A Brief History of Morality

The quest to define the most virtuous actions has been a subject of debate for millennia, from ancient Greek philosophers to contemporary discussions.

Two thousand years ago, thinkers like Plato and Aristotle posited that a virtuous individual is one who suppresses base desires and focuses on intellectual pursuits.

Epicurus, however, contended that engaging in physical pleasures is both necessary and moral.

Fast forward to the Enlightenment, where philosopher David Hume asserted that moral actions cannot be justified without appealing to a transcendent being. He proposed that morality is a social construct essential for maintaining societal order.

Jeremy Bentham later argued that moral actions are entirely contingent on their outcomes, defining morality as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Since then, numerous thinkers have posed challenging thought experiments to demonstrate that merely categorizing moral actions by their consequences is insufficient.

In today's world, the significance of moral reasoning is heightened by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Historian Yuval Noah Harari even suggests that philosophers may be among the last jobs automated in the 21st century, as they will collaborate closely with AI engineers.

We ponder: if we program consequentialist logic into AI, is it justifiable to compromise individual freedoms for the sake of collective equality?

Moral philosophers have grappled with many intricate questions that seem perpetually unresolved, a situation made more pressing by emerging surveillance technologies and the development of potentially autonomous AI.

While the best moral actions remain elusive, it is more straightforward to analyze what drives us to behave ethically, as data offers insightful explanations.

Yet, we first need to clarify what morality truly means.

What is Morality?

Christians assert that moral laws are universal, derived from divine revelation (like the Ten Commandments) or inherent within us (our conscience). They believe this, along with possessing a soul, differentiates humans from animals.

Conversely, morality can be interpreted more broadly, and does not necessarily rely on divine revelation. This divergence is a key point of contention between atheists and Christians.

What, then, constitutes morality? Defining it simply is challenging, and there are differing opinions on whether morality must be universal.

Robert Solomon, in his widely referenced textbook Introducing Philosophy, describes morality as "a set of fundamental rules that guide our actions."

Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene defines it as "a collection of psychological adaptations that enable otherwise selfish individuals to benefit from social cooperation."

Michael Shermer adds that morality concerns how we interact with other moral agents, determining whether our actions are right or wrong concerning their survival and well-being.

Notably, none of these definitions propose that these "adaptations" or "rules" must be universal.

Yet, some atheists argue, like their Christian counterparts, that morality can indeed be universalized.

This notion was notably championed by renowned 20th-century moral philosopher John Rawls, although it has faced considerable criticism.

In response to Rawls' universal morality, Mark Johnson argues:

> I will suggest it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.

Debate continues over the necessity of universal morality. Why do Christians maintain that universals are essential for moral justification?

Does Morality Have to be Universal?

Christian apologists argue that abandoning "Judeo-Christian values" will inevitably lead society to chaos and nihilism. This view is prevalent among many Christian defenders.

Timothy Keller posits that by rejecting divine revelation for moral truths, Enlightenment thinkers discarded a "telos for human beings," suggesting that the Enlightenment stripped away reasons for moral behavior.

In Gunning for God, John C. Lennox contends that "atheism does not provide any intellectual foundation for morality."

Geneticist and Evangelical Francis Collins states, "[I]f the moral law is merely an evolutionary side effect, then good and evil lose their meaning."

Thus, Christian apologists maintain that for objective morality to exist, moral truths must be eternal; they cannot simply be a product of evolution, which would imply randomness and arbitrariness in our moral codes.

However, empirical studies reveal that everyday individuals act morally without necessarily adhering to an objective moral framework. Atheists often still find value in treating their neighbors with respect.

What Makes Atheists Behave Morally?

Ultimately, what stops atheists from engaging in theft, deception, or violence when all laws and penalties are stripped away?

Certainly, societal influences play a role, but atheists also possess another compelling motivator to act ethically: genetics—the ultimate moral compass.

For Christians, evolution is an unsatisfactory explanation because it implies morality developed by chance.

Keller argues that evolutionary explanations for morality seem like "a trick played by our biology or society." He suggests that even if altruistic behavior benefited our ancestors, it does not impose a moral obligation on us today.

Our ancestral survival does shape our behavior. Much of our understanding of human conduct is based on this premise. For instance, when someone on a diet struggles with chocolate cravings, experts describe this "irrational behavior" as a misalignment with evolutionary functions.

Research demonstrating that taking walks boosts productivity is attributed to our ancestral habitats and genetic backgrounds.

When we help a friend in need and receive help in return, this reciprocal behavior fosters the passing down of genes that support such actions. It is reasonable to assert that genetics influence human behavior as significantly as our environment.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins elaborates on why genes facilitate altruistic behavior. He notes that it is common for genes to "ensure their selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically."

