"Secular ethics" put under the microscope

Howdy, this is just a logical debunking of “secular ethics”, specifically the notion that the physical world is all that exists and that “morality” is therefore only reducible to naturalistic survival instincts.

I’m going to avoid getting into “atheism vs theism, etc” to avoid overcomplicating this, this is just a logical debunking of secular ethical arguments, not an argument for a specific creed. So here goes…


***The correct meaning of “survival of the fittest”
***—

First we’re just going to clarify what survival of the fittest actually means in a Darwinian or natural selection context. It simply means that some members of a species are better able to adapt to their environment and go on to reproduce more than others, that’s about it.

Unfortunately Darwin’s concept gets constantly distorted and misquoted, so I’ll attempt to rectify this as well as debunk the ethical theories which claim to be based on “evolution” as not actually scientific, just pseudo-scientific philosophy:


***“Social Darwinism”
***—

Social Darwinism in a nutshell is that there are some members of a species who possess innately ‘better’ traits such as strength, intelligence, productivity, etc, and that society should therefore favor them.

…but this actually contradicts natural selection, because according to Darwin’s theory there’s no such thing as an “innately” better trait; traits are only as “good or bad” as they allow one to adapt to the environment, with reproduction as the end-game.

A dumb person who is able to raise a family of 10 kids, is therefore more ‘fit’ from a biological perspective than a post-graduate professor who only has 1 kid. There’s no virtue in evolution in being ‘intelligent’ if it doesn’t aid one’s adaptation and reproduction.

Likewise, a welfare recipient who doesn’t work and contribute financially to the economy but who has 10 kids on the dole is more “fit” than a full-time worker who only has 1 kid. The Octomom is therefore more “evolutionarily fit” than Donald Trump from a scientific perspective.

The above of course renders the ‘capitalist’ notions of social Darwinism null and void. Sure, the welfare recipient might be parasitic if it’s others who are having to support their children financially, but again from a Darwinian POV, being a ‘parasite’ isn’t “good” or “bad”.

And if being a parasite allows for better reproductive odds than being ‘productive’, then that just means the welfare recipient beat out the ‘hard worker’ in the fitness contest. Telling them they’re “wrong” to be a parasite would be as meanings from a scientific POV as telling a mosquito that drinking people’s blood is “evil”.

Hence again while social Darwinist views are not scientific, just moral philosophies that use “evolution” sounding jargon to pass as more credible.


Pleasure vs pain argument


Another secular argument which is easy to debunk is that morality in the natural world is related to whether things cause “harm” or “pain”, such as the utilitarian theories of guys like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Problem is this is easy to debunk just with common sense examples. Getting a woman pregnant causes her to experience pain during childbirth, but you won’t here many arguing that pregnancy is therefore wrong and that the entire human race should die out.

So again this actually contradicts natural selection, because if we take for granted that reproduction and survival of a species are end-games, then again you can’t say that causing pain is “inherently” wrong; it’d only be as “good or bad” as it relates the the survival of a species, and plenty of species in nature cause pain to other members of the species in the name of survival, so this argument is also debunked as nonscientific.


***“People are naturally good or altruistic”



You hear this weak argument come up a lot, often in response to claims such as that without a God or higher source of morality than men, then crimes like rape and murder wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.

The rebuttal is usually that people instinctively know these things are wrong with or without ‘religion’, and attempts to back this up by pointing out that species such as chimpanzees have altruistic instincts.

While it’s true that species have altruistic instincts, again this argument still fails the litmus test, and also doesn’t show much of an understanding of biology. Because again its declaring that altruistic behavior is innately good regardless of it’s role in natural selection, when from a purely scientific perspective, again, there is no trait or behavior which is “automatically good” without exception; only the consequences and how the relate to survival matter.

Likewise species are not ‘entirely’ altruistic’ or competitive, but from my understanding are a mix of the two. Chimps for example do work together for the good of the group, but on the other hand male chimps do fight and harm each other in competition for mates, and sometimes kill the offspring of their new mate’s former partners.

So from a scientific POV you can’t say the altruistic behavior is always better than the competitive behavior, it would only depend on the circumstances, unless you’re going to tell a chimpanzee he’s “immoral”.

