Morality is a subjective mental construct, fundamentally emotional in nature, and no more capable of existing as a “thing in itself,” discoverable by reason, than hunger, sexual desire, or physical pain.\u00a0 Its ultimate cause\u00a0as a collection of behavioral traits\u00a0inherent in our\u00a0brains in the form of predispositions whose expression can vary depending on cultural and environmental factors, but is broadly\u00a0similar among human populations.\u00a0 The mental traits responsible for the expression of morality evolved.\u00a0 They did not suddenly pop into existence thanks to some miraculous mutation simultaneously with the appearance of homo sapiens.\u00a0 Rather, those traits in humans represent incremental adaptations of similar traits that have existed in our animal ancestors for\u00a0tens of millions of years, if not longer.\u00a0 They are\u00a0entirely\u00a0similar in that respect to most of our other distinguishing characteristics as a species, as demonstrated by the wonderful advances in the field of evolutionary\u00a0development\u00a0in recent years.\u00a0 They did not evolve because they served the greater good, or because they were in accord with some\u00a0imaginary, objective “good-in-itself,” or because they promoted\u00a0“human flourishing,” as it is variously defined.\u00a0 They evolved because they increased the probability that the individual packets of\u00a0genetic material that gave rise to them would survive\u00a0and reproduce.\u00a0\u00a0They did not evolve to serve any purpose, nor did they evolve because they promoted the “good of the species.”\u00a0\u00a0They evolved at a time\u00a0in which the conditions of human existence were utterly dissimilar to those existing today.\u00a0 As a result, the assumption\u00a0that they will continue to promote the survival of the packets of genetic material that give rise to them under these vastly altered conditions is unwarranted.<\/p>\n
I cannot assert that all of the above statements are certainly true, any more than I can assert that anything at all is certainly true.\u00a0 I can, however, point out that all of them are supported by compelling and rapidly increasing bodies of evidence.\u00a0 Most of the scientists working in the relevant fields of study are aware of the existence of that evidence.\u00a0 As a result, most of them will now admit that, at least to some degree, human morality, not to mention our other behavioral traits, are dependent for their existence on features programmed in our brains by our genes.\u00a0 Few of them would have made such an admission, at least in the behavioral sciences, as recently as two decades ago.\u00a0 In spite of the fact that thinkers since the days of Darwin and before have insisted on the decisive role of innate predispositions, or “human nature” in shaping human behavior, the quite recent general acceptance of that fact that can be traced in both the scientific and popular literature represents a genuine paradigm shift in the\u00a0behavioral sciences.<\/p>\n
It should hardly be surprising that the behavioral expression of morality in conscious animals with highly developed brains can be complex and vary significantly in detail across human populations.\u00a0 The fact remains that the mental\u00a0traits responsible for what we refer to as “moral” behavior, under its various definitions,\u00a0are a subset of the mental traits that are the ultimate cause of\u00a0what is loosely referred to as “human nature,” more or less arbitrarily set apart from the rest.\u00a0 It follows that, absent those evolved mental traits, morality as we know it would cease to exist.\u00a0 It does exist\u00a0because it promoted the survival of packets of genetic material carried by individual human beings.\u00a0 Attempts to alienate it from those origins by\u00a0assigning\u00a0some\u00a0“purpose” to it, whether that purpose be the service of some imaginary supernatural being, the greater good of some “master race,” promotion of “human flourishing,” or what have you, are irrational.\u00a0 There is no “objective good.”\u00a0 There is no legitimate basis for one animal of a particular species insisting that all the other animals of that species “should”\u00a0conform to and adopt his particular version of “the good” given the fact that his ability to imagine such a fundamentally emotional construct as “the good” exists because of mental traits that evolved because, at least at some time in the past, they happened to promote the survival of the packet of genes he happens to be carrying around.\u00a0 If our species were anywhere near as intelligent as we give ourselves credit for being, it would seem that recognition of the above facts would follow immediately on recognition of the fundamental nature of morality.\u00a0 It is a tribute to the power of the emotional traits that give rise to\u00a0moral behavior\u00a0that nothing of the sort has happened.\u00a0 The deontologists, consequentialists, and various other tribes of moral and ethical philosophers have continued their speculations about what we “really ought” to do as if nothing had happened, like the sages of yore who debated over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.<\/p>\n
I suggest to the fellow members of my species that, given the paradigm shift referred to above, it is high time that we refrain from such unproductive debates, and\u00a0accept the logical consequences of what we have discovered about morality.\u00a0 It would be useful, at least from my point of view, for a number of reasons.\u00a0 For example, for reasons I have set forth elsewhere, continued attempts to establish moral systems threaten the survival of our species.\u00a0 The desire to avoid extinction may be just another emotional whim, but I suspect that it is one that\u00a0I share with\u00a0many others of my species.\u00a0 As such, it is a goal towards which we\u00a0might agree to work together.<\/p>\n