On the Origin of Morality

Word Count: 5000

What do you feel when you hear of a young girl being brutally raped and murdered? What came
to your mind when you heard of the Israeli police storming a Palestinian mosque housing
innocent worshippers? What passions overcome you when you witness injustice and oppression
of kinds? Our emotions under such circumstances can be summed up in one word- moral
outrage. We are disturbed and angered by such conduct. But why are we outraged? Is it not
because a standard of goodness has been violated? Something 'wrong' has been done that fell
short of this standard. This standard of goodness that we subscribe to inorder to determine right
from wrong can be called morality. If so, where does morality come from? Why does one action
define itself in our minds as being 'good' and another as 'bad'? Why are they not simply 'actions'
which are independent of any immaterial connotations? Why do all actions have inherent
meaning attached to them? In a nutshell, how can we explain the existence of morality?

This is the question that I will be discussing here as I attempt to provide the best explanation for
the existence and origin of morality.

Richard Dawkins, a torchbearer of atheism rejects "the preposterous idea that we need God to be
good." However, what he seems to have overlooked in making such a statement is that almost
every theist would agree with him. And so do I. The point of this essay is not to prove the moral
superiority of those who believe in God. Such an argument would be easily falsifiable since
evidence clearly demands otherwise. Many atheists do live upright lives and have high standards
of morality. We will primarily be examining the question of the origin of morality as elaborated
in the first paragraph.

Let us first consider the evolutionary explanation for the origin of morality. This theory ascribes
the existence of morality to the process of evolution and uses the principle of natural selection to
demonstrate how altruistic behaviour was beneficial for the survival and expansion of the human
species and society by enhancing social cohesion and cooperation. Thus, it establishes morality
to be an inherited genetic trait, a biological predisposition that evolved in the course of the
struggle for survival. (Bloch)

It is undeniable that moral behaviour is advantageous for human society and assuming that all
life on earth is a product of this unguided process called evolution, altruistic tendencies do have a
serviceable role to play in ensuring the survival of the human species. However, this explanation
for the existence of morality proves inadequate in many ways.
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins uses the illustration of altruistic behaviour observed among
chimpanzee troops (For example, scratching each other's back, nurturing one's family, working in
teams etc.) to show that morality is nothing more than a genetic inheritance or adaptation for
survival.

First of all, explaining that the 'biological predisposition' for moral behaviour evolved during the
struggle for survival doesn't establish that such behaviour is rational. This is what Charles
Darwin realized when he said, "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of
any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there
are any convictions in such a mind?"(A Quote by Charles Darwin) The naturalistic evolutionary
process is geared towards fitness and survival, but it lacks any coherent, meaningful foundation
for ascertaining truth or rationality. Famous writer and Professor of Literature, C.S Lewis said,
"But if their thoughts (of those who believe in atheistic evolution) are merely accidental
by-products (of an accidental process caused by an accidental collision), why should we believe
them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a
correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by
the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made
and why it was upset."(Lewis) Therefore, can we rely on an untrustworthy thought process
(which was an accident of evolution) to reach a trustworthy conclusion? After all, "How can we
trust the convictions of a monkey's mind?"