Dawkins outlines four Darwinian reasons for individuals to exhibit altruism or 'morality' towards each other:

1. Genetic kinship.
2. Reciprocation: the expectation of favor repayment.
3. The evolutionary advantage of establishing a reputation for generosity.
4. (Theory) Conspicuous generosity as a display of dominance.

Dawkins posits that altruism was advantageous for early humans. Natural selection shaped our brains to experience urges for altruism, reproduction, hunger, and even xenophobia.

He observes that when a woman on birth control still feels a desire to reproduce, it is "independent of the ultimate Darwinian pressure that drove it." The same is true for altruism:

> "In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. . . . Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule . . . persists. . . . It is just like sexual desire."

Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson argue that human cooperation beyond familial and tribal lines began developing around 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture.

As food became scarce, tribes competed, leading to alienation except during communal gatherings for resource sharing.

As communities expanded, the benefits of trade and collaboration emerged, allowing tribes to cooperate for mutual advantage.

Altruism Across the Animal Kingdom

Crucially, cooperation is not exclusive to humans, reinforcing the case for an evolutionary basis for morality. If humans were the only species with moral capacities, one might argue that God implanted a moral compass within us, despite our sinful tendencies.

Of course, Christians need not reject evolution; they could argue that God utilized evolution to instill our moral compass.

However, the widespread occurrence of altruism across species complicates this argument. For example, elephants and whales, having evolved independently, exhibit similar social behaviors and friendships.

Nicholas Christakis notes that the independently evolved morality of elephants and whales "demonstrates that this pattern of traits—the social suite—is adaptive and coherent."

Patricia S. Churchland describes numerous instances of interspecies cooperation, such as ravens leading coyotes to food sources and the long-standing partnership between humans and dogs.

Different species can assist one another and recognize each other's needs.

Churchland recounts a story of a female baboon named Ahla, who "led the farmer’s goats out in the morning, gave alarm calls if she spotted a predator, brought the goats back to the barn in the evening, groomed the goats, and regularly escorted separated juvenile goats back to their mothers."

Animals lacking the social instincts necessary for survival are less likely to thrive and reproduce. Thus, we can observe altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom as it enhances survival.

Many may read this and interpret the notion of morality as an evolutionary adaptation as a precursor to discarding morality altogether.

Keller argues, "[W]hat has been generally beneficial to the species over the ages may not be particularly beneficial to an individual in the present," suggesting that if morality is merely a matter of benefit rather than a spiritual obligation, then ethical guidelines can be adopted or discarded at will.

Consequently, many, including Keller, conclude that "There’s simply no way to tell right from wrong" and that we "shouldn’t try."

However, Keller overlooks a fundamental truth: morality is not merely a tool, but an obligation that transcends individual desires.

For many, the act of stealing is not a viable option, even when circumstances allow. Churchland argues that the primary hypothesis for our social values lies in "the neurochemistry of attachment and bonding in mammals."

These values are not mere instruments we can choose to set aside. Our capacity for care is rooted in survival; indeed, according to Churchland, caring is "pretty much all there is." Mammals require nurturing to survive.

Piglets, calves, puppies, and humans who fail to bond with their mothers cannot thrive. It is not simply a matter of choosing instruments, as Keller suggests; rather, our morality is essential for survival.

Importantly, even if we concede that evolutionary explanations do not suffice to establish a moral law—and thus do not compel individuals to fulfill basic moral obligations—the ramifications of our actions still matter, regardless of their accidental evolution.

Even if morality is, as Joseph Heath states, "a complex cultural artifact" rather than something innate, we remain bound by our obligations to one another.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether we find an objective basis for moral behavior in Divine Command or evolution is inconsequential to the state of the world.

I am not convinced of the significance of having an objective, metaphysical morality.

When we step away from academic discussions back into the real world, we observe individuals acting morally without understanding Divine Command, consequentialism, kin altruism, deontology, or any other ethical frameworks.

For further exploration of this topic, I have authored a book titled Up in the Air: Christianity, Atheism, & the Global Problems of the 21st Century, where I delve deeper into these ideas. This piece is an edited excerpt from the fourth chapter, which addresses whether atheists can act morally.

Currently, I am in the final stages of completing my dissertation thesis, leaving me with limited time for extensive writing. I will return with fresh content soon, but in the meantime, I intend to revisit some of my previous work.

I also have an exciting job opportunity in Prague, where I am finalizing my dissertation, so stay tuned for updates. I hope you are all doing well.

Before you go…

? Thank you very much for reading!

• Listen to my podcast, where I discuss Eastern European politics with regional experts, titled “Loosely Eastern Europe.”
• Check out my books and audiobook, read by me.
• I love connecting with fellow thinkers. Find me on Twitter or Instagram to stay updated on future projects and travel adventures.