Is Evolution The Explanation for Morality?

Today, skeptics like to use evolution as the explanation for everything.  Not only biology, but for society, and even the existence of the universe.  One of their favorite things is to try and explain morality as (you guessed it) a product of evolutionary processes.  But for numerous reasons, that explanation fails.  

Below is a write-up of several arguments posed by Peter Kreeft (one of my all-time favorite Christian authors) arguing against evolution as the source of morality.  I've summarized these argument, but if you have any interest in this topic, you can't do better than to pick up his fantastic book.

Here is my attempt to explain Kreeft's arguments.  Any mistakes are entirely mine.

===============================================================

SIX ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION AS THE EXPLANATION FOR MORALITY

===============================================================

Conscience as Objective

It is often said that it's impossible to find a moral law that is objective and applies to all people at all times and places.  The response to this, it seems to me, is:

"Do you believe everyone should always follow their conscience?"

The answer is obviously "yes".  But this points to a universal and objective moral law, which undermines moral relativism and evolution as the explanation for morality.

Conscience as the Arbiter of our Instincts

This ties back to #1 above and it responds to claims that our morals are nothing more than instincts programmed into us by evolution.  The argument is as follows...there is no question that there are times we should ignore our instincts (if we feel like always eating unhealthy foods, for example, we should sometimes ignore that instinct).

By contrast, we should always follow our conscience.  This teaches us that our conscience is not just an instinct and it undermines the notion that morality is just an instinct.

Further, our conscience is the faculty that "senses" the moral realm like our eyes sense colors and shapes.  As such, our conscience helps us determine which of our instincts to indulge or deny.

Thus, conscience is not an instinct, but is the arbiter of our instincts.

Pushing vs. Pulling

Again tied to the idea that our moral beliefs are nothing more than instincts, there is a fundamental difference that we are innately aware of.

When it comes to instincts (the instinct to eat or sleep, for example), we sense an inward push guiding us toward satisfying that instinct.  But when it comes to morality, the sensation is one of an external pulling rather than an internal pushing...in other words, the external situation pulls us and dictates to us that we "should" do something or other.

This once again differentiates morality from instincts and argues against the idea that evolution has implanted moral impulses into us in the same way it implants survival instincts.

Missing Major Premise (and hidden assumption)

When people claim that evolution is solely responsible for our moral beliefs, the argument goes as follows:

- Evolution selects for survival

- That which enhances our chances for survival is defined as "moral beliefs"

- Thus, evolution selects for moral beliefs

The point made is that there is a major premise missing, which is actually a hidden assumption...this is the following:

"Whatever is necessary for biological survival ought to be done".

This initial premise is a moral premise, so it enters the equation with morality already assumed, which undermines the argument that evolution selecting for survival is the source of morality (because the entire position has to assume morality to get started).

The specific syllogism goes like this (to use a specific example from the book):

1. Whatever is necessary for biological survival ought to be done

2. Heroic acts acts are necessary for biological survival

3. Therefore, heroic acts should be done

But the "evolution leads to morality" advocate doesn't explicitly state premise 1 (the major premise) even though they assume it.  The problem is that Premise 1 shows that this entire argument (which is supposed to explain morality) actually begins with a moral premise, thus undermining the entire argument.  Instead of this being a persuasive argument for evolution as the explanation for morality, it turns out that this is nothing more than an exercise in begging the question.

Moral Choices Often DON'T Enhance our Survival

The argument made by those advocating evolution as the source of morality is that evolution selects for morality because a moral person is better suited for survival.  The problem is that many of our most moral behaviors (things we know we "ought" to do) do nothing to enhance survival.

Examples of this include self-sacrifice, martyrdom, heroic acts, altrusim, caring for people (such as the profoundly mentally retarded) that can never propagate and, by evolution's argument, should be "weeded out".

Thus, moral beliefs do not necessarily enhance our survival, and seem disconnected in many cases from the entire concept.

SUMMARY

The explanation that morality is merely the result of evolutionary processes fails at several levels.  While this doesn't prove that morality comes from God, it does take away one of the possible alternatives offered by the atheist to "explain away" morality as merely the result of evolutionary processes.