And for real, just turning on the news immediately debunks the “people are always good claim” as a fairy tale, since plenty of examples of people committing heinous acts like murder and rape can easily be found. So even if humans as a whole have an altruistic instinct, it obviously isn’t something which is always in effect without exception.

In my humble opinion, this argument is just an appeal to emotion, and closer to a fairy tale you’d tell the kiddos when they’re 5 years old, since not only is it just philosophy claiming to be science like the others, but it also contradicts biology and shows a weak understanding of the altruistic and competitive natures of species.


**
*Morality is decided by societies or people



This is another generic secular argument you’ll often here, tying in with moral relativism. And possibly the dumbest of the ones I’ve mentioned.

The gist here is that morality is more or less reducible to a list of rules or codes created by societies or individuals. And often a premise is that all ‘morals’ or moral behavior in humans is learned rationally or intellectually, such as from parents or from schools or society in general.

But this is so full of holes, it’s hard to decide where to start:

*Well first off, this completely contradicts the argument about species naturally having altruistic instincts, and seems to be based off of outdated psychological theories of “tabula rasa” which proceeded Darwin and our modern knowledge of the roles that genes play in the instincts and behaviors of humans and animals, such as evolutionary psychology.

So make up your mind? Are humans naturally good because primates have altruistic instincts in their genes? Or if a person didn’t hear a teacher or a pastor say “killing is bad”, they wouldn’t know not to do it? You can’t have it both ways.

*Second, well again this idea of “morals” still makes no sense from a Darwinian perspective or a common sense perspective, since it defines “morals” as a list of rules, but doesn’t even attempt to define what the end-goal should be.

But we can take for granted that survival is the only ‘end-goal’ of a species or group that can be defined scientifically, so defining it as anything else that ‘society decides’ therefore is just more philosophizing and has no basis in science. (e.x. silly example, hypothetically if society made it illegal for anyone to have children, this would be in contradiction to our biological drive to procreate).

I won’t even delve into the other flaws of this argument, such how societies or individuals can somehow “create morals” in their mind is basically believing in magic, or that one can just create something out of nothing. (As opposed to how in the scientific method, facts aren’t “invented”, just discovered"), but shredding it thoroughly would be beside the point, since I’ve already explained above how again it’s rooted in philosophy and science, on top of being anti-intellectual and contradicting what evolutionary biology reveals about altruistic instincts in people.


Conclusion


Well I think I’ve done a good job tearing down most ‘secular ethical’ arguments you regularly hear, and showing how anti-intellectual and logically flawed they are.
In summary, I believe this shows the only ‘ethical theory’ one could take from a purely naturalistic perspective while being logically consistent would be a form of nihilism, or the belief that no action or thing is automatically ‘bad or good’ beyond how they relate to survival and adaption, even rape and murder wouldn’t be ‘bad’ if they situationally aided those things in a group or species, and of course non-human primates sometimes do them too.

Therefore believing that any thing or principle has some type of ‘innate’ worth or goodness, whether it’s intelligence, altruism, economic productivity, etc is more or less logically admitting that morality comes from a higher objective source than mere natural selection.

As this would of course be arguing that certain things are still good even if the run in conflict with natural selection, and vice versa. (e.x. If a man’s only ability to reproduce was to rape a nun who was going against biological interest by being abstinent, then one couldn’t say this is automatically wrong to do unless they’re admitting to a higher objective source of moral truth).

Now this argument isn’t one for “what” the objective source is, whether it’s God, Jesus, Budda, the formal laws of the universe such as logic and mathematics, et cetera. That’s a whole different ballpark.

This is simply pointing out that unless one is a moral nihilist there’s no way to deny that one does exist without just being intellectually dishonest. Even if I couldn’t provide the best explanation for what that source is, I can still point out that denying one exists is silly and anti-intellectual.

Much as even if I don’t know… who committed the Black Dahlia murderer, if someone was suggesting it was committed by Mr. Spock I could still thoroughly debunk that notion as nonsense, whether or not I could articulate a ‘better idea’ or not.

A major flaw I see in your debunking, is your assumption that secular morals are somehow based on or have to follow the notion of ‘survival of the fittest.’

Why would they?

The ‘pain of childbirth’ argument doesn’t really work, either.

