DIALOGUE WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 5 (RIGHT AND WRONG)

Your essay expresses an interesting variation on the tenets of sociobiology in that it includes protection of the group's leader as one of its driving forces. I probably would not have thought of that as a goal since I am not as politically minded as you are. The raging debate concerning sociobiology seems to me to be a variation of the old nature vs. nurture controversy of previous generations, but dressed up in evolutionary terminology. You wisely included both factors in your analysis since neither can be properly said to explain human behavior alone (unless one considers nurture to merely be a cultural outgrowth of nature). If you haven't already read it, a good overview of sociobiology is given in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology/. Most of it seems consistent with your basic thoughts on the subject, but the various critiques in the article should be carefully noted.

One should at this point state the obvious: employing either nature or nurture, or any combination of the two, to explain human behavior is the result of a purely naturalistic and mechanistic world view. Whether it is genetic make-up or environmental influences which cause us to act the way we do, in neither case does a human being have the capacity to make a choice in how he/she behaves. Therefore your use of the words “choose,” “choice,” “follow,” “guide behavior,”and “freedom” are rather misleading within the picture you have outlined, and are really purely illusory. I know of few atheists who actually operate with this belief system fully in mind, but then few of us are wholly consistent. The existentialists realize this ultimate consequence of naturalism but “choose” to act out their lives as if it had purpose even though they know it doesn't. Even the ultimate choice of “to be or not to be” is denied them. It is interesting that one of the most prominent existentialists, Camus, is reported to have converted to Christianity a few years before his death. A theistic viewpoint recognizes the genetic and environmental influences on a person's behavior but also believes in his capacity to choose to behave in spite of those influences since he possesses a spiritual component that is, strictly speaking, outside the mechanistic forces of the universe. I know of no strictly materialistic theory that opens up that possibility, but I would be very interested if you have anything to add to that subject.

Besides the above-mentioned pragmatic objection to a strictly sociobiological explanation for human behavior, the problem of altruism also must be faced. This is too large a subject for me to cover here, but a number of critics have shown the difficulty in meshing specific altruistic behaviors observed in man with any sort of simplistic gene theory. The Wikipedia article on sociobiology says, “When altruists lavish their resources on non-altruists at the expense of their own kind, the altruists tend to die out and the others tend to grow. In other words, altruism is more likely to survive if altruists practice the ethic that 'charity begins at home.'” Unfortunately, the facts do not necessarily bear this out, and one could easily argue that much of society has become more indiscriminately altruistic with time, not less so.

Take Christianity as an example. It was by practicing the counter-intuitive (and certainly anti social- Darwinian) teachings of Jesus that the movement was able to spread rapidly throughout the world. He taught that although anyone could practice love toward one's friends and relations, we were called to love those outside our immediate gene pool, those who were not in a position to reciprocate (the poor, slaves, social outcasts, lepers, etc.), and those who were not highly disposed to reciprocate (including political and religious opponents). Because of the example of this ethic, his followers increased rapidly in numbers throughout the Greco-Roman world in spite of (some would say because of) widespread persecution. The same story is being repeated today in areas such as China. In fact, the only time the altruistic movements tend to die out is when they become politically powerful and start turning against others and one another (witness the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.).

Lisa Goddard (University of Liverpool PhD thesis, Nov. 2007) has perceptively pointed out that ”Rather than being primarily selfish in motivation, humans are both more altruistic and more egotistical than the sociobiological view can accommodate.” For a rather biting and (overly) sarcastic attack on sociobiology from a theistic point of view, see www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/against-sociobiology-12. It includes an oft-repeated statement that sociological beliefs as usually formulated are not really testable, and therefore it is not a true science. One is left with a mere belief in hypothetical constructs in no way more logical than a belief in supernatural forces.

Considering the naturalistic assumptions behind your whole argument, your conclusion gives a very clear picture of the resulting options. However, since it is based on no absolute values that one can rely on other than those hard-wired into us to cope with an entirely different societal situation, at best it offers only a pragmatic solution to the question of morality. And I would argue that it really offers nothing along that line either. You use some indirect statements: “it becomes possible” and “a range of goals can be targeted.” The real questions are: “Who will do this and what specific guidelines will they follow?”

