A Philosophical Inquiry into Natural Morality

The next question takes us into one of the most difficult, yet most fundamental, areas of philosophy: the relationship between morality, life, consciousness and intelligence.

I would like to advance a proposition that I consider essential to understanding natural morality:

Morality does not necessarily originate in intelligence. Intelligence is what enables us to recognize it, interpret it, examine it and ultimately elevate it into a conscious principle.

This means that morality, understood as a possibility and as a form of behavior, may be far older than human thought about morality itself.

Let us examine the questions one by one.

1. Does Morality Precede Intelligence, or Does Intelligence Create Morality?

To answer this question, we must first distinguish between two different things: morality as a natural phenomenon and morality as a conscious concept.

The latter requires intelligence, reflection, judgment, the ability to compare and the capacity to choose.

The former, however, does not necessarily require any of these.

Let us observe nature.

A mammal cares for its offspring. An animal protects a member of its group. Certain primates display behaviors involving mutual assistance, reconciliation and responses to unequal treatment.

Nevertheless, we can observe behaviors that serve the protection, cooperation and preservation of social life.

Therefore, intelligence is not necessarily the original cause of every behavior that has moral significance.

Indeed, I would argue that intelligence did not create the need for cooperation. Social life itself created the conditions within which cooperation, emotional responsiveness and social regulation could develop.

Intelligence subsequently added something decisive: the capacity for conscious evaluation.

2. Can a Being Be Moral Without Knowing That It Is Moral?

My answer is yes, provided that we clarify what we mean by the term “moral.”

A being can behave in ways that protect other living beings without possessing the abstract concepts of good and evil.

An infant, for example, has not yet developed a moral philosophy. It does not understand the concepts of justice, solidarity and responsibility. This does not mean, however, that it lacks every natural capacity for emotional responsiveness to others.

Similarly, an animal may display behaviors involving care, protection or reciprocity without being conscious of any moral obligation.

There is, however, an important distinction:

• • Moral significance in behavior is one thing.

• • Conscious moral intention is another.

• • Moral responsibility is something else entirely.

We cannot attribute to animals the same responsibility that we attribute to human beings, because we do not have sufficient evidence that they possess the same capacities for conscious judgment and choice.

But neither can we claim that the absence of philosophical consciousness necessarily means the absence of every natural element of morality.

Here, I believe, lies one of the most important foundations of natural morality.

3. Can Moral Behavior Exist Without Moral Thought?

Yes. And this may be the most interesting point in our discussion.

Moral behavior does not always require prior reasoning.

Imagine a person who sees a child in danger and instinctively rushes to save it.

The thought does not necessarily come first:

“I have a moral obligation to protect this child.”

The action may precede conscious moral evaluation.

The same applies to many everyday expressions of solidarity: spontaneously assisting an injured person, protecting someone vulnerable or relieving the suffering of another human being.

Empathy, emotional responsiveness and social learning can operate before the conscious formulation of a moral rule.

Therefore, we do not necessarily have to think morally before acting morally.

There is, however, also the opposite situation.

A person may know moral principles extremely well, teach them, invoke them and use them in public discourse, while behaving in complete contradiction to those principles.

Here we encounter a paradox:

Knowledge of morality does not guarantee moral behavior, just as the absence of conscious moral thought does not exclude moral behavior.

This should give us considerable pause, because it reveals that morality is not merely a matter of knowledge. It is also a matter of emotion, character, biological capacities and social conditions.

4. Does Morality First Emerge as a Natural Possibility of Social Life Before Becoming a Conscious Rule and Philosophical Principle?

In my view, this is the heart of the entire subject.

Evolutionary biology, ethology and evolutionary anthropology provide important insights into how the foundations of morality developed.

Life did not evolve exclusively through competition. It also evolved through cooperation.

Parental care, social cohesion, reciprocity, mutual support and the ability to coexist became important factors in the survival of many social species.

