decided to expand??

The question is actually unanswerable because time, as physics deals with it, essentially did not exist prior to the universe. Time can variously be considered to be a measure of entropy or a measure of the expansion of the universe. It really has no conceptual or mathematical meaning prior to the existence of the universe itself.

How are you certain that space expanded? Were you there?

None of us were around to see T-Rex either, but we've got good fossil skeletons that make the scientific case for its existence. Likewise there is good evidence for spacetime expansion.

Are there people who DON'T do acid who believe that space expanded??

Expansion is supported by obeservable astronomical evidence. It is very clear from observation that on the large scale, all objects in the universe are moving away from each other (there are exceptions on a smaller scale when say, two galaxies come under the influence of each other's gravity well and begin to collide). The best way to explain how all objects can be receding from every other object is to envision them as existing on the surface of a hypersphere. If you stuck two dimensional objects on a half inflated balloon and then blew it up, all those objects would likewise recede from every other object on the surface of the baloon. The conceptual leap is that the objects aren't moving through spacetime so much as they are moving along with expanding spacetime.

RadioAstronomer or Physicist can certainly explain it better and more accurately, but that's the back of the sugar packet explanation, anyway.

I for one would love to live in the world of Jefferson vs. the amoral, scumbag, hedonist society of the post-Darwin era. If you enjoy the chaos and moral relativism of modern society then you are welcome to it. There are still many who would love to live in a world with some principles.

I once thought as you did, but as I've grown up, I've realized that history isn't all it has cracked up to be, and that the past is generally must nastier and much more toxic than today. Living in 18th century America was bloody, dirty, and filth and disease ridden. Sort of like living in scarier parts of the world right now. Your life expectancy would be about 15-20-25 years shorter than it is right now, and if you got your wife pregnant, you wouldn't be sure that she or your new child survived the birthing process.

I'd also hazard a guess that the idyllic morality that you strive for in the past isn't all you make it out to be, either. Give me now over then anyday.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.