The Un-Darwinian Sacrifice of Maximilian Kolbe
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.
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
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- andreawalker419 on Breastfeeding an Eight-Year-Old?
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
Mo's Bio
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Axelrod Says Health Reform Supporters Are on the 'One Yard Line'
- The Risk of Being the 'Deadline President'
- Latest Round-Up Of Obama Poll Ratings by State
- Obama's Copenhagen Climate Deal: Real or Not?
- The New Senate Health Bill Explainer: Changes You Should Know About
- Health Endgame: Time To Embrace Half a Loaf (And Learn to Love It!)
- Former Hill Staffers Made up a Large Army of Lobbyists on the Health Bill


Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 69)
46. Emma,
Excellent points.
I guess where I'm getting at with this is as follows:
If morality can be classified as us knowing what right from wrong is and choosing right more often, then what does this say?
My point is, is that the word Morality is universally interpreted as a good quality. Why? Because we follow rules? We know right from wrong, because we were told and we learned what was right and what was wrong. But who says so? Where did it come from?
Is there such thing as Morality? And if so, is it really such a good quality? Or more important, do we just follow direction real well?
Botts at 11:36AM on Jan 14th 2008
47. Dinesh: "it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest."
This speaks volumes about Christianity and its anti-human philosophies.
"Christianity is precisely the religion par excellence, because it exhibits and manifests, to the fullest degree, the enslavement and impoverishment of humanity for the benefit of divinity." -Mikhail Bakunin
AndrewV at 11:36AM on Jan 14th 2008
48. Mokele said: "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."
First off, I think it is difficult to describe the physical aspect of his sacrifice as mere pain. It was torturous brutality. He had his back ripped open by the flogging, probably exposing raw muscle and possible even bone.
Read the explanation of His crucifixion below:
"Crucifixion sometimes began with a scourging or flogging of the victim’s back. The Romans used a whip called a flagrum, which consisted of small pieces of bone and metal attached to a number of leather strands. The number of blows given to Jesus is not recorded; however, the number of blows in Jewish law was 39 (one less than the 40 called for in the Torah, to prevent a counting error). During the scourging, the skin was ripped from the back, exposing a bloody mass of tissue and bone. Extreme blood loss occurred, often causing death, or at least unconsciousness. In addition to the flogging, Jesus faced severe beating and torment by the Roman soldiers, including the plucking of His beard and the piercing of His scalp with a crown of thorns.
After the flogging, the victim was often forced to carry his own crossbar, or patibulum, to the execution site. The patibulum could easily weigh 100 pounds. In the case of Jesus, the record shows that He may have carried His patibulum the distance of over two football fields. In a weak and tormented state, it’s no wonder the record establishes that Jesus needed a great deal of assistance. Once the victim arrived at the execution site, the patibulum was put on the ground and the victim was forced to lie upon it. Spikes about 7 inches long and 3/8 of an inch in diameter were driven into the wrists. The spikes would hit the area of the median nerve, causing shocks of pain up the arms to the shoulders and neck. Already standing at the crucifixion site would be the 7-foot-tall post, called a stipes. In the center of the stipes was a crude seat to “support” for the victim. The patibulum was then lifted on to the stipes, and the victim’s body was awkwardly turned on the seat so that the feet could be nailed to the stipes. At this point, there was tremendous strain put on the wrists, arms and shoulders, resulting in a dislocation of the shoulder and elbow joints. The position of the nailed body held the victim’s rib cage in a fixed position, which made it extremely difficult to exhale, and impossible to take a full breath. Having suffered from the scourging, the beatings and the walk with the patibulum, Jesus was described as extremely weak and dehydrated. He was probably losing significant amounts of blood. As time passed, the loss of blood and lack of oxygen would cause severe cramps, spasmodic contractions and probably unconsciousness.
Ultimately, the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation. To breathe, the victim was forced to push up on his feet to allow for inflation of the lungs. As the body weakened and pain in the feet and legs became unbearable, the victim was forced to trade breathing for pain and exhaustion. Eventually, the victim would succumb in this way, becoming utterly exhausted or lapsing into unconsciousness so that he could no longer lift his body off the stipes and inflate his lungs. Due to the shallow breathing, the victim’s lungs would begin to collapse in areas, probably causing hypoxia. Due to the loss of blood from the scourging, the victim probably formed a respiratory acidosis, resulting in an increased strain on the heart, which beats faster to compensate. Fluid would also build up in the lungs. Under the stress of hypoxia and acidosis, the heart would eventually fail. There are several different theories on the actual cause of death for Jesus. One theory is that there was a filling of the pericardium with fluid, which put a fatal strain on the ability of His heart to pump blood. Another theory states that Jesus died of cardiac rupture. Another theory is that Jesus' death was “multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia and perhaps acute heart failure.” Regardless of the actual medical cause of final death, the historical record is very clear -- Jesus suffered numerous hours of horrible and sustained torture on the cross of Calvary."
