Let’s suppose Darwin is sharing his findings for the first time with Socrates about what he calls “Zoral” behaviour and imagine how a conversation between them would unfold.
Darwin: I have discovered a unique set of behaviours that humans have. I call it Zoral Behaviour.
Socrates: Zoral behaviour?Tell me more, what exactly does it entail?
Darwin: Well basically, it is a unique set of behaviours that humans have developed during the evolutionary process which has led to the overall survival and flourishing of the human species. Behaviours such as nurturing offspring and co-operation among groups. Behaviour that is directed towards the flourishing of the group and not fulfilling individual pleasures. Evolution has endowed man with a unique Zoral sense which is the motive feelings that drives survival and puts the group over the individual. “Zoral sense” names a set of innate traits that, in appropriate circumstances, move the individual to act in specific ways for the flourishing and survival of the species.
Socrates: Sounds fascinating Darwin, as you know my concern has always been with answering the question of what is the good and virtuous life? Perhaps your biology holds the keys. Let me summarize what you have said to avoid confusion. Zoral behaviour is a unique type of behaviour that humans have developed during evolution. It is behaviour that stems from a strong feeling within the individual to cooperate with the group in order to ensure the survival of the human species and to increase it’s flourishing.
Darwin: Yes
Socrates: Tell me Darwin, is Zoral behaviour good? Is it morally good?
Darwin: Yes it is.
Socrates: Why is Zoral behaviour good?
Darwin: Well because it leads to the survival and flourishing of humans.
Socrates: Wait Darwin I think you might be creating a circular argument. You have already defined Zoral behaviour as behaviour that leads to humans flourishing. So now what you are saying is behaviour that leads to human flourishing is good because it leads to human flourishing. How do you come to the conclusion that human flourishing is good from your empirical observations?
My question to put it to you another way then – why is any behaviour that leads to human flourishing good?
Darwin: Well because human flourishing is the highest good. Isn’t it obvious that the survival and flourishing of human beings is a good thing?
Socrates: I definitely feel that way however how I feel is not a measure of whether something is the case. My feelings simply tell me what my mental subjective state is, and from my history I can tell you that they have often led me astray. So saying human flourishing is good because we feel it is good- is invalid. The central question Darwin is why is human flourishing the highest good? What part of your empirical observations have led you to the conclusion that human flourishing is the highest good?
Darwin: I don’t know, I guess then simply because certain human behaviour leads to human flourishing it does not necessarily follow that the behaviour is good, unless one has already assumed that human flourishing is good. Which just begs the questions.So to say something is good cannot depend on our own subjective feelings, nor can it be derived from our empirical observations.
Yes, If…men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.
Socrates: Yes which is why all the great thinkers such as Plato, Immanual Kant, have realised that if moral goodness is to objectively exist it cannot be empirically found in nature alone. Morality transcends nature and we use it to interpret and judge our empirical observations. If morality is to be universal it cannot be the product of a particular contingent biological history. Universe morality cannot be a result of particular history that could have turned out differently, a history that only turned out like this by chance. If morality is to have the weight and obligation which we give it, it simply cannot be a product of chance. Nature alone cannot give us a secure basis for good and evil, right and wrong.
Darwin:So what is basis of morality? There is no way any human being can make sense out of life without assuming moral values and duties exist. It is the basis of our laws and legal systems; the basis of our constitutions and human rights. So I cannot for one moment think that the entire edifice of what is right and wrong hangs on an illusion. I must know from where do moral values and duties come?
Socrates: My disciple Plato presented a theory of forms. He said there is a world of forms or ideals where moral values and duties exist, they are unchanging, eternal, absolute and unchanging. In fact each moral value such as goodness, beauty, justice, courage would have its ideal in the platonic world of forms.