Someone who truly is a for-real no-foolin’ pleasure-and-pain type is capable of saying, with perfect consistency, that they willingly endure some amount of pain in hopes of getting some greater amount of pleasure. Ask her why she visited the dentist and underwent that painful procedure; she’ll reply that it would’ve hurt more, eventually, if she’d stayed away. Ask her why she’s looking forward to having a kid; she can reply that she has reason to believe she’ll be happier overall – even factoring in the pain of childbirth, plus all the other negatives – than if she didn’t.

Folks often refer to “enlightened self-interest” – you know, to emphasize that it pays off to put a little thought into it: eat right instead of always gorging on junk food, get some exercise instead of just lounging around; you can pitch that to a hedonist, as a hedonist, explaining that he might enjoy each week a little less but (a) he’s still having a pretty good time, and (b) he’s thereby increasing his odds of living longer and having a lot more weeks of sensible hedonism.

And so on.

You are mistaken in that belief. This shows that you have the ability to make a nice strawman, get bits of it slightly singed, and then warm yourself on the blaze you imagine.

No, it isn’t. It’s a choice of axioms. That’s how actually logical thought functions.

What are they based on then, if the natural world is all that exists?

I guess they don’t have to be, but that would mean they aren’t based on science then, so where would they come from?

Also, it strikes me that the post is shot through with vague references to a god serving as the source of morality. I mean, the post then skitters away from it – it’s a different ballpark, it’s beyond the scope of the thread – but it’s implied, y’know? It’s repeatedly referenced. It is, as far as I can tell, still held up as a possibility even amidst rejections of the idea that individuals or societies can decide.

So, I’m curious: why is that a different ballpark? Why not, when attempting to strike down one idea, likewise strike the idea that a deity can so decide? Explain that, and maybe it’ll shed light on whether individuals and societies can, uh, do likewise.

I will somewhat agree with the OP on his opinions about evolution and social standards. Evolution is a biological process not a moral one. It’s designed to make more entities not better entities. Entities only get “better” to the extant that this enables them to increase in number.

I disagree on his conclusions over pleasure vs pain. To use his childbirth example, no woman goes through childbirth just for the sake of experiencing childbirth. As the OP correctly noted, it’s a painful and dangerous process. Women go through the pain of childbirth because they want the pleasure of having a child. The assumption is the pleasure of the child will outweigh the pain of the birth and the balance will be a net gain.

As for his latter arguments. I think he’s missing the point that humans are genetically a social creature. We want to live in the companionship of other humans. So part of our own self-interest lies in acting in a manner that other people will find acceptable.

That still fails the same litmus test, since again that doesn’t hold true with 100% exception, as some people are naturally more introverted than others.

Likewise, some groups do find anti-social behavior acceptable; if one’s a member of a street gang they may have to kill in order to be accepted by the group, or be ostracized. So in that scenario it would be in their own immediate interest to kill an innocent person in order to be accepted by the group.

And again this doesn’t relate to ‘ethics’ or to purpose from a natural selective perspective; since I don’t see an argument that people are ‘morally obligated’ to do something because “they enjoy it”, with the argument here that people normally enjoy cooperating with others.

A guy might enjoy playing Xbox, but that doesn’t of course mean they’re “obligated” to play Xbox.

No, the argument is just that it’s illogical to not be a moral nihilist if one doesn’t believe that morality comes from a higher objective source than the material world.

Whether or not the ‘higher source’ is a God or not is a different argument (e.x. some Buddhists don’t believe in a “God” per se).

But it seems to me you’re skipping a step.

You say it’d still fails a litmus test; is there anything that you think would pass that litmus test? Spell out why you think that works, and we can then maybe craft you something significantly similar, which likewise passes that test.

Is there, in your opinion, anything that does?

That’s where I stopped. Social Darwinism isn’t a fundamental aspect of secular ethics, so “debunking” it (and I’m not even sure you managed to) isn’t a victory you can claim to establish your authority on the topic.

I don’t follow you. What’s so special about believing morality comes from there?

Say I meet four guys, and none of them are moral nihilists. One says he always does whatever his dad tells him to do; another says he does whatever his country tells him to do; another says he does whatever his god tells him to do; another says he does whatever he believes is in his own self-interest. Why is Guy #3 different from Guy #1 and Guy #2? Heck, how are any of them different from Guy #4?