Mark at 11:37AM on Jan 14th 2008
49. I'm sorry, does someone here think that poking holes in the Darwinism->Morality concept is supposed to collapse Evolutionary Theory?
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:37AM on Jan 14th 2008
50. Mokele,
1. He took the final judgement of all sin.
2. He realized that mankind could not live up the the laws that he as the GOD Head had handed down.
3. He became fully man and was tempted and hurt, and was cold and was hungry being tempted by Satan. Satan ask him to bow down to him just as he ask us daily to do. In other words he put himself in our shoes and answered the life long questions of why man could not live by what God the Father had put down. So, GOD the SON came and took our sins to the cross, the Jews who did not accept him and still don't except the Christian Jews gave us the Gentile nation to be accepted, in the family of GOD.
4. While GOD was supposedly in the grave he was in a place called Abraham's Bossom, there he gather up those who had believed in GOD and followed him. He then took them home to the father. It's all in the bible.
5. He died for us so we can now have the right to also, call him father, and knowing that he died for all of us we are no longer subject to works only, belief and we are saved thru his grace not some law that no one could live by. Anymore questions? Love that name my black brother! Rita
Rtia at 11:40AM on Jan 14th 2008
51. "Regardless of the actual medical cause of final death, the historical record is very clear -- Jesus suffered numerous hours of horrible and sustained torture on the cross of Calvary."
Mark, thanks for that graphic and disturbing account of a fate that many in that time period underwent.
Since violence and suffering really isn't my thing, I think I need to go read something less graphic now.
brandon at 11:41AM on Jan 14th 2008
52. ANAGRAM OF THE DAY!
Maximilian Kolbe = Kill Me... I Am In A Box.
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:42AM on Jan 14th 2008
53. mo,
have you ever hung on a cross?
brian at 11:43AM on Jan 14th 2008
54. Mark, that account of a crucifixion is very interesting, but it does little to explain why an all-loving God would demand suffering as payment for sin.
AndrewV at 11:44AM on Jan 14th 2008
55. Rita, Mark,
Fair enough explanations of JC's sacrifice. I got chills.
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:45AM on Jan 14th 2008
56. "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" From Brandon
Wuz up Brandon?
Now reading this definition tells me a couple things.
Why is having Morals considered good qualities? I don't get it. Aren't we following rules? It's not good nor bad. It is what it is.
So what Dinesh is doing with this article is pointless. We're just doing what we are told. We're told it's good to do certain things and it's bad to do others.
In conclusion: Debating Morality is pointless. It's a made up word. You can subsitute "Morality", with "Obedient". They really do mean the same thing.
Now if you want to talk about true Selflessness, that would be a good topic.
Botts at 11:47AM on Jan 14th 2008
57. brandon,
were i in your shoes i would not want to hear about it either. its the very rejection of this truth that keeps your eyes from being opened. either jesus was Lord or he was a Lunatice. who in their right mind would do such a thing? knowing full well there would be people like you and other atheist who would reject, redicule and minimize his sacrifice. i know for my part, i do not have enough love in my heart to die for many. perhaps a few. but jesus died for all. to minimize that is un-forgivable and that is what you will be judged on. you were born into sin. you did not ask to be. God gave you a way out and you rejected it, what is he to do?
brian at 11:50AM on Jan 14th 2008
58. Mark,
Thank you for putting it so presicely in words for those who do not understand how our Jesus came and took the blame for our sins and how he was so abuse and beat. He never hurt or abused anyone, my heart just hurts when I hear of such and accurate account of what my savior did for my me. IN order that I might received eternal life, they hung him on that cross and the correct cause of die I believe was he love us so much that when they speared him with a roman spear his heart that loved us so just burst and all of (what's known as life that pumps through our body ran out) he's blood. Do you people understand yet why we love him why I want to serve him, he love us enough to die for us. Who in this crowd loves anyone that much? A total stanger to most died for all so that you might inherit his promises. And yes or yes Jesus is going to come back alot sooner than some of you think. In his full glory and he is going to set all things straight.
Rtia at 12:14PM on Jan 14th 2008
59. Mokele, here is a follow up to my last post regarding Jesus' sacrifice:
Interestingly, it was the physical aspect of His crucifixion that was so torturous. As prophesied, Jesus was silent before his accusers. While suffering on the cross, Jesus asked the Father to forgive his accusers and executioners "for they know not what they do."
The time when we Jesus in excruciation was just before He died. Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' Which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
It was at point that sin of humanity was placed upon Jesus, and the Father could no longer look upon the Son. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Mark at 11:54AM on Jan 14th 2008
60. andrew,
do we in our society demand payment for crime? why would we do that? has anyone here not committed a crime? why should the be justice? is there justice? where in the Hell did justice come from? not from hell. hell,it hates justice
brian at 11:53AM on Jan 14th 2008