Yesterday's New York Times Magazine has a long piece by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker called "The Moral Instinct." It's typical New York Times fare: strong ideological bias, inattention to competing arguments, and perhaps most damning, the piece is entirely unoriginal. I recognized large parts that were lifted from Pinker's writings of several years ago.
Pinker's article is part of the Darwinian Cleanup Project. This project is an attempt to plug the holes in Darwinism which has a very hard time accounting for--a) the origin of life, b) consciousness and c) morality. Pinker begins with an interesting comparison between Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug (the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture). Pinker argues that while Mother Teresa may have had the noblest intentions, Gates and Borlaug probably did more to help people than the saint of Calcutta. In other words, morality is not simply a matter of intention but also of what one actually does to help people. Excellent point, but what does it have to do with an evolutionary foundation for ethics? Not much.
For the past several decades, leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality. The basic idea here is that morality is a form of extended selfishness. The mother who leaps into the burning car to save her children is acting unselfishly from her point of view, but from her genes' point of view, the action is entirely self-interested. The mother is simply trying to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation. Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called "reciprocal altruism," which may be translated as "I'll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me."
This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains "low altruism." But humans also engage in "high altruism" which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an old lady. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he's a nice guy. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.
Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, "Take me in his place." The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, "I don't have a family, I am old and won't be missed like you will." The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.
Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe's behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that "altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection." Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to "pure disinterested altruism." I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don't think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage--in other words, to the domain of self-interest--while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
The Un-Darwinian Sacrifice of Maximilian Kolbe
Posted Jan 14th 2008 8:06AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Matt Lewis on FOX News: Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
- Gallup: 78 Percent of Americans Identify as Christians, Continuing Decline
- Yemeni Airstrike Targets Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Shooting
- 'Avatar': New Roles for Women in Sci-Fi?
- Texas Leads U.S. in Population Growth Since Recession Began
- Senate Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform, but Trouble Lies Ahead
- John McCain, GOP Court Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Carney
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 69)
16. Is there such a thing as Morality? Judging by the posts, maybe not.
If we do things to get noticed, that isn't moral.
If we do things because we would like people to do things for us, that isn't moral.
Examples:
"and reciprocation gives us comfort knowing that if we help others then with a little luck others will be willing to help us." Somber
Definition: Not Moral
"maybe the guy on the bus giving a seat to an old lady is doing it not only because he is a nice guy but also because he wants to appear to be a nice guy to others which perception might, in the future, accrue to his advantage."
Definition: Not moral
"nice guys like that attract mates a lot faster than those who would make their grandmother stand on a bus." Brandon
Definition: Not Moral
"Reason is a powerful tool, but unfortunately all too often lost in the fog of doctrines." Emma
Hi Emma,
Correct. However, is there such a thing as Morality? If we do things to hopefully get things or be treated the same, and we do things to get noticed, doesn't this make us selfish and in return not moral?
I would have to disagree with some posts that suggest Morality is a product of Society. No it isn't. We could have crappy parents, no religion, live in a crime riddled city, and still do great things for other people.
On the other hand, we could have terrific parents, be a part of a religion and live in the burbs, but yet end up doing horrible things to people.
I guess what I'm saying here, is that there is no answer for Morality or if in fact Morality exists.
It might just be a made up word.
Botts at 10:24AM on Jan 14th 2008
17. DNA, I despise the Animal Rights vs abortion argument. First of all, standing up for animal rights does not exclude charity towards people. Now unless you are talking about people who defend animal abortion rights over human abortion rights, the argument is ridiculous and irrelevant. Since there is no one who defends animal abortion rights, well...I am sure I've made my point.
As to abortion, you need to realize that your perception of when one is alive rather than existent, is only a belief, not a fact. There is no generally accepted standard for when existence becomes life. Not in science and not among world religions. For many, the fetus must be a sentient being to be considered alive and the ability to feel does not develop until late in the 2nd to 3rd trimester (yes, the sensors are there, but the part of the brain used to translate information is still undeveloped). So contrary to frequently used pro-life claims, a fetus aborted during the first trimester does not feel pain. What you are really defending by saying that at the moment of conception life begins, is th POTENTIAL of the cell to develop into a human. In that, you must believe in predestination, that the existence of the cell already carries some sort of greater purpose. But then, where does predestination begin? When your grandparents have your parents? When your great-grand parents had your grand-parents? These are beliefs, not facts and that is why you cannot force them on the general public.
Where animal rights came into this argument, I never understood.
emma at 10:32AM on Jan 14th 2008
18. I don't think DD is out of line in saying Darwinism can't explain selfless sacrifice. I sense a degree of cherry-picking however, for it's not only Catholic priests who are capable of such sacrifice, but out of respect for Kolbe I'll let DD borrow his example. If there were a hypothetical "Atheist society" raised in "Darwinian doctrine" I'd say very few would sacrifice themselves for complete strangers. Most atheists however know better than to use Darwinism as a template for morality.
