Six Arguments Against Evolution as the Explanation for Morality

The book "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" by Peter Kreeft has quite a lot to say about morality.  In several portions of the book, the discussion turns to the idea of evolution as the explanation for morality.  This has led me to record several of the book's arguments to share with others.  Of the six arguments below, the first five are from the book.  The final argument is from Dr. Alvin Plantinga and is a more general topic that applies to morality in a less direct way.  

Any mistakes in relating these arguments are entirely my fault.

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

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 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.

Alvin Plantinga and the Argument Against Evolutionary Naturalism

Finally, one of the best arguments against evolution as the source of morality really isn't about morality at all.  It's Plantinga's argument that, given the Naturalistic worldview (which atheism claims is true), truth has no economy and we can't even know what is true or make truth claims of any sort!  

Evolution would only select for survivability and thus we could be utterly and completely deluded about everything so long as these delusions help us to survive and pass along our genetics.

The reason this argument is relevent is that it undermines the ability for anyone who holds to Naturalism (as atheists do) to make any truth claims at all, including the ones about evolution being responsible for morality.  As such, while it's not directly aimed at the morality argument, it is powerful in a more general and comprehensive way.

There is an excellent lecture by Dr. Plantinga on this that will help explain things further:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ5RPn6nlwo

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.