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
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Ryan Anderson 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
- Deal-or-No-Deal Time in Copenhagen
- 'News Watchers' Give Clinton Highest Marks in Obama's Administration
- Americans in a Grouchy Mood About Obama and Congress
- Marijuana Legalization Could End Up On California Ballot
- Spokesman: Sen. Chuck Schumer Regrets Insulting Flight Attendant
- The Dude's a Woman!
- Public Has Mixed Views on Obama As Year Draws to a Close
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 69)
31. Morality is the result of spiritual gravity.
Jerry Brown at 11:09AM on Jan 14th 2008
32. Goddess,
Like I have been trying to explain the greatest sacrifice that has ever been made was when Christ died on the cross. He died for everyone of our sins leaving us to live by Grace not works. Christ has left us with a friend who resides inside of our heart and simply instructs us on how we are to live and how to study his word to make sense to us. You cannot just read the bible and know what it means you have to study the verses and discuss them with other Christians, because Christ is not the author of confusion. He makes it perfectly clear in the New Testament what is moral and what is immoral. His message is about how to love your neighbor as yourself, not to commit immoral acts, and at anytime he is there just call upon his name and you can reach him 24/7. All very simple, you have no problem judging what is moral and what is not. Rita
Rita at 11:12AM on Jan 14th 2008
33. its so simple you ape ancestors don't get it. morality comes from God. you can skirt it all you want but there is no other explanation. of coarse you can come up with all the phyco-babble you want but morality is from God. you think the guy gives up his bus seat for what a mate? you think the priest gives up his life because he is think of the gene pool. thats past bizarre. its bordering lunacy
brian at 11:12AM on Jan 14th 2008
34. Botts,
What follows is the dictionary definiton of "moral."
It exists in concept, but from there, the vagueness sets in.
HOWEVER, as long as D'Strawman was discussion Darwin in relation to morals...my point about the guy giving up his seat on the bus getting a mate more easily...guess what...that trait is more likely to be passed along to future generations!
Main Entry: mor·al
Pronunciation:
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action
2: probable though not proved : virtual
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect
— mor·al·ly \-ə-lē\ adverb
brandon at 11:12AM on Jan 14th 2008
35. I think he makes an interesting case. Even though we are close in DNA to primates, can anybody think of an example of morality that looks like this among any primates? Or did that aspect of our being develop in the extinct "links" between primate and man?
Mark at 11:13AM on Jan 14th 2008
36. If you were going to bring up Kolbe, I am shocked that you do not mentioned that they were placed in a starvation chamber, and he lead the group in prayer. They persisted to survive long past they were expected to, in severe heat, with no food or water.
Instead you bring up his sacrifice, and unfortunately there is an evolutionary fit to it. It's called survival of the species. The family would have a better chance of survival with the father alive, while Kolbe saw that nobody would suffer for his death. He aided in survival.
And, to add irony, his cell group was being killed because the Nazi's thought somebody had escaped, and it turned out he had died, and fell into, the latrine.
Strados at 11:12AM on Jan 14th 2008
37. Fascinating example of the nazis and the priest.....I was just wondering if one of the nazis who came to get the priest and lead him to his death was the future pope??
America's Most Gangsta at 11:15AM on Jan 14th 2008
38. ATHEIST
Reply to: This is a good question. As a Christian I would like to try and answer it. Matt
You should be ashamed to describe yourself as a Christian.
In this blog, it means you're too dim to figure out simple concepts, and need to ask Atheists for explanations.
____________
Reply to: 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.
______________
Duh. This is getting ridiculous.
Learned behavior.
This kind of morality is learned behavior.
People are NOT dumb. You need to be able to figure out WHY we behave in certain ways.
Our #1 motivation is providing for the health of our children. In evolutionary terms, we need to do that to pass along our genes. Therefore, any random mutation that makes us MORE PROTECTIVE was passed on. But still, ONLY random traits.
Most of this behavior is LEARNED. Because we have brains.
It makes us feel good to feed our children. And the SAME feeling makes us feel good about feeding other people who are NOT our children.
William Hays at 11:21AM on Jan 14th 2008
39. Rita,
If JC was scheduled to return again in full glory, how much did he really sacrifice (other than pain) by accepting temporary death? Educate us.
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:22AM on Jan 14th 2008
40. "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."
It just occurred to me that Darwinism is not the explain-it-all that you Christians (and so-called christians) want it to be. Your bible has rules for living that are wildly open to interpretation but you gather in groups to decide that interpretation. Many, sometimes most, of those inside your groups follow those rules. As Rita said, even small groups reading from that book and deciding if it resonates with them.
There is no comparable "script" for people who accept evolution as fact to follow and accept that there is no deity. So our morals are less written in stone, but we still must have them in order for our offspring, cultures, and civilizations to survive.
Where they come from is family and friends, I think, and the society in which we live. Were we born into traveling terrorist cells in the hills of Afghanistan, our morals would be entirely different, but still based on those we are with/influenced by/born alongside of.
brandon at 11:23AM on Jan 14th 2008
41. Dinesh, you answered your own question, idiot.
You say: "A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an old lady. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior."
Almost immediately before, you just said: "This is called "reciprocal altruism," which may be translated as "I'll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me." "
Why does there need to be an evolutionary reason to show someone kindness? It's not ALL about passing on genes, often its about having an environment to live in that is pleasant.
And your argument saying that self-interested motivation is "low atruism" is interesting. What would you call doing good, not because of self-interest, but because of fear of negative reciprocity from an ethereal, supernatural being? Christian morality is motivated from fear of punishment, not from a true desire to better one's world. I would consider self-interested kindness to be the greater altruism.
AndrewV at 11:27AM on Jan 14th 2008
42. I guess one of my points is: I don't care if Darwinism doesn't explain morality (if in fact it doesn't). It's all around us, we have a culture and society that enforces it, and we have to abide by it.
brandon at 11:27AM on Jan 14th 2008
43. you can come up with all the phyco-babble you want but morality is from God.
___________
Is this Chritian babble for "I don't understand what you guys are talking about due to the fact that my reasoning skills have died out in the face of doctrine, so I'll just stick with what I already know, because I am tooclosed-minded to consider anything else?
Yep, brian, I get it.
emma at 11:28AM on Jan 14th 2008
44. Dinesh -- please don't set up a straw man Darwinian account.
The person giving up his seat may not do it in a calculating way at all... unconscious motives have evolved that helped our ancestors in small kin groups over many generations. We have inherited those tendencies.
Nando at 11:29AM on Jan 14th 2008
45. "Christian morality is motivated from fear of punishment, not from a true desire to better one's world. I would consider self-interested kindness to be the greater altruism."
AndrewV, good summary there.
Can I get a witness?
:)
brandon at 11:29AM on Jan 14th 2008