What the theory of naturalistic evolutionary ethics claims is that the moral awareness of human
beings has only biological worth i.e, it is nothing more than a biological and psychological
impulse that aids the survival of human society. In response to such a bold assertion, we should
ask ourselves as beings who understand and practice morality whether it really does function like
some of our other biological traits. Consider the sexual urge or drive which is biologically
inherent in human beings. Scientists and psychologists claim that "desire is, in fact, a bodily
urge, analogous to hunger or the blood's need for oxygen"(Wolfson) According to clinical
psychologist Dr. Rob Dobrenski, “in many ways we can’t control what we desire because it is a
hard-wired emotional and physiological response.”(As quoted in Wolfson) Supposing that
morality or the predisposition towards altruistic behaviour is indeed a biological trait inherent in
humans as is the sex drive, it seems vital to first ask whether morality dons the appearance of
such "a hard-wired emotional and physiological response"(Wolfson) as do all of our inherited
biological dispositions. Do we engage in moral behaviour because we feel an irresistible urge
and desire to do so? Or do we do so because we know or conclude through reasoning that it is the
'right' thing to do? To further build up upon this argument, a biological urge demands a
compulsion towards certain behaviour. How often do we feel compelled to be moral? In contrast
we usually feel compelled to engage in that behaviour which will satisfy some of our baser
desires. For example, if we are asked whether we committed an act which mandates a
punishment, the instinctual urge in such a circumstance would be to deny that we did so and save
ourselves from the penalty. When have we ever had to fight an urge to do right in order to engage
in wrongdoing? It is always quite the opposite. As human beings we often find it much easier to
do what is 'wrong' rather than what is 'right'. We consciously decide to take the 'right' course of
action, usually against our impulses. All we have to do inorder to debunk the idea that morality is
a biological impulse inherent in humans, is take a look at the world that we live in. It is saturated
with crime, evil, wickedness and the great suffering produced in consequence. T.H Huxley who
coined the term 'agnosticism' and was a vocal supporter of Darwin's theory of evolution, said the
very same thing when he argued that human beings are imperfect in many of their biological
properties and what is 'morally right' often contradicts humans' animal nature! ( As quoted in
“Philosophy of Biology | Definition, History, and Facts”) Thus, evolutionary theory which claims
morality is an instinctual urge that aids human survival, fails to explain why it is easier for
human beings to be immoral rather than moral.

Hence, we understand that the concept of morality cannot in any case be separated from its
normative implications i.e, a standard or ideal presupposes all morally meaningful behaviour.

By attributing the process of evolution to the existence of morality, these theorists have
succeeded only in rationalizing the behaviour which we consider as morally 'good' or 'bad'. It
might provide a reason for why we engage in good behaviour but it doesn't explain why we
consider that behaviour to be 'good' in the first place. Scottish philosopher, David Hume has
pointed out the fallaciousness of attempting to infer non-natural properties (being morally good
or right) from natural ones (the facts and processes of evolution). (Hume, David | Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). He called this the naturalistic fallacy. For instance, some scientific
studies have discovered that rape is "biologically advantageous" for animals since it would serve
the purpose of survival by helping to pass on genetic material even in the absence of a willing
mate. It is important to note here that these studies have not concluded or stated that rape is
therefore a 'good' thing. (Kruger) They were only affirming a fact of nature- that rape can aid the
survival of species. The point is that being advantageous for survival didn't make this behaviour
morally correct. Thus, "one cannot reason from a statement of fact to a statement of moral
obligation."(Hume, David | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Therefore, even if one
establishes that morality owes its origin to the process of evolution, it doesn't prove that moral
behaviour is rational or correct. Just because we know that something 'is so', it provides no
grounds for claiming that 'it ought to be so.' It would seem rather that the 'moral' meaning of
actions and behaviours precedes its rationality and is distinct from it. This mental category of
'ought' that we are all deeply conscious of, indubitably proves the inadequacy of the evolutionary
argument. Thus, we arrive at the normative element of morality.
I do not think many of us will, upon careful reflection, conclude that the morality we possess is
nothing more than a biological disposition of the brain. Such a proposition would be clearly
disproved by the moral 'judgements' that we often make about what one 'ought to do' in particular
situations which are often a product of much meditative reflection and careful thought. (Morality
and Evolutionary Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) We engage in moral
behaviour, not always because we feel an inexplicable, biological urge to do so but only after we
arrive at a conclusion of what would be 'the right thing to do' after much evaluation and
deliberation of the situation. To illustrate this point, consider a situation in which a teenager is
found beating up a younger boy. At first glance, it seems to be a simple case of bullying for
which the older boy deserves a strict punishment and stern warning. But then further details start
to emerge. We learn that the boy comes from a broken home where he receives no nurture, and
he is a frequent target of beatings from his drunk father. That would significantly alter the
semantics of the incident. We would then refrain from dealing out the usual reprimand and
instead carefully deliberate upon how best to tackle the abused child and his resulting deviant
behaviour. Now, compassion and patience would dominate our approach, accompanied with a
firm reminder of acceptable behaviour and an attempt to alleviate the distress at home.
Therefore, morality is more complex than a simple biological urge. It involves complicated
reasoning and purposeful reflection.

