---

---

The question is not, “Where do moral rules come from?” …

by Greg Krehbiel on 19 September 2007

… the question is, Why should we follow moral rules?

See Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes

Evolutionary theorists are saying that the rules that help social animals get along in groups are the foundation for our moral sentiments.

Well of course they are! Dogs, birds and chimps all follow social rules, and you have to figure that’s because they have something analogous to moral instincts. So it’s no surprise that humans would have moral instincts.

But so what?

Yes, I know there’s this underlying misconception that peeks out in evolutionary writings from time to time that whatever traits win out in the long run are advantageous to the creature, so somebody (based on that misconception) might argue that if these moral rules helped us survive, they must be good things.

First, it’s nonsense. Just because a trait won the battle of selection doesn’t mean it’s helpful. A moose’s antlers get in the way, and while they may help him pass on his genes because the chicks dig ‘em, you can’t say that the antlers, in and of themselves, are good. In some cases such sexual selection gets out of hand and the creature goes extinct. So “selected for = good” doesn’t work.

Second, these moral instincts evolved in an environment radically different from the one we live in today. Even if you accept “selected for = good,” that would only apply in the original environment. E.g., living in small groups of hunter-gatherers on the savanna, or something like that.

But the article is much more interesting than that. It discusses some work on the difference between moral intuition, which is the kind of stuff we may have in our genes, and moral judgment, which is the kind of stuff we learn in Sunday School. (Or, unfortunately, in the Madrasah.)

It also recognizes that morality is a broader concept than some people in the West would have it — or, rather, as liberals in the West would have it. According to one of the experts cites in the article, liberals place more value on protecting individuals and doing as you are done by, while conservatives (and people in other cultures) place value on a broader range of moral systems, including respect for authority and so on.

The article puts an interesting spin on the roles of liberals and conservatives in society.

It’s interesting to see how certain mental categories could affect the survivability of a species, and that sort of study might give us hints about why we react against certain things, but that has little or nothing to do with determining whether we ought to follow any particular rule.

For example, if we knew why our brains have a spot for mating rituals, and if we had some decent theories on why certain mating rituals were better for our ancestors in certain situations, and if we could explain why it’s a benefit to society to have a rule like “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” that still doesn’t tell us why we shouldn’t commit adultery.

The bottom line for morals is the willingness to put the interests of others ahead of your own interests. Maybe we can figure out why such an intuition can be beneficial to the gene pool, but that doesn’t tell us why any individual should be willing to make that sacrifice.

2007-09-19  »  Greg Krehbiel