Naturalism provides a sound basis for morals

I would like to start with a warm welcome to my opponent and a thanks for his acceptance of the debate. Before humans, did anything have a moral value? Was anything inherently “good” or “bad”? From a naturalistic perspective, I would be inclined to suggest otherwise. It is of my opinion that, without the existence of a creator, objective moral values cannot exist, for they would not have any objective grounding. Theologian and philosopher William Lane Craig illustrates this in his moral argument. [1] Whilst the existence of God is certainly an important topic, in this debate I am more concerned with explaining morality without the need for a deity. This is not to say that God’s existence is dismissed, but rather that a supernatural entity is not required for explaining our moral intuitions. It is for this reason that I will base my argument off naturalistic presuppositions. In order to explain moral origin, it is important to highlight exactly why morality is required. If there is nothing from which morality is a corollary, it is tempting to reject a purely naturalistic account. However, I will attempt to demonstrate how our morality is prerequisite of our evolutionary past. Indeed, how is it that we progressed from an amoral environment to our deeply ingrained moral principles? Our search for naturalistic explanations finds solace in Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Upon first reading, natural selection is predominantly selfish; competition amongst species resembles little of what we, today, regard as morality. However, natural selection should solely be regarded in terms of the better adapted of the species surviving and producing more offspring. [2] It does not, as some might think, preclude the selfish behaviour one expects. Reciprocal altruism is behaviour common amongst species in the animal kingdom. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines it as: “when [an organism’s] behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself.” [3] Simply: if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. The internationally acclaimed Nature journal documents several types of species within which reciprocal altruism is found. For example, in an observation of vervet monkeys, researchers concluded that “grooming between unrelated individuals increases the probability that they will subsequently attend to each others’ solicitations for aid.”[4] In another study, pied flycatchers would assist a group assault alongside its co-operators whilst refusing assistance from those who had withheld help one hour previously. [5] Perhaps the most prominent account of reciprocal altruism is that reviewed in Robert Trivers’ paper in 1971. He reports an observation on cleaner fish, where “[the cleaned] spread the right gill-covering so wide that the individual gill-plates were separated from each other at great distances, wide enough to let the cleaner through.” [6] Obviously, these observations of reciprocal altruism carry significant value. It offers an insight into where our altruistic behaviour might have originated. If we consider early human societies, we can see positive benefits in altruistic behaviour. In Anthony Johnson’s and Timothy Earle’s book on The Evolution of Human Societies, they assert that whilst risk of danger was low on a daily basis, hunting as a group offered important advantages. [7] The 2014 film Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a provocative demonstration of group cooperation. It depicts an ensemble of apes building a society in the forest, hunting together, constructing shelter and educating each other. If the basic tenet of “ape not kill ape” were not obeyed, their destruction would be imminent. Much could be the same about our early ancestors. With this mechanism at hand, it is not hard to see how our morality might have evolved. I consider it parallel to language: it starts with primitive gestures and sounds, gradually progressing towards grammar and manipulation through art. In the same way our language has evolved from these basic origins, our morality is also susceptible to progression. For example, consider what Thomas Huxley has to say: No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained ad smaller-jawed rival… [8] Whilst the naturalistic perspective is not in a position to state that our morality has evolved for the better, this is an example of how our morality can shift. Perhaps, then, after we have observed a potential explanation for why we have these moral intuitions, we can resolve that naturalism does indeed provide an explanation for morality. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://www.nature.com... [5] http://link.springer.com... [6] http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu... [7] http://www.ksa.zcu.cz... [8] Huxley (1871)