This also seems to imply that there are knowable moral 'truths' which must be discovered. That
would be incompatible with the idea of the unreflective and inherent psychological disposition
towards moral behaviour conferred by the meaningless, valueless and unguided process of
evolution. It seems irrational to presume that matter and chance can confer obligation and
responsibility, concepts with value and meaning attached to them, upon organisms which were a
chance product of a fortuitous and purposeless process. We will examine this argument in greater
detail in a later paragraph, but let us proceed for now to another contention that follows from the
surmise that there are moral truths that exist independently.

Evolutionists often cite the evolving moral standards of humanity throughout history to justify
their claim that morality is simply a product of cultural evolution. They rightly point out that
many practices which were considered to be morally justifiable in the past are designated to be
acts of grave wrongdoing in the present. For example, the slave trade which was widely
practiced and accepted in America during the 17th and 18th centuries, was later considered to be
a grave violation of human rights and thus a morally condemnable act. Similarly, women were
historically oppressed and it was only in the 18th century that they were given the same rights
and privileges as men. In light of such indisputable documentation of transforming moral values,
it might seem almost imperative to admit at once that morality does indeed evolve, it continues
to do so and that the quality of 'absolute truth' cannot be attributed to it.
Therefore, someone could say, "Morality is relative, and not absolute." Although the point of this
essay is to discuss the origin of morality, I will attempt to provide a basic refutation of the
philosophy of moral relativism, since it is derived directly from the observation that moral
principles sometimes do differ across groups and cultures; one which has some bearing upon the
matter of morality's origin.

However, if one were to conclude that morality (what 'ought' to be done) is relative by observing
historical and cultural conflict in moral principles, we are also naturally presuming that morality
is nothing more than what a culture or historical period defines it to be i.e, what is morally 'right'
is fluid, subjective and ever-changing. If I desire to be morally upright, all I have to do is obey
everything that my culture or socio-historical circumstance tells me to do. But then of course,
what Nazi Germany did to the Jews was morally justifiable since their moral conceptions taught
them to believe in the superiority of the Aryan race, and it was perfectly understandable for the
British to execute starving, young children for stealing apples since dishonesty was an
unforgivable 'crime' in their moral code. A moral relativist cannot condemn the actions and
behaviour of any culture, historical period or person since he believes in no transcendent moral
standard that supersedes differing conceptions and interpretations of morality. Only from the
assumption that absolute, objective and unchangeable moral truths exist, can we denounce
questionable values and refuse to conform to them, in adherence to a higher ideal.

And this is indeed what happens for conceptions of morality to change. Some moral ideals are
identified and pursued often at great personal or even general cost. For example, Williaim
Wilberforce devoted his entire life towards abolishing the slave trade in Britain, facing great
opposition and hardship in order to do so. In another instance, there was a great civil war in
America as a consequence of the tensions between the northern and southern states over the
abolition of the slave trade and equality for the blacks. They stood up for what they 'knew' was
right and the narrative of history agrees with them. Why do we talk about the 'right' side of
history? We would not even think of saying that the slave traders were 'right' too in their own
way!

Thus, such moral reforms do not make coherent sense unless there are objective moral values to
explain and substantiate our attitudes towards such transformations in society. Why do we even
call them 'reforms'? The general idea is that society has been changed for 'the better' or that we
have taken a step in the 'right' direction. This seems to indicate that the evolving values and
principles of human society is an indication of a continually progressive pursuit of an objective,
absolute and extrinsic moral ideal rather than an evolving biological predisposition which has no
external value or grounds to explain it.

