Is Morality Divine?

I read in the New York Post under “Weird But True” that a pregnant woman about to give birth to twins rushed in to a burning building to knowingly save a paralyzed woman. “I knew it was a risk to myself but I couldn’t leave her she said” (July 13, 2006). This is clearly an irrational act contrary not only to the survival of this woman but her unborn babies. It is therefore actually an extraordinary act since the woman’s natural maternal instincts (which must be genetically paramount) were suppressed in favor of saving a paralyzed woman. How could this be possible? This of course got me thinking about morality and altruism. It has been by constant belief that altruism in animals is not the same as self-sacrifice. One is a conscious choice to give up something irrationally; the other has to do with animal programming overwritten by directly related social consequences.

There are many so-called scientists who believe that morality is an extension of innate abilities and the mechanisms of the brain. Or like the physical development of humans, morality is a natural extension of evolution. Taking a look at just one such individual, Noam Chomsky, we can see the flaw in this reasoning. Chomsky seems to believe (as I do) that humans are programmed computers whose internal mechanisms can be both be turned on (programmed) and changed (re-programmed) by external stimuli. Chomsky's work reinforces the philosophical tradition of "rationalism," the contention that the mind, or "reason," contributes to human knowledge beyond what is gained by experience. He is opposed by the "empiricists," who claim that all knowledge derives from external stimuli, including language (Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991). The discovery of cognitive structures common to the human race but only to humans (species specific), leads quite easily to thinking of unalienable human attributes." ((Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991, citing Nation, Edward Marcotte). "Mind is the software of human psychology, and thought is individuated as instances of the mind's operations. The behaviorist is seen to be insisting ... on a very minimal sort of software; the rationalist is out to show that much more powerful and abstract, perhaps in good measure innate, software has to be involved (Justin Leiber in his work Noam Chomsky: A Philosophical Overview).

Unfortunately Chomsky and other cognitive behaviorists only have it half right - while our brains come pre-programmed as do the brains of animals ("Chomsky has said "if we assume that human beings belong to the biological world, then we must expect them to resemble the rest of the biological world"), what they entirely attribute to the innate software of the brain, I attribute in part to innate programs and in part to divine morality. Since we know little if anything about the brain and how it operates, I'd say our respective theories could each be as equally correct. But I also believe my theory is based upon logical and rational conclusions.

I suggest you try to suspend your beliefs and prejudices for a moment and imagine a regular old computer. This computer has pre-existing programs running which are intended to support both it’s survival and it’s ability to evolve in to a smarter machine. The programs are automatically changed inside the computer as a result of external stimuli. At some point this computer becomes so intelligent that it acquires a new ability (and desire) to determine that some of it’s programs are no longer required toward it’s own survival and it’s further evolution – non-computer software related abilities were inserted (morality). Or that some of it’s programs can and should be limited in their operation. Unfortunately it can’t erase the original programs because they were and are inextricably intertwined with’s it’s continuing functionality. So the computer is faced with a duality in the conflict between it’s preexisting programming (which it can not shut off) and it’s desire and new ability to limit or turn that programming at will (free will). And this is the fate of we humans. At some evolutionary plateau, we suddenly learn that killing, hoarding, stealing, etc. can be substituted by love, self-sacrifice, sharing, caring, etc. This ability is what makes humans distinct from animals who have no such abilities. It is worth noting that both the pre-existing programming and our morality are not constant in this battle. Our programming can be reinforced with it’s operation (i.e. habit, physical dependence) as can our new ability to be moral through it’s use (kindness, compassion, caring).

