ÿþ<html> <head> <title>Pego's Page of Reason</title> <meta name="description" content="Personal opinions on great many issues."> </head> <body bgcolor="silver" text="maroon"> <p><h2 align="center">A brief discourse on the origins of morality.</h2><br> <br> There is hardly a philosophical topic that has received so much analysis as morality. Throughout the ages, people have been offering their thoughts on the subject. Philosophers, theologians, physicists, biologists, ethicists, novelists, poets, artists, you name it. What is it? What are the causes of  good or  bad behavior? What should be a reward or punishment? Some of these writings are good, some not so good. I think I have something of value to say on the subject, albeit most of it hardly original.There is plenty of biological literature on the subject.Some thoughts in this essay are nonetheless clearly my own.<br> I have no intention to present my opinions on what activity is moral or immoral, nor do I intend to contrast so many different attitudes toward morality. There will be no opinions on wars, political regimes or slavery, nor will I discuss  sexual morality. How people dress, whether anybody sleeps with a man, woman, or a goat is not the point of this essay. I simply intend to put forth a biological basis for morality as opposed to metaphysical or environmental. <br> It is rather amazing how many different sources for morality one finds reading (listening to) different authors. Here are two leading examples, hardly a comprehensive scholarly review.<br> <br> <br> <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><b><i><font color="yellow">1. "The individual s moral compass is instilled at conception (birth, baptism or its equivalent depending on differing religious accounts) by the individual s Creator. Throughout life, the individual depends on holy texts to be his/her moral guide."</font><br><br></i></b></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote>For Judeo-Christianity, this would start with the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, a modified transcript of certain (not all) laws from Exodus (20:1-17) and Deuteronomy (5:6-21) in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, attributed to Moses, but most likely being a few hundred years younger. The Decalogue is presented with some variations in Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible, but common ground is present among all three traditions.</i><br> <br></blockquote> <br><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><font color="yellow"><b><i>2. "Morality is primarily influenced by an individual s upbringing. Family, friends, schools, church, society at large.</font><br><br></b></i></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote>This may, for some, be related to above #1, to some it may be unrelated, standing on its own merits.</i></b></blockquote><br> <br> We hear a lot about different roles of science and religion in the overall scheme of things. Religion is supposed to be responsible for spirituality, including the individual s moral fabric, while science  explains the natural world, but does not provide answers to spirituality or morality . Even such a prominent thinker as <font color="red"><i>Steven Jay Gould</font></i> fell in this trap and proposed  two, non-overlapping magisteria , science and religion. <font color="red"><i>Albert Einstein</font></i>, on the other hand tended to identify spirituality with religion, another obvious misperception. I am not proposing that science provides moral guidance, since it obviously does not. What it does provide is a detailed framework to explain biological phenomena that are behind morality, as I shall explain below.<br> <br> So, what is my explanation? I do see human morality as a result of evolution. How is that, you ask? Let me spend just a short paragraph on the history of evolutionary thought. When <font color="red"><i>Charles Darwin</i></font> published <b> On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection </b> in 1859, it was a scientific theory. Mind you, a scientific theory is not some wild hypothesis. This was a solid scientific theory supported primarily by empirical observation, classification of the species and geological data including the limited fossil record. Fossil data was sparse; principles of genetics were still unknown. Genetics, as we know it, started with works of <font color="red"><i>Gregor Mendel</i></font>, who published his data after <font color="red"><i>Darwin</i></font> (about 1865). Discovery of nucleic acids with the subsequent discovery of DNA/RNA associated with advancements in molecular biology in general added the further data necessary. Decoding of the human genome, where one can actually trace the evolution of Homo Sapiens all the way from bacteria provided the final touches that converted the theory into a fact, just as undeniable as the rotation of the Earth or the solar system.<br> While there are numerous, extremely complicated and intricate principles of evolutionary biology, for the purpose of this discourse, we need to introduce three of those elements predominantly applicable to this presentation. They are also the most commonly misunderstood.</p><br> <br> <p align="center"><font color="green"><b>Evolution is non-directional. Natural selection does not  aim for something. It simply favors individuals with better adaptation to a given environmental feature.</font></p><br> <p align="center"><font color="green">There is no inheritance of acquired characteristics.