We can identify three characteristic stages:

First stage: Social cooperation

Cooperation and reciprocity appear in numerous social species. They do not necessarily require abstract moral concepts.

Second stage: Human social life

With the development of human societies, cooperation, care, reciprocity and expectations of behavior acquire greater complexity.

Third stage: Conscious morality and philosophy

Human beings begin to ask not only how they behave, but also how they ought to behave. Morality becomes an object of critical thought.

This third stage is particularly important.

For the first time, morality is no longer confined to its practical function within social life. It becomes an object of conscious inquiry.

Human beings are no longer satisfied with simply cooperating. They begin to ask why they should cooperate.

They are no longer satisfied with avoiding injustice. They begin to ask what justice actually means.

They are no longer satisfied with feeling compassion. They begin to ask whether they have an obligation to act compassionately even toward someone they do not love.

And this is precisely where philosophical morality is born.

5. A Critical Distinction: Natural Does Not Automatically Mean Morally Right

Before reaching our final conclusion, we must address a serious objection.

If morality originates in nature, should we therefore consider all natural behaviors morally correct?

Certainly not.

Nature includes cooperation, but also violence. It includes care, but also abandonment. It includes solidarity, but also competition.

Consequently, we cannot identify what is natural with what is morally right.

The fact that a behavior occurs in nature does not, by itself, prove that human beings ought to adopt it.

Here lies the difference between the natural origins of morality and its philosophical justification.

Nature may explain how the foundations of morality developed. But nature alone is insufficient to determine which behavior is just.

Human reason, critical thought and consciousness are called upon to evaluate these possibilities.

And there is something else worth emphasizing: natural morality must not be confused with social conformity.

The fact that a society accepts a practice does not mean that the practice is morally right. Conscious morality can, and must, challenge even established social beliefs.

6. My Conclusion: Morality Precedes Intelligence as a Possibility; Consciousness Recognizes It, and Philosophy Evaluates It

Let us now bring together everything we have discussed into a single philosophical proposition.

Morality, when approached as a natural phenomenon, does not necessarily appear initially as a conscious rule. It may emerge through the very relationships that make social life possible.

Intelligence does not create all its foundations from nothing. It develops the capacity to recognize them, compare them, question them and transform them into conscious values.

Human consciousness adds something further: responsibility.

Because once human beings are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, recognizing the suffering of others and choosing between different possible courses of behavior, they are no longer operating merely at the level of natural reaction.

They have entered the realm of moral choice.

I would therefore formulate the final proposition as follows:

Natural Morality in One Proposition

Life creates the possibilities of social behavior; social evolution cultivates the foundations of solidarity; consciousness recognizes their moral significance; and philosophy undertakes to evaluate them.

7. One Final Question We Must Leave Open

I would nevertheless prefer not to close this discussion without pointing out another contradiction, which may well represent the most interesting challenge for natural morality.

If nature has created within human beings the capacity for solidarity, compassion, cooperation and the protection of life, how can we explain the fact that these same human beings are capable of developing such extreme forms of violence, exploitation, selfishness and destruction?

Could it be that human intelligence is not only the highest instrument for becoming conscious of natural morality, but also the most powerful instrument for violating it?

And here emerges what I consider the final fundamental question:

Is morality the natural destination of human intelligence, or is it a continuous achievement against the very contradictions of human nature?

My position leans toward the second possibility.

Morality is not an automatic mechanism that guarantees human goodness. It is a possibility inherent in life which, in human beings, becomes conscious responsibility and a continuous struggle.

And perhaps this is where the greatest philosophical value of natural morality lies: it does not promise us that, simply because we are products of nature, we will also be moral. It reminds us, however, that life, interdependence and coexistence constitute the ground upon which a morality can be founded without requiring the imposition of some supernatural authority.

Nature gave us the possibility of morality. Consciousness gave us the possibility of choosing it. And philosophy gave us the possibility of questioning whether we truly serve it.

This is the conclusion I would like to offer today.

Greetings to the readers of Homo-Naturalis.gr.