Take the current question of health care. How does one optimize the happiness factor? If we go with the benefit to the most people, then we tax the rich and middle class and give universal health care to the poor masses. But that penalizes the most productive members of society, and all of society ultimately suffers. The same could be said for healthcare providers. Do we lean toward the side of the doctors who actually provide the care to make sure that people remain motivated to enter the medical field? Or do we side with the insurance companies in our legislation so that they can provide affordable coverage? To take a local example, the city I now live in has stripped just about all of the health benefits from their employees (including my son-in-law). Is that justified because only a small number of people are involved compared to the relative large number of taxpayers who have to foot the bill? Whose happiness comes first?

Since none of the above can be dispassionately calculated using mathematical models, morality by your definition becomes a pliable tool in the hands of those who wield the most political or propagandistic power. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the common criticisms of sociobiology is that it plays right into the hands of those who believe in euthanasia and racial discrimination.

A second problem with your conclusion is that it zeroes in on individual happiness and freedom as a universally accepted goal. Let's consider those two “absolutes” one at a time.

Happiness is a rather vague term, but we probably all have a rough idea of what most people feel it should entail: good health, a good paying job, nice house, loving family, leisure time to pursue hobbies, etc, etc. The fact is that such a non-stressed picture often leads, in reality, to the overwhelming desire for more material goods, a higher position in society than one has, the desire for a new trophy wife, a feeling of emptiness and lack of purpose in life, and general envy of all those who still have more than we do. This can perhaps be demonstrated by the observed higher than average suicide rates in the Scandinavian welfare states. Somewhat surprisingly, New Testament teachings on the subject turn the concept of happiness head over heels.

In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 4) he states that those who are, or will ultimately be, blessed (i.e. happy) are actually the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger for righteousness, those who are merciful to others, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted and reviled by others. Similarly, James (chapter 1, verses 2-3) states that trials of any kind should be welcomed with joy (a word usually understood to be a deeper concept than mere happiness since it does not depend on external circumstances) because they are necessary to produce a mature person, complete in every way. If these teachings are correct, then the best way to promote individual happiness would be to welcome physical difficulties in our lives and devote more time trying to meet other people's needs rather than exclusively our own.

Individual freedom is another absolute goal that you feel we could all agree on. There are several things to say about that statement. First, freedom can be defined as mainly freedom from something (want, fear, etc.) or freedom for something (pursuing one's individual goals and pleasures unimpeded, etc.). Depending on which of these two concepts one most agrees with will often result in quite different ideas on what is the right or wrong way to proceed in order to optimize this goal. Similarly, even within the U.S. there are two diametrically opposed views on what freedom means and how to achieve it. There is an interesting sociological book on this subject entitled Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways. The author demonstrates that depending on which part of the British Isles immigrants came from, they generally settled in different parts of America and brought their differing concepts of freedom with them. Thus, part of the U.S. today believes that the only way to ensure individual freedoms is by the promulgation of numerous laws to put limitations on those who would transgress society's rules. Another part of the country believes firmly that freedom means that the government interferes in one's life as little as possible even if it results in rampant abuses among the general populace.

Next to consider is the fact that you, as an American, happened to choose individual freedom as a supposedly universal goal. In fact, that may be a highly culturally determined goal. Freedom above all else is certainly the American mantra, but you might be surprised to find that many in other cultures do not rank it nearly as highly as we do. At the risk of grossly overstating the point, I would say that even in today's time frame, individual freedom for all is subservient to political correctness in Canada, to national security in Israel, to xenophobic feelings in Japan, to vengeance on one's enemies in many splinter countries, and to propagation and enforcement of certain political (Communist countries) and religious (Islamic and Hindu states) ideologies.

In summary, I'm not sure that your essay was properly entitled. Recognition of Right and Wrong assumes that an absolute morality exists, and the main problem is to agree on what it is. Instead, you propose a set of genetically hard-wired societal goals originating in early hominids which you then assume should still be somehow applicable to today's quite different situation if properly re-defined and publicized by some authoritative or influential group or individual.You throw a bone to religion as providing a possible way to further this process, but I would argue that religion should be the driving force from the start since only revelation from outside the naturalistic world holds the possibility of truly telling us what is right or wrong.