Therefore, I would raise the question of whether it is morality itself that evolved and continues to
evolve throughout history or simply our perceptions and conceptions of it? If we claim that
something such as the slave trade which is morally wrong now, was perfectly right back then,
why do we look back into the past and condemn the actions of our ancestors? It would be more
rational to excuse their behaviour and state that morality in those days just wasn't what it is now.
Instead we engage in unsparing judgement of past practices and hold them fully accountable for
all they have done. In fact, what we are actually saying is that, slave trade was wrong back then,
it is wrong now and will continue to be wrong no matter what humankind thinks about it! This
seems to suggest rather, that morality (what one ought to do) is perpetually the same, that the
slaves of long ago had inherent worth and value which was deserving of freedom and dignity and
that the slave traders were wrong to deny them of this, even if they did not realize it. Even the
fact that social reformers subscribed to values and principles that differed from those of their
times (as is seen even today), attests to a 'transcultural' moral standard of humanity. In effect,
such a conception of morality attests to an absolute standard of goodness that exists
'yesterday,today and forever'.

Thus moral values are discovered and pursued. They are not invented by human beings, nor can
they be explained away as a chance product of a chance mutation caused by a chance process.
Don't we all agree that our ignorance about the existence of something doesn't nullify its
existence? I.e, just because we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that the
'something' doesn't exist. Its existence is independent of our awareness and knowledge of it. For
instance, there are a great many scientific laws and facts that we know about today which we did
not know about some years or even centuries (in some instances) ago. For example, scientists did
not know for sure that there were other planets outside the solar system until 1992 when they
discovered the first exoplanet. But those planets existed even before we knew about them. And
there are numerous such examples. Think of the many fascinating details that we know about the
natural world today which we did not know about some years back and the many new
discoveries we are yet to make about it. So also moral 'truths' remain to be sought and discovered
like those which were realized throughout history and in different cultures at varying rates like
those of the inherent value of each human life, the equality and liberty of all humankind,
knowledge of the highest compassion, mercy and generosity, sacrificial love and loyalty etc. The
moral narrative of human history greatly resembles the scientific pursuit for knowledge. Its
comprehension and understanding of a stable natural world evolves as do human perceptions of
moral principles. Just like the laws and features of the natural world remain constant, so also
morality is perpetually constant whatever humankind knows or doesn't know about it.

Besides, we must admit that there are common moral principles which are universal to all of
humanity. For example, the murder of innocent people. Once the embellishments and
supplements of culture are removed there exists underneath quite a similar moral code. Just
because there are hazy areas of contention between the two categories of good and evil, doesn't
mean that there are no moral absolutes. As lexicographer Samuel Johnson put it, “The fact that
there is such a thing as twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and
night.” (As quoted in Youngren)

To conclude the argument against moral relativism, here's what Mussolini famously said about
this philosophy:

"Everything I have said and done these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that
all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers
that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it
with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories,
and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more
relativistic than fascism." (As quoted in Svoboda)

So far, I have endeavored to refute the most commonly cited arguments and theories that
evolutionists use to explain the existence of morality. However, as the inference of each
argument, we have also reached some positive conclusions: Morality presupposes an immaterial
or normative 'truth' (the 'ought to' element) which cannot be rationalized by naturalistic
evolution, there exists an absolute standard of morality which supersedes human perceptions and
experiences and morality must be objective, unchangeable and universal.

I will now proceed to make a positive case for what I believe to be the most plausible and sound
explanation for the origin and existence of a moral law. Since we have deduced that there are
indeed absolute, objective, unchangeable morals in the world (and it is impossible to deny this),
we would then be faced with the task of rationalizing their existence.

Like I said at the very beginning, judging an action or behavior to be morally 'wrong' indicates
that some objective standard of goodness has been transgressed. But then where does this
absolute, objective and unchangeable standard come from? Let us first attempt to ascertain what
qualities or characteristics this standard would necessarily have to possess. Dr. Michael J.
Kruger, theologian and apologist talks about three such features upon which I will elaborate and
add my own assertions.

