Selfish Morality
by Eric Rauch
9/20/2007
In
what is shaping up to be a very interesting debate, atheists and secular
humanists are finally beginning to seriously grapple with the moral
arguments that theists have been holding over their heads for years.
Richard Dawkins’ theory of the “selfish gene” has been the
default metaphysical answer for most college biology courses for the
last 30 years. But that is beginning to change and atheists on both
sides of the debate do not like what they see.
Most atheists are forced by the very nature of their
core belief to accept that morals are derived from evolution. While they
may disagree over what exactly constitutes “morality,” they are in basic
agreement that whatever it is, it originates in the evolutionary process
and is sustained by their divine rule of “natural selection.” Just as
physical and mental traits that are thought to be beneficial to the
survival of the species will be naturally kept and those that hinder
progress will be naturally weeded out, so it goes with the “morality” of
the species. Those behaviors which are thought to increase the survival
of the individual and the species as a whole will be kept and deemed
“socially acceptable,” while those that detriment the species will be
tossed and deemed “socially unacceptable.” Such is the usual basic
explanation of the evolution of morals.
But this view completely begs the question and
atheistic evolutionists are finally beginning to see this. Although it
has taken some time to sink into their evolved gray matter, atheists are
recognizing the implications of the same questions that
Ayn Rand was asking more than 50 years ago:
What
is morality? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and
actions—the choices which determine the purpose and the course of his
life. It is a code by means of which he judges what is right or
wrong, good or evil.
What is the morality of altruism? The basic
principle of altruism is that man has no right to live for his own
sake, that service to others is the only justification of his
existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue
and value....
Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast
the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot
withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others?
Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is
no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole
history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.1
A committed atheist herself, Rand took her moral cues
from the natural world—her “earthly reasons,” as it were. She believed
that every person “must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing
himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his
own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral
purpose of his life.”2
Rand was often severely criticized, from both the left and the right,
for her views and what she called the “virtue of selfishness.” But until
Dawkins proposed his “selfish gene” theory, the criticisms were never
based on evolution. According to Dawkins’ theory, “human altruism
develops as a way of ensuring the survival of one’s genes. If I
sacrifice my life for two or three of my brothers, I am ensuring the
survival of my genes, since my brothers share half my genes.”3
Selfishness for Dawkins was something of a look to the future survival
of the family unit, not necessarily the species as a whole. For Rand
however, selfishness was a bit more practical and rooted not so much in
the future, but in the present. She believed that “the truly selfish
person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither
sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others.”4
In other words, Dawkins tried to explain the evolutionary paradox of
altruism by showing it to be the ultimate act of selfishness, while Rand
was convinced that selfishness itself was the path to altruism. She
reasoned that a society of selfish individuals, looking after their own
well-being and success, would, in fact, create an environment where
altruism is no longer needed. Their outlooks may differ, but the end
result is the same; Rand and Dawkins are actually two sides of the same
coin.
Enter Dr. Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist from
the
University of Virginia. His work in the area of evolutionary
morality is beginning to rub the veneer off of the “selfish gene.” Haidt
is a self-professed atheist, just like Dawkins, but unlike Dawkins he is
not beholden to any one theory of morality. To the great dissatisfaction
of the “new atheists,” Haidt has been proposing that religion actually
has some evolutionary benefit.
Dr.
Haidt believes that religion has played an important role in human
evolution by strengthening and extending the cohesion provided by the
moral systems. “If we didn’t have religious minds we would not have
stepped through the transition to groupishness,” he said. “We’d still
be just small bands roving around.” Religious behavior may be the
result of natural selection, in his view, shaped at a time when early
human groups were competing with one another. “Those who found ways to
bind themselves together were more successful,” he said.5
One would expect that his atheistic and materialistic
cohorts would welcome the news that religion is nothing more than a
vestigial relic from the hunter/gatherer days of evolutionary history.
But such is not the case among the “new atheist” elite of Dawkins and
Sam Harris. They have staked their claim and their reputation on
the fact that religion is, in fact, poison in the social well. They have
nothing but disdain for religion of any sort, but particularly the
monotheistic variety and especially the Trinitarian one. In a rather
scathing rebuke to Dr. Haidt, atheistic golden-boy
Sam Harris had this to say:
Finally, I should mention that Haidt fails to
acknowledge the central point of "new atheist" criticism. The point is
not that we atheists can prove religion to be the cause of more harm
than good (though I think this can be argued, and the balance seems to
me to be swinging further toward harm each day). The point is that
religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men
and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not (and
cannot) know. If ever there were an attitude at odds with science,
this is it. And the faithful are encouraged to keep shouldering this
unwieldy burden of falsehood and self-deception by everyone they
meet—by their coreligionists, of course, and by people of differing
faith, and now, with startling frequency, by scientists who claim to
have no faith. Even if Haidt's reading of the literature on
morality were correct, and all this manufactured bewilderment proves
to be useful in getting certain people to donate time, money, and
blood to their neighbors—so what? Is science now in the business of
nurturing useful delusions? Surely we can grow in altruism, and refine
our ethical intuitions, and even explore the furthest reaches of human
happiness, without lying to ourselves about the nature of the
universe. It is time that atheist scientists, above all people on this
infatuated planet, acted as if this were so.6
And here I thought it was the hayseed religionists
that had the empirical problem. Harris and his ilk have been lambasting
religious “nitwits” for believing in and living their lives in terms of
something that they cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell. Since
reality for the ‘new atheists” is defined as only that which is purely
material and able to be empirically verified, religion is dismissed at
the outset. But Harris cannot escape the very metaphysical nature of his
own beliefs. His own concluding remarks betray his own religion: “Surely
we can grow in altruism, and refine our ethical intuitions, and even
explore the furthest reaches of human happiness, without lying to
ourselves about the nature of the universe.” What empirical process or
method is Harris using to arrive at this metaphysical conclusion? Harris
is completely begging the question that he is trying to prove.
Amazingly, Harris preceded this sentence with this one: “Is science now
in the business of nurturing useful delusions?” Although this clever
rhetorical question was meant to shame Dr. Haidt, Harris (and Dawkins
with him), finds himself on the horns of the same dilemma. He is just
hoping that none of his atheistic lemmings will notice.
