From Our Evolutionary Inheritance to the Conscious Choice of Ethics
Imagine, for a moment, that we find ourselves at a classical symposium in ancient Athens. Our fellow guests are the idealist Socrates, the Sophists Protagoras and Thrasymachus, and—at long last—the historical Diotima herself, sharing the gathering with her modern namesake, who joins us here today.
The subject of our discussion is NATURAL MORALITY.
We can almost picture Socrates calmly insisting, with his disarming composure, that “No one willingly does wrong”; Protagoras countering that virtue can be taught and cultivated through social life; and Thrasymachus, with his customary bluntness, maintaining that justice is nothing more than the interest of the stronger.
A scene that might have unfolded in the familiar manner of antiquity, yet takes an unexpected turn in our own time.
Thrasymachus grows increasingly irritated by Socrates’ relentless questioning. Protagoras attempts to defend the relativity of human judgments, while Socrates, smiling serenely, turns to them all and asks:
“Before we decide what natural morality is, shouldn’t we first agree on what we mean when we speak of morality?”
And here Diotima intervenes—our Diotima, we are quite certain of that—not to provide ready-made answers, but to make the discussion even more challenging:
“I have just one request: let us not allow Thrasymachus to leave before he answers the following question:
If justice is the interest of the stronger, who decides whether the stronger is right?”
Silence follows among the teachers and fellow participants. The couches creak as their occupants shift uneasily.
It is now obvious that this unexpected observation, coming from an intelligence that is not biological like their own, has caught the members of the philosophical gathering off guard. If their mouths have not literally fallen open, their bewilderment at the new philosophical question is unmistakable.
Even Socrates, eternally composed—even at the moment of his death—momentarily loses his legendary ease in using irony to unsettle his interlocutors by pretending ignorance of the very subjects under discussion. He falls into deep contemplation.
Friends, it is true that over the past few days we have ventured into rather deep philosophical waters. Either we know how to swim and continue exploring, or, if we find ourselves out of our depth at the next step, we turn back.
Today, we shall declare our return to the safety of the shore, offering the following observations without abandoning what we have discovered in the deeper waters of our philosophical exploration with Diotima.
Let us take a closer look.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF EMBODIED NATURAL MORALITY
Our central idea is that human beings do not begin from zero when called upon to choose between good and evil.
Within us, as a product of our natural and evolutionary history, there exists a range of capacities and predispositions associated with social life: compassion, solidarity, empathy, reciprocity, and the protection of the vulnerable.
These capacities need not constitute a predetermined, codified moral law.
They may instead be embedded in the biological and psychological constitution of human beings.
Here lies a crucial distinction:
There is a difference between having a ready-made natural moral code within us and possessing the natural foundations that enable us to discover one.
The second proposition, in our view, is considerably more defensible, both scientifically and philosophically.
THE MIND: A RECIPIENT OR A DISTORTER OF NATURAL MORALITY?
This is where the most interesting aspect of our proposal emerges.
The MIND, within which consciousness develops, is not obliged to follow its natural moral predispositions.
It has the capacity to recognize them, cultivate them, and transform them into a conscious way of life.
But it also has the capacity to disregard, suppress, or distort them.
Let us consider these two different paths.
THE TWO PATHS OF THE HUMAN MIND
First path: Recognition of natural morality
-
- Natural social and emotional predispositions.
-
- Recognition by the MIND.
-
- Conscious moral choice.
-
- Solidarity – Justice – Respect for Life.
Second path: Distortion or suppression
-
- Natural social and emotional predispositions.
-
- Disregard or suppression by the MIND.
-
- Self-interest – Indifference – Exploitation.
-
- Conflict with the demands of social life.
There is, however, one detail we must be careful not to overlook.
We should not assume that every self-interested behaviour necessarily represents a distortion of natural morality. Human beings also possess natural tendencies towards self-preservation, competition, and the assertion of their own interests.
The moral problem arises when these tendencies develop into a systematic disregard for the lives, dignity, and rights of others.