First of all, this standard as we have already proved and determined, would have to be absolute
i.e fixed and unquestionable. It would have to be unsurpassed, unrivalled and supreme. Other
than the reasons I have previously given to prove why relative morality is unsustainable, think of
how unfeasible it would be to infer the moral quality of an action from an external standard
which is only partly perfect i.e, a mix of good and evil. Predominantly, such a flawed yardstick
would not be a dependable or sound guide to infer the moral worth of any behaviour. It might
deceive or misguide us about what is morally 'correct' and then we would have to admit that we
don't have any definitive means of measuring morality. But this is certainly contradictory to the
confident moral judgements we unthinkingly make almost everyday of our lives. For example, if
the standard of goodness (we refer to) was not perfect, we would have to say that we can't be
sure whether sexism is 'really' wrong. Secondly, how do we explain how we are even able to
recognize that this standard is imperfect unless there is a still higher standard to judge it by? If
the first, hypothetical standard was really my standard to judge morality, I should never have
been able to comprehend that it was imperfect in the first place. (Kruger) Like C.S Lewis said,
"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." If I really do
have a means of comparison to deem the first standard imperfect, then that 'means' should be my
"ultimate moral guide." Thus we are forced to conclude that our existing standard or ideal of
goodness must be and is 'absolutely' perfect!

While we were examining the validity of the moral relativity claim and the moral conflict
between cultures and historical periods, we determined that it could only be human perceptions
and conceptions of morality that change, while the ideal standard of morality remains perpetually
constant. It would follow from this that another quality of the absolute moral standard is that it is
superior to human opinions about morality i.e, this standard is dissociated from and independent
of what humankind thinks about right and wrong or good and evil. Surely this could be the only
explanation for why we judge past atrocities to be evil even if that particular generation did not
consider it to be so. Thus, an absolute moral standard transcends human experience and opinion.
It cannot be something that is only human. (Kruger)

We deliberated earlier about how morality presupposes a norm i.e what 'ought' to be done. We
also saw how naturalistic evolution fails to come even close to providing an explanation for why
moral behaviour is rational and correct. It tells us why we engage in moral behaviour but not
why we should presume that it is 'right' to do so, as even the atheist is persuaded. We understand
by now that morality confers upon us an 'obligation' to do what is morally right. Now under this
surmise, the evolutionist is left with an unsolvable challenge. How does a universe which owes
its existence to the random collocation of atoms of matter plus time plus chance impose a
meaningful moral code that mandates obligation, responsibility and accountability upon
organisms who are themselves accidental products of an accidental process created by an
accidental collision? I will provide an example which proves that morality has deep meaning
which far exceeds a simple utilitarian purpose. In one of his public talks that I listened to on the
internet, Richard Dawkins after he gave his arguments to establish that morality is simply a
biological adaptation suited for survival, proceeded to comment upon religious belief, telling his
audience that if any of them practiced morality simply because they feared what their God would
do to them if they didn't, that was a very poor and deplorable reason to be moral. Although I'm
sure Mr.Dawkins felt that he had just made a very insightful exposé of the true nature of religious
morality, the irony in what he said was mind-blowing. He had unknowingly contradicted his own
propositions about naturalistic evolutionary ethics, since he was saying that one needed a 'moral'
reason to be moral i.e, one should be moral because it was the 'right' thing to do and not for a
selfish reason such as to avoid retribution. Richard Dawkins who believes in a universe of
random matter, time and chance, who defends the theory that our morality is simply a survival
mechanism resembling those of monkeys, had just conferred obligation and responsibility upon
his fellow beings to not only be moral, but to be moral for the 'right' reasons! Now how was he to
explain to whom or what we are thus obligated to fulfill such a high standard of morality? This is
important because obligation and responsibility usually suggests a 'relationship'. It is hard to
imagine being obligated to a random accident of time, matter and chance. For instance, I have an
'obligation' to obey my parents and respect them because of all the nurture they have given me.
Now, humanity as a whole generally believes that it has an obligation to be moral, but to whom?
The moral responsibility of human beings proves most rational and meaningful with the
existence of a God and creator- a perfect, transcendent and personal being (as debated in the last
three paragraphs) who is the source of all morality, whose creation dimly emulates His attributes
since they were made in His own image, and to whom they are obligated to obey the moral law
that He has written on their hearts. And thus the only coherent foundation for moral absolutes is
God himself. (Kruger)