Darwin: It seems to solve the problem in that the moral values have an objective existence that does not depend on human experiences. However it raises other problems. Firstly, if each moral value such as goodness, courage and justice exists would not immoral values also have their own ideals? Dishonesty, cowardice, hatred they would also exist. Which raises the problem of why then should I choose courage over cowardice – if both exist in this silent world of forms. What obligation do I have in choosing the ideal of courage rather than that of cowardice. Secondly, how can for example, the ideal of justice itself be just? We always refer to people and their actions as good or bad, just or unjust. A will and ability to choose seems to be a precondition for morality. How can impersonal (without a will and mind) ideals themselves be good or bad? Thirdly, if they do exist how would we know about them?
Socrates: insightful observations Darwin, that’s a problem that Plato could not solve and it seems to imply a dualistic fundamental reality. Where good and bad values both exist objectively and the choice between the two becomes arbitrary. On how we know about the world of ideals- Plato suggested that our souls are eternal and existed in the world of forms before we are born. And we access knowledge of the forms through recollection, they are innate and not derived from experience but rather our experience acts as a catalyst to allow us to recall them.
Darwin: So Plato’s theory in some aspects gets it right but not entirely. What is our other option?
Socrates: The Algerian thinker St. Augustine thought he solved the problem when he said the good is God. The good is rooted in the uncreated, universal, eternal character of a personal God. And God’s commandments to us tell us what our moral duties are. How happiness ought to be obtained.
Darwin: But did Plato not debunk grounding the good in God? He asked Euthyphro – Does God will and desire the good because it is good, or is the good good because God says and desires it? If you go with the first option then it means what is good does not depend on God in any way – God simply recognizes what is good and wills and desires it. In other words you could have what is morally good without God.
Socrates: Go on..
Darwin: If you prefer the second option then what is good becomes arbitrary, if God demands and desires humans to rape another then that would be good simply because God has said it is.
Socrates: So you have a bit of a dilemma then, if you go with the first option – you no longer need God for what is morally good to exist. If you go with the second option then what is good becomes arbitrary because raping babies can be be good if God says it is. Correct?
Darwin: That is what Plato said.
Socrates: I would like to suggest a third option. God’s character and nature is the good. Which means what God wills and desires is always in line with his character (which is perfectly good). It is impossible for God to will and desire that which is different or in contradiction with his character (which is perfectly good).
Darwin: So what you are saying is firstly, God wills and loves the good because HE is good and not because IT is good. Secondly it is impossible for God to will and desire and command something that contradicts his nature. Therefore what is good is still dependent on God’s nature and it is not arbitrary. God could never say it is good to rape babies because it would be out of line with his character.
Socrates: Yes Plato himself in the Republic admits, “But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect” and further on adds “Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being; as supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable…”
Darwin: It seems then God’s character firmly secures the existence of what is morally good and right. Zoral behaviour is good because it leads to human flourishing which is good because it is in line with the character and will of God which gives us the basis for morality.
Socrates: Absolutely correct Darwin, next time I would like to hear more about evolution by natural selection
boammaaruri 
Hi Tsholofelo,
It seems like a common thread in your entries on morality is that Darwin’s writings on a natural morality are fallible because the idea that an evolutionary sense or instinct that we should behave in a manner that is beneficial to the species does not answer the question as to whether or not it is moral to promote humanity’s survival. However, this doesn’t seem to be his goal. It seems that Darwin’s true aim was to suggest that certain behaviors that promote the well-being of society arose out of the need for survival and this has nothing to do with a philosophical sense of morality, we just simply would not have had an equal amount of success surviving as a society if we had not developed these behaviors, just as bees have developed their own societal structure based on the most successful survival strategy for their species. If bees could write, their moral teachings might look very different from our own, and their religions would likely appear very strange to us indeed. A species of creatures (in our case, humans) that had no instinctual revulsion or aversion to killing one’s neighbors or had no instinctual urge to care for its young would not survive very long at all, and certainly would not rise to the point of inventing democracy, building the Eiffel Tower, or composing the symphony. Of course, these instincts can be disregarded, just as a man can choose to put his hand in a fire even though his instincts tell him it will burn, but most people, barring some tragic upbringing, seem to be capable of learning through empathy and experience a sort of ‘moral’ good that makes them capable of living among other humans. Without the behaviors we humans later defined as moral because we saw the value they give to our society, we simply wouldn’t be.