Animals, therefore, are not moral creatures. For survival alone, while "[t]he greater part of naturally occurring behavior in most animals, especially for those that live in relatively predictable environments, appears to be predisposed (see Boice, 1973), and it is released by external events (e.g., hormones that are produced in response to seasonal variations in sunlight or temperature)" (A cognitive behaviorist approach to the study of animal behavior, Journal of General Psychology, Oct, 2002 by Thomas R. Zentall), there remains a need in animals to be able to alter their behavior based upon environmental stimuli and behavioral consequences. This is not morality but simply a readjustment of their innate programs (see: Mary Cover Jones' work or Pavlov's dogs). Animals are not making conscious decisions based upon what they feel is right or wrong. They are reacting to stimuli and altering their programs. This is especially applicable in unstable environments. If I smack my dog on the nose he immediately stops eating off the table. Did he do it because he thought it was bad behavior? I think not. If I smack him every time he does it eventually his natural instinctual program to eat first and ask questions later is re-written - but not because he now know's it's morally wrong to do so. This ability in animals and humans to overwrite our natural programs makes sense because without it behavior would be unable to respond to an otherwise chaotic environment. It would seem necessary that our innate survival programs should be permitted change based upon our often changing environmental situations. Having been officially reprogrammed to act when the environmental situation has seemingly or actually permanently changed. For my dog continual nose smacks tell his program that says “eat! when there is food on the table" with “try to get the food and experience pain”. The ability of our programs to be re-written in response to our environment is in fact the true genius of our genetic programming. For humans, a prime example of this external stimuli which shapes our innate behavioral programs are our moral codes and laws (religious codes, criminal codes, etc.). Fear, pain, punishment and the like are the same tools I use on my dog toward changing his programing and they work in an identical fashion in we humans. But what give us this added ability to make a choice to ignore our programs? Or even to challenge our laws on moral grounds in acts of civil disobedience or protest? And what is telling us that our choice is the correct choice?

While animals and humans have innate survival programs which can be changed according to external stimuli, clealry humans have the additional ability to ignore or actually turn those programs off in favor of alternative solutions. Nevertheless the pregnant woman not only suppressed her innate survival programs, she was spurred to action by her sense of doing what she felt was right. The behavior of humans, therefore, while similar to animals, has an added component which permits actions which are directly in opposition to our very survival programs. These actions are often irrational in the context of survival. And especially in the context of survival of the fittest. How could such an ability possibly be tied to some evolutionary development?

The distinction I am amking here is between pre-programed abilities (which initially need to be turned on and then can be changed in response to external stimuli) and the ability to make contrary (irrational) decisions based upon what we feel is right (morality). And while science clearly supports the idea that man evolved from a primitive animal in to an intelligent creature by way of evolution, it would seem that there is no scientific evidence to support a similar development of morality. In fact, moral decisions like the one made by the pregnant woman are contrary to our survival as a species.

Clearly, our survival tools and programming (what we now label evil) are natural behaviors necessary in both the survival and evolution of a (primitive) pre-moral human. Consequently we see (quite correctly) in most creation myths that it is an EVOLVED intelligence and wisdom (symbolically a serpent or snake) which was necessary for god to insert himself in to man. In his pre-conscious state (in the symbolic Garden of Eden) man was in fact just an animal - that's why he didn't need to be clothed - he (like my dog) had no sense of awareness. Clearly then, “original sin” is just another term for our animal programming (evil) which we still are all continually born with - just now (in a post-moral state) with the opposing force of god (spirit, soul, morality, a conscience) operating against it. I'm certainly not a creationist in the six day traditional sense. Science is real - just not the answer toward explaining morality and god..

Let’s return to altruism as the basis and support for the evolution of morality. Again, like repeatedly slapping the dog on the nose toward modifying his natural tendencies, altruism is strictly a tool toward survival learned vis-a-vis the external stimuli of the animal's
environment. There's no conscious choice to act irrationally present in animals. Nor any plausible (i.e. evolutionary) nexus to suggest that altruism developed as such in humans. I have tried extensively to find cases of altruism in animals which are not directly related to their own survival – and can find (by my means of examination) none. As an example, deferring in the eating order of pack animals has a rational relationship to the survival of the weaker members - by permitting the strongest to eat first the weaker members increase their survival potential. Compare the pregnant woman above who risked three lives to save the paralyzed individual in that burning building or a starving mother on a deserted island who gives her baby (who can not thereafter sustain himself alone) the remaining food toward her own demise.

In conclusion, morality is not evolutionary but divine.

Your comments are welcome.