Why do you think one is logical, and the others aren’t?

That’s the only part of your post that has any real worth. It is a fair summary of natural selection. Any behaviour or physical attribute that improves the change of reproduction has a better chance of being selected for inheritance.

As such, for some creatures a “red in tooth and claw” approach yields benefits. For others, social cohesion is important along with all the unwritten rules that we might recognise as morality (monogamous albatrosses, self-sacrificing termites and ants).
And for others…a mixed and flexible approach works best.

At no point in any of this is there a need to appeal to a supernatural being or external force of any kind. None has ever been shown to exist or even be required so unless you have evidence that shows otherwise you are stuck with a purely natural explanation.

The human morality we see, and all the examples you give in your post can easily be explained by purely natural and rational means. In fact, morality (and the misfiring thereof) makes much more sense if you consider it purely as an manifestation of evolved social behaviour.

This is what I was gonna come in to say. We have evolved certain behavioral traits, such as mercy or group cooperation, and we define these as good.

We also use a lot of utilitarian reasoning: if it gives pleasure, it has a decent chance of being good. If it gives pain, especially unnecessary pain (surgery, for instance, is often necessary) it has a good chance of being bad.

So it’s partly instinctive, and partly reason.

At that, if I were to ask someone why they did something, and the simple reply was “sexual lust” – well, sure; that’s plausible, I guess. And if I were to ask that same person why they later did something else, and the simple reply was “sympathy” or “compassion” or whatever – uh, okay; those are also plausible motives; maybe sometimes people are motivated by hunger or fear, and sometimes by a powerful sentiment that likewise packs a big emotional punch.

[quote=“Novelty_Bobble, post:14, topic:774456”]

That’s the only part of your post that has any real worth. It is a fair summary of natural selection. Any behaviour or physical attribute that improves the change of reproduction has a better chance of being selected for inheritance.

As such, for some creatures a “red in tooth and claw” approach yields benefits. For others, social cohesion is important along with all the unwritten rules that we might recognise as morality (monogamous albatrosses, self-sacrificing termites and ants).
And for others…a mixed and flexible approach works best.

Debatable, as far as a physics equation proving the existence of a deity, no.

But that doesn’t mean that logical arguments or proofs could be made.

Likewise, in my argument above I made a logical claim that it’s impossible to logically believe in any moral truths (beyond survival) unless one believes they come from a higher objective source.

So if one believes moral truths do have an objective existence (e.x. harming people is wrong), then this would logically necessitate the existence of a higher source.

That’s quite fallacious indeed. For one how could you have ‘physical evidence’ of a non-physical entity.

Likewise, things such as logic, and mathematics are considered to have an existence, despite not being physical, or ‘made of matter or energy’ if you will.

That doesn’t address the argument, since that’s just describing what “is”, not what “should be”.

For example if in theory a person could produce more naturally selective success by choosing to rape, then why should rape be illegal?

But why should we define rape as bad, if it gives Ted Bundy pleasure - and if hypothetically he raped and murdered a person in a coma who wasn’t able to experience any pain, and had no chance of reproducing.

So in this hypothetical scenario, the only net difference was a gain in Ted Bundy’s physical pleasure, so why should it be considered immoral for him to do it?

If morality comes from a higher source, where does that higher source get its morality from? A yet-higher source?

I don’t get how you think this tack is going to work.

I mean, you think you’re talking with a secularist, right? And you think the secularist is going to recoil in horror from your hypothetical, and agree that such a crime is “bad” or objectionable or however you want to put it, right?

The only way your argument can possibly work is if you’re expecting secularists to sensibly be on the same page with you!

That said, a reply of course can be easily cobbled together – that we’ve reasoned that instantiating a strong prohibition against rape and murder even in weird corner cases makes it easier for us to rail against rape and murder in general; that we can, all of us, enter into an agreement right now that we don’t wish for such things to be done to our own unconscious bodies, and will act to defend one another from such behavior; that we want to enshrine a person’s right to decide what will happen to his or her body when he or she loses consciousness; and so on.

But surely you realize that your whole approach hinges on such people already wanting to bar the sort of thing you want them to want to bar?