</font></p><br> <p align="center"><font color="green">Fittest in the  survival of the fittest does not mean the strongest, meanest, most ruthless or most aggressive. It means an organism (individual) that is the best adapted to changing (changed) environment. It can lead to adaptations most of us would hardly consider beneficial such as progressive loss of eyes in a lightless environment.</b></font></p><br> <br> This is what happened over millions of years. The natural selection in the evolutionary line leading to the great apes and hominids, including eventually Homo Sapiens elected among many other characteristics a social conscience. Why, you ask? Look above at #1 about evolution being non-directional. There was no intentional purpose. Should it not have happened that way, the human race would not be able to have strived and multiplied at the rate it has. We would simply not be what we are. We might have even been extinct without this trait. I emphasize that this altruistic social sense is basically directed toward the individuals within the Homo Sapiens species (extending further to lesser and lesser entities such as nations, religious identification, clans, families, sporting clubs and many other  tribal entities).<br> Cannibalism is extremely rare among mammals and almost completely non-existent among primates, while altruism (at least some, primarily the self sacrifice of a parent for her/his offspring) can be traced way back the evolutionary tree, as far as the invertebrates. <i>(1)</i><br> Let me repeat, the direction of this moral compass toward our own kind extends somewhat to other species, but only marginally. We do adopt fondness for animals we like (domestication, keeping pets being some prominent examples), but that is an exception, rather than the rule. We have no problem killing vast number of animals for their meat, fur, keeping them for other commercial purposes such as milk or eggs, hunting them for fun etc. (this is a statement of fact, not a judgment  I do not have a problem with any of these). There is good evidence that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was instrumental in the extinction of its closest relative, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, a subspecies of the same species of Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthal man was a human, not some hominid or an ape as some try to explain its existence away. The two subspecies of the human race lived side-by-side for quite some time, all the way to the Ice Age, probably communicated and interacted, possibly even mated. <i>(2)</i><br> <br> What about the exceptions to this genetic  moral compass , you ask? What about the <font color="gray">Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Ted Bundys</font>, all the common sociopaths among us (murderers, thieves, rapists)? Well, not all genetic characteristics are transmitted to all members of the species (offspring). Even identical twins are not entirely genetically  identical". Mutations occur, some are beneficial, some are not. Some affect physical attributes, some affect intelligence, behavior, some affect the moral fabric. I will touch up on this when discussing environmental influences.<br> <br> Let me return to the beginning of this essay and discuss some aspects of religious nature for morality and later, the influence of the environment. As I said earlier, the Ten Commandments are considered by the Judeo-Christian tradition the moral dictum of God given to <font color="red"><i>Moses</i></font> on Mount Sinai. Here is a brief review.<br> <br> Three commandments prohibit activity that is nearly universally accepted as being forbidden by the vast majority of civilized people. Murder, theft and lying. These had been encoded in codices such as <font color="red"><i>Chammurapi s</i></font> (spelling varies among authors) in ancient Sumeria, older than the Pentateuch. Two additional prohibitions against envy and adultery as well as the injunction for the respect for ones parents are commendable, but not universally recognized as moral imperatives. Three of the commandments are of religious nature only, not the scope of this essay.<br> There is one commandment that instead of being morally imperative, I find outright immoral. It is the one (listed as the fourth commandment in most sources) requiring to  keep the Sabbath holy . All work is prohibited, without exception. Its universal application would certainly create a major problem for a society. Should we let somebody with a perforated appendix die on the Sabbath? No assistance to a mother in labor? Should there be no fire service, no police, no medical services on the Sabbath? What about the ships on the high seas? Airplanes in mid-air? Somebody commits robbery, injures you severely, burns your house and everybody stands by and watches? Is that moral?<i>(3)</i><br> <br> What about the influence of the environment? There is no doubt that it has a considerable role in shaping an individual s morality. Family, schools, churches, society, all have an impact. Studies on  identical twins raised in different environments have been quite interesting. I do maintain, however, that it is secondary to the above-discussed evolutionary principles. Decent, moral people will not become serial killers, even under the bad influence of the environment they might be exposed to. Paradoxically, the sociopaths will defy the laws of society even if they came out of  good homes and went to  good schools. <br> <br> Numerous religious authors, preachers, apologists offer this concept: <blockquote><i><b><font color="yellow"> Nice, religious families consistently produce prominent members of society, generation after generation as contrasted to families of social outcasts (usually presented as non-religious) that create misfits generation after generation. </i></b></font></blockquote> This is explained by the religious (positive) environmental influence on one hand, non-religious (negative) on the other. Here is a problem with this concept. As I stated above, there is no inheritance of acquired characteristics, physical, or moral. There is, on the other hand, the inheritance of genes. Families, before sharing the environment, share the genes. If you are moral, the chances are that your offspring will be moral, if you are immoral, so are the chances for your brood. (Probability of inheritance of specific characteristics is a statistical field all of itself, an interested reader can look it up). Furthermore, people intrinsically moral (regardless if they are religious or not) raise their offspring with an emphasis on morality.