Mokele-Mbembe at 10:56AM on Jan 14th 2008
19. Emelpe says
"THIRD: Father Kolbe believed in eternal life; he believed that in sacrificing his (earthly) life in place of another that he was about to enter a life of perpetual bliss. How is this "selfless" behavior?"
This is a good question. As a Christian I would like to try and answer it.
Let me say for starters that you have rightly used the word "sacrifice" to describe Father Kolbe's actions. The very word itself denotes the 'selflessness' you are inquiring about.
However, It can also be called selfless behavior because what Father Kolbe did in no way supports the survival instinct Darwinism claims to give us. Self-sacrifice is in direct opposition to Self-survival. If there is no God, as atheists suggest, it would not matter what his religious beliefs were, his actions could not go against the laws of Darwinism.
Dinesh is simply pointing out that Darwinism does not nor cannot provide an explination for his willing sacrifice of self.
Also, your comments re: the fourth point...
"FOURTH: I donate blood because I want, by my behavior, to encourage others to do so. And why? Because someday I or somebody whose life I value may need a blood transfusion. Hardly "selfless" behavior."
If this is your only motivation for giving blood I would agree that your behavior is not selfless. However, we need to be careful to not impose our motivation for doing something as the explaination or motivation for everyone doing the same act. For example, I too give blood. However, I give simply because there is a need for it. My blood most likely will go to someone I do not know or 'love' or for that matter will never meet. That does not stop me from giving my blood. I give it regardless of any personal reward. In fact, I would give blood even if I was told I would never be able to receive blood in return if I ever needed it. What would the Darwinian explaination be for this selflessness? There isn't any. That is the point Dinesh is making and the point Richard Dawkins admittedly observes.
Darwinism can give no account for our morality.
matt at 10:38AM on Jan 14th 2008
20. In the New Testament it is written that the greatest thing a man can do is to give his life for his friends. But there are many cases where people do one better: they give their lives for complete strangers (like the priest above). People even give their lives to save pets.
Now, there is a concept called Justification by Faith: it says that a person can't possibly obey what Jesus said to do, and that is why he had to die for us. Thing is, it is quite easy to not only obey Jesus' commands in scripture, but to exceed them, like the example above. Probably why JC said: Greater things than this will you do. Which is why the concept of Justifiation by Faith is not only a joke, it is probably contrary to what JC taught. I'm guessing that the only way you can get to heaven is by Good Works, like the priest, above. He picked up JC's cross and carried it.
As for Darwinism, it is conceivable to be in tune with Darwin and still be altruistic. People are social by nature, and to die for a member of the group is in keeping with Darwin.
The Goddess Athena at 10:41AM on Jan 14th 2008
21. There is nothing more challenging to the legitimacy of God than organized religion. There is nothing that aids more in the legitimacy of atheism than organized religion. Those that find God do so, not because of organized religion, but in spite of it. If it was not for the teaching of fear, Christianity would disappear like a cup of water poured into a desert. Only fear of the unknown based on lies is the foundation of Christianity. Due to limited space I will only deal with one main lie, out of many, Christianity teaches by omission as well as commission. To put it in context is to know Christianity is mainly teachings of Paul, and olden day Jewish prophets. Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not the teachings of Jesus. I have listened to many Christian preachers, both in person, and on television. Without exception they all teach a person can, through buying into, and having faith in certain ideas, go to heaven after they die. The kingdom of heaven is a spiritual kingdom that permeates all of the universe, and can be entered into here, and now. Anyone can enter heaven at anytime with or without a belief system. God permeates all of existence, and where God is the kingdom is. The kingdom of heaven is not material, and has no geographical location. If Christianity was to stand trial in a court of law with a jury, and the facts were presented fairly by both sides, it would be found guilty of fraud, as would Judaism, and Islam.
Jerry at 10:40AM on Jan 14th 2008
22. There is nothing more challenging to the legitimacy of God than organized religion. There is nothing that aids more in the legitimacy of atheism than organized religion. Those that find God do so, not because of organized religion, but in spite of it. If it was not for the teaching of fear, Christianity would disappear like a cup of water poured into a desert. Only fear of the unknown based on lies is the foundation of Christianity. Due to limited space I will only deal with one main lie, out of many, Christianity teaches by omission as well as commission. To put it in context is to know Christianity is mainly teachings of Paul, and olden day Jewish prophets. Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not the teachings of Jesus. I have listened to many Christian preachers, both in person, and on television. Without exception they all teach a person can, through buying into, and having faith in certain ideas, go to heaven after they die. The kingdom of heaven is a spiritual kingdom that permeates all of the universe, and can be entered into here, and now. Anyone can enter heaven at anytime with or without a belief system. God permeates all of existence, and where God is the kingdom is. The kingdom of heaven is not material, and has no geographical location. If Christianity was to stand trial in a court of law with a jury, and the facts were presented fairly by both sides, it would be found guilty of fraud, as would Judaism, and Islam.