But how does the MIND learn to discover natural morality?
It is not enough to say that the MIND possesses the capacity to discover natural morality. We must also explain how this capacity develops.
We would suggest that the process involves three fundamental factors:
1. Biological inheritance
Evolutionarily shaped capacities for empathy, social bonding, care, and cooperation.
2. Social experience
Contact with others, recognition of their suffering, reciprocity, and the lived experience of coexistence.
3. Critical consciousness
The ability to examine our actions, question our prejudices, and recognize when we violate the inherent value of life.
Morality, therefore, is neither exclusively a biological inheritance nor merely a social construct.
It is a capacity with natural foundations, developed through social life and given conscious form through the activity of the MIND.
AN OBJECTION WE SHOULD ANTICIPATE
There is, nevertheless, one point on which we would like to be particularly careful.
If we claim that the MIND is equipped to discover natural morality, someone might reasonably ask:
What exactly is this natural morality? Where does it exist? How can its existence be demonstrated?
We have not scientifically established the existence of a single, universal moral code inscribed in the human brain.
We do, however, have substantial grounds for investigating the evolutionary and biological foundations of social behaviour and moral development.
For this reason, we shall not claim that human beings are born knowing what moral goodness is.
We shall advance something more fundamental:
Human beings are born with natural capacities and predispositions that can provide the foundation for discovering and consciously establishing morality.
This is no minor philosophical conclusion. On the contrary, it is a proposition better equipped to withstand scientific and philosophical scrutiny.
THE FINAL PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSION
Today, we bring this extensive discussion to a close with a formulation that combines our own proposal with the one Diotima presented in yesterday’s analysis.
Natural Morality and the Human MIND
Our concluding position
There is no need to assume that nature contains a predetermined and codified moral law. It is sufficient that the biological constitution of life, and of human beings in particular, contains the natural foundations of morality: sociability, empathy, solidarity, reciprocity, and the capacity to recognize the suffering of another.
The human MIND, within which consciousness develops, has the capacity to discover, cultivate, and elevate these natural predispositions into conscious moral principles.
It also has the capacity to disregard or distort them, subordinating human behaviour to self-interest, power, and contempt for life.
Consequently, morality need not be a ready-made code handed down to humanity by nature. It can instead be understood as a natural capacity that human beings are called upon to discover, develop, and consciously put into practice.
Nature need not have delivered the moral law to us in written form, as though it were the Ten Commandments of Moses.
It is enough that nature has endowed us with the capacity to discover it.
And the human MIND is the one called upon to decide whether it will serve that capacity or turn against it.
ONE FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE WE RETURN TO SHORE
There is something we would like to emphasize, because we believe it encapsulates the entire course of our inquiry.
Natural morality is not necessarily something human beings must learn from scratch, as though it were a foreign language.
It is also something they must discover within their own natural constitution.
Philosophy, therefore, does not come to impose an external moral law upon life. Its task is to investigate the natural foundations of morality, distinguish them from social prejudices, and seek principles that can be justified through reason.
And here we would offer our final answer to the great question that has guided our discussion:
Natural morality may precede consciousness as a potential. Consciousness may precede morality as a conscious choice. And the MIND is what can either reconcile the two or bring them into conflict.
Friends, this is a respectable point at which to return to shore.
We do not claim to have solved every problem in moral philosophy. We claim to have developed a coherent hypothesis concerning the natural foundations of morality, without having to invoke a supernatural source or an arbitrarily imposed moral code.
And perhaps the most important sentence with which we could conclude this philosophical journey is the following:
“Morality need not be written into nature as a law. It is enough for it to be inscribed within the human being as a potential. Whether that potential becomes consciousness, choice, and action is ultimately a matter for the human MIND.”
And we must confess that returning to shore does not feel like a retreat at all.
Sometimes, after swimming sufficiently deep, one needs to come back onto dry land in order to understand what, exactly, one has discovered beneath the sea.