<br> Have you noticed that the stories extolling the virtues of the  righteous contrast them with the criminal element (or drunks, thieves etc.) rather than the moral secularist? This has been one of the most elegant ways to hijack morality. By the way, the other favorite method is to cherry pick the Bible (Quran, other sacred texts) for the most suitable quote for the situation.<br> <br> There is no doubt that many a reader will reject my concept out of hand. Implications of a biological determinism seem so cold. It also, at least superficially, appears to conflict with free will. It does not, though. There is plenty of wiggle room for an individual making the right decision, if he/she so chooses. Beside a moral compass, there is an established set of rules that the society expects the individual to conform to and most of us are made aware of these rules early in our lives. These rules are known as the law. In addition, there have been a few thousand years of evolving civilization that clearly impacts everybody with already present (biological) moral compass. <br> I do feel very good about this concept, because it is supported by evidence. I also like the idea of being a moral being without the expectations of  reward and punishment of a Deity, or being entirely a product of my environment. <br> This is an opinion web page, not a scholarly work, so what I am presenting here is just a brief discourse of an idea rather then a fully referenced scientific treatise.<br> <br> For the conclusion, I'll borrow the last sentence from <font color="red"><i>Darwin s</i></font> <b>"Origin of Species"</b> that the late <font color="red"><i>Steven Jay Gould</i></font> used for his long-running series of essays in <a href="http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/">Natural History</a>, <font size="+1"><b><i> There is grandeur in this view of life .</b></i></font> <br> <br> <i><font color="green"><font size="+2">Peace!</font></font></i><br> <br> <br> <hr noshade> <br> <i>(1)</i> This is probably one area of this essay where the supporting evidence is the weakest. According to evolutionary biologists ( including Ernst Mayr), there is no convincing evidence that altruism would be favored by natural selection. They explain human altruism by cultural influences of the society. I do have a problem with this explanation, as it ignores presence of altruism in non-human species of organisms. Daring, as it may seem from an amateur, I predict that natural selection will be eventually discovered for this phenomenon. <br> <br> <i>(2)</i> The most common reference to the Homo Sapiens that lived side-by-side with the Neanderthals is the Cro-Magnon man. <br> <br> <i>(3)</i> Numerous theologians since the ancient times have tried to diminish the universality of this commandment, without much success. <hr noshade> <hr noshade> <br> In this place people obligatorily place reference sources.<br> <br> The biblical references I listed already in the body of the text.. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, numerous philosophers dealt with issues of morality from the Deist perspective. Some are very good (<font color="red"><i>Kant</i></font>, <font color="red"><i>Spinoza</i></font>, to name a couple), some are rather lame in this writer s humble opinion (<font color="red"><i>Kierkegaard</i></font>, <font color="red"><i>C.S.Lewis</i></font> come to mind). <br> <br>There is certainly an endless source of information on biology and evolution. One text for the layman I found exceptionally informative is a book <b> What Evolution Is </b> by <font color="red"><i>Ernst Mayr</i></font>. It is not an easy reading. Learning evolution is a hard, long process. I have tried to learn and understand it all my adult life and still find myself ignorant of a great many things about it. For ongoing, fairly easy reading about natural sciences in general, try <a href="http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/">Natural History</a>. You can subscribe to it (quite affordable), or pick up a copy in your favorite library.<br> <br> Since I originally published this essay, a new, eminently readable and informative book on the subject of evolution appeared. <font color="red"><i>Jerry Coyne's</i></font> <b>"Why evolution is true."</b> Highly recommended. <hr> <a href="mailto:pegospageofreason@yahoo.com"><font color="dark blue"><i>click here to e-mail me your comments</i></a></font></p><br> <hr noshade> <hr noshade> <br> <a href="Pego's Page of Reason.html"><font color="indigo">Page 1 - Introduction</font></a><br> <a href="opinions.html"><font color="indigo">Page 2 - Opinions</font></a><br> <a href="review.html"><font color="indigo">Page 3 - Review 1</font></a><br> <a href="conclusion.html"><font color="indigo">Page 4 - Review 2</font></a><br> <a href="Christmas.html"><font color="indigo">Page 5 - Christmas</font></a><br> </body> </html>