The Moralists Stagger On

Morality is a characteristic of human beings, and therefore, like every other characteristic of human beings, an evolved trait. Furthermore, the various physical features of the brain that contribute to moral behavior in modern humans evolved at different times in the distant past. At none of those times were human societies and groups organized into anything like the massive states, religious sects, political parties and international political organizations of today. The physical features in question evolved because they enhanced the likelihood that the individuals who possessed those traits and their offspring would survive. They exist for no other reason. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to expect that behavioral traits that evolved under conditions utterly different from the present will continue to enhance the likelihood of individual survival in the modern world, and certainly no reason to expect that any other identifiable purpose or goal can best be achieved by consistent application of some version of morality. We act morally because we are compelled to do so by our nature, and because there is no alternative to morality for regulating our day to day interactions with other human beings. Under the circumstances we make a virtue out of necessity by imagining there is a “true” or “legitimate” morality existing outside the realm of the mere expression of behavioral traits hardwired in the brain. In fact, there is not, and cannot be any “true” or “legitimate” morality. When we consider the nature of and reason for the existence of moral behavior in human beings, particularly in the light of recent advances in our understanding of the brain, that conclusion is obvious.

In spite of that, legions of moral philosophers continue their quest for the holy grail of a true morality, as they did in the days of Kant, and the days of Aristotle, and, in fact, since time immemorial. Logically, what they are attempting is absurd, yet they stagger on as before, clutching their tomes of moral philosophy. Many of them have accepted the truth, now becoming difficult to ignore in the light of recent advances in neuroscience, that morality is an evolved trait. Assuming that it is, then rationally, one is forced to the conclusion that all the musings of the old philosophers about what is “really” good are irrelevant except as historical curiosities. For all that, the deontologists, consequentialists, and other “experts” in ethics of every stripe continue their pontifications as if nothing had changed. One reads their papers, couched in the jargon of their trade, published by the score in scholarly journals with imposing reputations as if they were entirely serious, and wonders at the hubris of human beings in our belief that we are an intelligent species.