I know you are a fan of C.S. Lewis as well and I’m currently reading his writings in Mere Christianity, but it seems like the first section of his book is predicated on the idea that the morality we find in most people (what Darwin describes as this evolutionary sense that you mentioned) was placed in us by God. His main argument that there is a God is this idea that all men to some extent have an idea of what is ‘good’ or ‘moral’, and he claims that the proof of this is that societies around the world all have similar laws regarding murder, stealing, marriage, etc. For one, I’m not sure that’s true, but the main problem I have is that it seems the greater proof would be if all societies had laws that were essentially the same. Not to murder in any circumstance, marriage is between one man and one woman, so on. But the fact that they don’t seems to suggest that different societies operate on different societal/moral values that developed as a result of their differing environments. Of course, they would not be as different as that between humans and bees, but they are certainly not the same. If it did in fact turn out to be the same moral value within every man and every woman, this could be proof of a divine morality that is objective and comes from a place outside of or above man, but what proof would there be that the Christian God placed it there? If every man in his heart or conscience knew the Ten Commandments, why would God need to send Moses down the mountain? He would simply say, be good and moral and every one would know what he meant. The very fact that morality needs to be taught or developed seems to suggest that it is a human idea, one that is based likely on evolutionary instincts, but still separate from actions that merely benefit society, or else things like education, infrastructure, or industry could be considered moral (perhaps they are, or should be?).
I’m certainly no expert. I ask this because I, like you, have found a need to examine more deeply my own beliefs and this has been at the forefront of my mind lately. I’d be really interested to read your response.
Thanks,
Michael
Hi Michael
Thanks for the thoughtful response. My thoughts on morality has changed quite a bit and I find myself disagreeing substantially with what I wrote in this article and I currently am still working out how that looks. Roughly speaking I think an Aristotelian – Thomistic (AT) view of morality is the most sound and you will find certain aspects are in agreement with what you say.
Regarding your comments then I am in agreement that there are certain instinctual behaviours that promote the survival of our species and indeed saying it seems to be a trivial thing to say- because if our instinctual behaviours were detrimental to our species we would ofcourse not survive very long. This is true for every organism alive in general – all their traits ensure their flourishing. But the question is how do we get to morality from that. If traits for surivival are all that is needed for moral actions then why do not describe the actions of dogs, lions and bacteria as moral as well seeing how they all lead to their continued survival? Why pick out human actions which leads to survival of the species as moral while those of other organisms as amoral?
Regards,
Tsholo
Perhaps other animals can also be moral by acting according to their own survival and possibly ours? If a dog rescues a boy who is drowning, would we consider it a moral act? If a bear mauls a hiker in the woods, is it not immoral to us (although likely not to the bear who has in her mind protected her cubs in her territory, and thus promoted their survival)? Possibly, but if not then I think the distinction must be a matter of intent. Most people would probably say that if a pilot were to lose control of a plane and crash it (through no fault of his own and despite his best efforts to save the plane), that he has not murdered the passengers. Even though the pilot’s actions may have inadvertently led to the death of others, he/she clearly would have intended to land the plane safely and thus is not necessarily an immoral person. However, we generally do not think of animals as having the rational thinking capacity needed to weigh the consequences or morality of their actions and consequently their actions lack conscious intent. This makes it difficult to assign a morality to their actions although, following the idea of natural morality, it might simply be said that bear morality evolved to promote the survival of bears, dog morality to promote that of dogs, and so on. It is a simplistic idea, but simple answers are often the best kind, are they not?
It is true though that we hold our fellow humans to a higher moral standard because we have the conscious ability to weigh possible outcomes of our actions (at least, one would hope we have this ability to a certain degree beyond that of other animals). This would seem to make human morality more complicated, but to what extent or if it should be considered any differently at all, I am uncertain.
Thanks for your response, Tsholo! It certainly is an interesting topic to consider.
Best,
Michael