A Discussion on Morality

Mr. Roux

Period 5

5/9/17

The origins of human nature is something that has been part of numerous discussions

among scientists and philosophers throughout history. There is a very specific question that

many have grasped and struggled with when it comes to dissecting our unique traits and

characteristics. Are morals influenced by others, given to us by God, or have they evolved and

changed over time? Michael Ruse and Jonathan Haidt both tackle this question and try to

explain why we do the things we do through evolution.

Ruse explains that evolution has influenced our morals in order to make us acceptable to

society. “My position is that the ethical sense can be explained by Darwinian evolution-the

ethical is an adaptation to keep us social” (Ruse 92). Ruse shows us how morality is a trait

commonly shared throughout “social animals”. For example if a dog pees on the carpet you can

see in its body language that it knows it did something wrong. The dog tends to cower or lower

its head in a submissive stance because it is aware that what it did is wrong. However if a ferret

took a dump on the carpet it wouldn't be aware that it did something wrong. It doesn't feel guilt

because the ferret isn't a social creature like the dog, thus the feret doesn't care about its

actions. Ruse continues to take this idea a step further and relates it to human society. A

serious example he used involves rape. “If I rape, I am going to feel badly, apart from the

consequences if I am caught. And the reciprocation-I don’t want my wife or daughters raped”

(Ruse 96). Through this situation, we can see that our morality has adapted based off our need
to survive via cooperation with other humans. To summarize this idea there is the famous

example where Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. What Jesus

said can be seen as a way to better and advance our species. Ruse wraps up his argument

with this statement: “We are social animals. It’s a good thing to be, we can work together. But

being social demands special adaptations, like being able to fight off disease and to

communicate. We need adaptations to get on, and this I think is where morality comes in” (Ruse

98).

Heidt also believes that our morals have evolved over time in order for us to remain

social. He mentions that the tongue is designed to respond well to meats and fruits as well as

respond negatively to bitter foods. This function helps our bodies differentiate between good

and bad foods. Heidt then compares the tongue to the mind. The mind has evolved to have

preferences when it comes to morality. “When we see someone cheat someone else, we feel

displeasure, dislike. And this dislike is a signal to us to avoid that person, to avoid trusting that

person or cooperating with him. When we see a heroic act, or an act of self-sacrifice, or charity,

we feel an emotion that I call moral elevation”(Heidt 159). This moral elevation makes us feel

more open and trusting towards nice people. Through the moral decisions that person made,

they were able to achieve trust and recognition from society. We all agree that stealing is wrong

because we don't want it done to us and we don't want it done to our loved ones. Again the

golden rule is relevant to these situations. Because we are very social creatures, we have to

behave a certain way in order for society to accept us. The Darwinian concept of survival of the

fittest supports this claim that our morals have evolved so that we can remain social. “Individuals

who couldn’t form alliances, on average, died sooner and left fewer children. And so we’re the

descendents of the successful cooperators” (Heidt 159).

 Comparing these two thinkers solidifies the understanding that our morals came from

evolution. As the two thinkers have stated, the reason we have the morals we have is so that we

remain social and survive. Although this theory makes sense, there are some questions that

should be examined. Should we follow all of our natural instincts to make decisions? Evolution

is black and white, you either survive or you don't. Due to this binary nature of evolution, why do

we face moral dilemmas that are in grey areas if we are supposed to have evolved in a black

and white world?

If we compare humans to other social creatures in the animal kingdom we will notice

some major differences when it comes to morality. Take a pride of lions for instance. Lions need

to be social in order for them to hunt and survive. It may be expected that in order to remain

social a lion has to cooperate with other lions, however this is not the case. Once a male cub is

born into a pride with an alpha male the chances of it surviving is slim. The alpha males tend to

kill newborn male cubs in order to maintain its position of power. To us humans we find this

practice to be immoral however to a male lion it is just natural instinct. Using this example of

morality in the animal kingdom creates a complexity for our moral development. Just because

we have natural instincts does that make it justifiable to behave in certain ways? If we were to

look at this through a religious lense we would believe in original sin and view our natural self

sinful, but if we look at this through an evolutionary lense we see the evolution of mankind as a

mean for our actions to evolve and become moral. There will never be an answer to this

question but I believe that there probably is a healthy balance between religious morals and

evolutionary morals. The combination of these two is what makes us unique and separate from

the rest of the natural world.

This idea of human nature being composed of evolutionary and religious morals leads

into this next concept. If evolution is all about surviving or dying then wouldn't it make sense for
our morals and consciences develop in the same binary way? Very often we are met with

certain problems that don't have a clear cut answer. A very complex moral dilemma we see in

the modern world is the use of drones. In order to eliminate certain terrorists the U.S. conducts

a drone strike which in some cases unintentionally kill civilians. It’s hard to know whether or not

this is a good thing because on one hand you have protected the world from future attacks lead

by that terrorist, while on the other you have just killed some civilians. Through this example, we

can see it’s a very distinct trait among humans to care about the wellbeing of the innocent. In

the wild, animals can care less about whether or not their prey is morally corrupt or not, which

leads me to believe that human nature is extremely unique. This trait among us can’t be

explained by evolution because the idea of some dead child in the middle east should not

negatively affect our chances of survival. Is this emotion we feel towards the dead child in the

middle east due to religious teachings? I don't think so because it’s something we feel

regardless of whether or not we’ve gone to church. However I do believe that this moral is

implanted in us when we were created. This then leaves us with the ominous question of

whether or not we are created by God. I’ll leave that question up to you.

In summary Heidt and Ruse form an excellent argument about how our morals have

been shaped and formed by evolution in order for us to survive. Although I agree with their

arguments to some extent, I also strongly believe that certain morals where somehow else

developed. The morals that were not formed through evolution is what makes us unique and

separate from the rest of the natural kingdom. In conclusion I think that it’s interesting to see

how certain morals evolve over time, but it is also important to consider how our unique morals

came to be.