Jerry at 10:41AM on Jan 14th 2008
23. Botts, interesting thought. I am not sure where the notion that morality must be selfless comes from. Morality is concerned with right or wrong behavior, a distinction between what is good and what is bad. What does it matter whether or not it has some potential longterm benefit to me? I might die tomorrow, never need a blood transfusion, never ride the bus when I'm old. So what we need to look at, reasonably, is which behavior is better than the alternative. How do you determine it? Well, the Golden Rule has been a pretty effective tool for thousands of years. How do you know that killing is bad? Or stealing or adultery? You know, because YOU wouldn't want to be in that situation. Selfish? Maybe. Effective tool for a functioning society? Most certainly.
Altrusim is a bit different, in that you surrender yourself for the greater good. Usually that means you will not get to experience the positive consequences of your moral behavior. Still, you know they'll occur. In most cases, we must also considr the context of altruistic behavior. Many who die for the greater good would have died anyway if they had done nothing, due to circumstance. Saving something is better than saving nothing and your species will survive. Selfless? Maybe not entirely, but keep in mind that most people can barely grasp their lifetime, much less consequent generations. So maybe altruists are just a little more far-sighted than the average person.
emma at 10:47AM on Jan 14th 2008
24. I would give blood even if I was told I would never be able to receive blood in return if I ever needed it. What would the Darwinian explaination be for this selflessness?
_________________
Preservation of species. (and that says a lot for your ability to grasp the big picture, i.e. past your own lifetime and into future generations)
emma at 10:51AM on Jan 14th 2008
25. Once again I am horrified by the nature of the comments posted on this blog.
It is not necessary that you agree with Mr. D'Sousha. But virtually all the arguments against his point of view are personal attacks.
The first one here today, from someone called "Dennis", starts by calling Mr. D'Sousha an idiot.
Really?
Is that the way adults behave in a civilized society? Does he think, anyone, ANYONE will take him seriously because he was first in line to insult Mr. D'Sousha. Does it give him credibility in some way? Does he think name calling will advance his arguments in someway?
This blog is thought provoking. Regardless of your stand on religion or whether you bor agree with Mr. D'Sousha's arguments. These are concepts that should be discussed in an open, free society.
So what they hate?
Since social Darwinism attempts to explain behavior in terms of genetics and evolution, how would it account for such behavior? Is it genetically beneficial to shout down someone you don't agree with? Does this benefit the species in anyway?
That's an interesting question for Social Darwinists. I’m sure that they have many logical arguments regarding its necessity to the species.
I don't have any sophisticated arguments for such comments.
To me they're just arrogance and childishness.
Steve at 3:34PM on Jan 17th 2008
26. Dimwit is at it again. Babble, babble, babble ad nauseum
Geoff at 10:58AM on Jan 14th 2008
27. "Preservation of species"
If my blood could save the lives of dogs I'd give to them too. Cats? I don't care about cats. Maybe... maybe I AM a dog...
Mokele-Mbembe at 10:59AM on Jan 14th 2008
28. 23. Emma
Preservation of the species is a good explaination for why I give blood. However, it does not explain why I should care about preserving the species in the first place. Why do I care enough about my fellow man to do something as simple and as selfless as giving blood? Darwinism cannot tell me where that inner compassion comes from or how/ why I feel the need to do and act accordingly in the first place.
Matt at 11:01AM on Jan 14th 2008
29. We don't to it to "protect the species". We do it to help out people we care about. Complete strangers? I think we like to PRETEND that we care about them more than we really do. It makes us FEEL like good people. For all I know my blood has saved the life of a money-whoring televangelist -- a scary thought indeed.
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:08AM on Jan 14th 2008
30. Mokele :)
My explanation is that humans are at the top of the food chain. We need our environment for survival. Therefore, preserving animal species or just the environment in general would ultimately lead to preservation of my own species. Bot to say that we don't still use reason. Would you die for your dog if it meant leaving your small child behind? I doubt it. Morality is very relative.
Matt, that is just what Darwinism says, that we have an instinctive need to preserve ourselves and our species. Maybe that is exactly why you feel the need to help your fellow men. Now I am not saying that this is the ONLY reason for your behavior. You also have a mind and you can employ logical reasoning. You also have your experiences. But maybe that very deep, basic need to care about others, even strangers, is indeed instinctive.
emma at 11:09AM on Jan 14th 2008