Here, it is important to understand that the theistic worldview does not consider God to be
simply one element or object within the natural world, but rather the infinite and transcendent
cause of it. But then as the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "If this is the right way to
think about the debate, then it is not obvious that atheism is (more probable) than theism. For
the debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a
whole."(“Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”)
Therefore, to believe that human beings are answerable to an objective moral code is to say that
this enables us to draw a conclusion about the very character of the universe. Since the
conflicting philosophies of atheism and theism are grounded upon debate over the character of
the universe and as absolute naturalism is unable to provide a good explanation for such moral
responsibility, the obvious moral nature of the universe provides an excellent reason to infer the
existence of a perfectly moral creator (or cause) who is the very embodiment of goodness.

Sexual predator and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer acknowledged the impossibility of inferring
objective morality from an atheistic worldview when he said, "If it all happens naturalistically,
what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself." (“Jeffrey
Dahmer Quote”)

Therefore late German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant wrote, "The assumption of a supreme
intelligence, as the one and only cause of the universe, though in the idea alone, can therefore
always benefit reason and can never injure it." (As quoted in Moral Arguments for the Existence
of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) Kant was thus admitting that presupposing the
existence of a perfect, transcendent and personal God who was the creator and cause of the
universe, allows one to rationalize such features and qualities found in it such as the existence of
objective morality. He further reinforced the idea of theism having a constructive influence on
reason, by saying, "There is a sense in which theoretical reason itself inclines towards
affirmation of God, because it must assume that reality is rationally knowable: If one wishes to
achieve systematic knowledge of the world, he ought to regard it as if it were created by a
supreme reason." (As quoted in Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) What he means is that confidence in the reasoning process
requires us to believe in an intelligent creator who was the cause of that reason and of everything
else. For if I do not believe that a supreme intelligence created my intelligence, then I have no
reason to believe that my reasoning will lead me to a trustworthy conclusion.

In conclusion, I hope I have succeeded in demonstrating that there is a very strong case for
inferring God's presence from the existence of absolute morality, as the best possible explanation
for it.

References

Bloch, Pawel. Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion. Flavius Publishing House, 2014.

A Quote by Charles Darwin.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/344552-but-then-with-me-the-horrid-doubt-always-arises-whether.

Lewis, C. God in the Dock. Eerdmans, 2014.

Wolfson, Elijah. “The Chemistry and Chimera of Desire.” Healthline, 26 July 2017,
www.healthline.com/health/what-is-desire.

“Philosophy of Biology | Definition, History, and Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Aug.

2009, www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-biology/Related-fields.

Hume, David | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. iep.utm.edu/hume.

Morality and Evolutionary Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 23 Dec. 2020,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology.

Youngren, Scott. “Atheism’s Problem of Evil.” God Evidence, 11 Jan. 2016,

godevidence.com/2016/01/atheisms-problem-of-evil.
Svoboda, Martin. “Everything I Have Said and Done in These Last Years Is….”
quotepark.com/quotes/1858252-benito-mussolini-everything-i-have-said-and-done-in-these-last-
year.

Kruger, Michael. Surviving Religion 101. Crossway, 2021.

“Moral Arguments for the Existence of God.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 12 June
2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god.

“Jeffrey Dahmer Quote.” Picture Quotes,

www.picturequotes.com/if-it-all-happens-naturalistically-whats-the-need-for-a-god-cant-i-set-my
-own-rules-who-owns-me-i-quote-778643.