To understand morality it is necessary to understand what it is and why it exists. Morality is a construct of our minds. In other words, it is subjective. It is a part of us, in the same way that our eyes, heart, and feet are parts of us. Being a part of us, it exists for the same reason that our other parts exist. It promotes our survival, or at least did promote our survival at some point in our past. It is a characteristic which evolved, in the same way that all our other characteristics evolved. We do not yet understand how it works, or what gives rise to it, or the detailed nature of its development as our conscious selves interact with the world around us during our lives. We cannot see it, as we can see our hands and feet, or hear it, as we hear our voices, but still, we know it’s there, and is a part of what we are. The thinkers among us have often noted its remarkable consistency across otherwise widely divergent cultures. For example, in response to a M. Le Beau, who claimed that, “The Christians had a morality, but the Pagans had none,” Voltaire replied in an article entitled “Morality” in his “Philosophical Dictionary,”
“Oh, M. Le Beau! …where did you pick up this absurdity? …There is but one morality, M. Le Beau, as there is but one geometry. But you will tell me that the greater part of mankind are ignorant of geometry. True; but if they apply a little to the study of it, all men draw the same conclusions. …We cannot repeat too frequently that dogmas differ, but that morality is the same among all men who make use of their reason.”
The point I wish to make here is not that Voltaire was strictly correct in his conclusions about the absolute consistency of morality, but that he noticed that it is a part of our nature. While it may not be exactly the same in one individual as in another, the similarities across cultures are remarkable. We experience morality, not as relative or situational, but as an absolute. It was this aspect of morality that Kant perceived when he associated it with a categorical, rather than hypothetical imperatives.
It is not difficult to understand why morality evolved. We all have desires. However, others desire the same things. A state of affairs in which each individual laid claim to the same scarce resources, and was willing to battle all others to the death to acquire them would not be conducive to our survival. On the other hand, if something in the consciousness of the individuals in a group caused them to share the available resources according to rules familiar to all, derived from certain fundamental principles, it would enhance the chances that the individuals in the group would survive. It would give them an advantage over others not possessing the same quality. Therefore, like everything else about us, morality evolved. Its basic framework is hard wired in our brains. Its behavioral manifestations are moderated more or less in practice by our environment, by cultural influences.
We experience morality as an absolute. Why? Because it functions best that way. We experience good and evil as real, objective things because they are most effective in promoting our survival if we experience them that way. In other words, we experience a subjective entity as an objective absolute because it works best that way. The resultant conundrums and apparent logical inconsistencies in our perception of good and evil have busied philosophers through the ages. In all likelihood, morality evolved long before our emergence as a species. However, while other animals have moral natures, and can distinguish between “good” and “bad” actions, they were fortunate enough not to be aware of these logical difficulties. We, with our greater mental capacity, have often run afoul of them.
The ancient Greeks were certainly aware of the difficulties. Plato explores the problem in his “Euthyphro.” The “hero,” Euthyphro, gives himself out as an “expert” on piety. Socrates embarrasses him in his usual style when he is unable to provide any logical basis for distinguishing good from evil.
In fact, morality is not really absolute, in that it is subjective, and has no independent existence outside of our own minds. If we did not exist, one rock would not be more or less good or evil than another. Unlike a rock, good and evil have no objective existence. They are constructs of our minds. How then, “ought” we to act?
As Voltaire pointed out, we all experience morality in the same way regardless of what ideological or religious dogmas we associate ourselves with. There is no difference between atheists and the most zealous Christians in this regard. Visit an atheist website, and you will see that professed atheists can experience righteous indignation and are quite as firmly convinced that they know the difference between good and evil as any true believer. Neither, as Socrates pointed out long ago, can provide any logical basis for this conviction. What “should” we do? To the extent that there is anything that we really “should” do, we should survive. There is nothing more immoral than failing to survive. Morality is a part of us because it works. It is, therefore, probably not a good idea to “overthink” the issue. We should not try to be too coy with Mother Nature. On the other hand, morality evolved long before the emergence of modern human societies. It may prompt us to do things which had survival value when we existed as small groups of hunter-gatherers, but would be disastrous in the context of modern civilization. See, for example, what I have written below on the different moral standards we apply to “in-groups” and “out-groups.” The outcome of nuclear war was not possible when morality evolved.
Perhaps, then, we should act as enlightened moral beings, seeking to do good and avoid evil as we perceive them, but keeping in mind the reason that morality exists to begin with. In other words, act morally, but not self-destructively.