A few weeks ago I wrote a series of posts critiquing Kenneth R Miller’s view that Christians can and should accept the teachings of Evolution. One statement he made unsettled me more than all the rest:

“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them”

To this point I responded:

1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.

2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.

According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

Dan wrote the following in response to my post:

Theft, murder, and rape may temporarily advantage the individual, but they undermine the group. Humanity has lived, in all times and places, in groups – it is to our advantage to constrain acts that disrupt the group.

Dan makes a valid point: certain behaviours are of detriment to the species, and so one can make the case that such behaviours should be labeled as “wrong,” thus, immoral. The point, however, overlooks some rather important issues. Let’s consider, based on Evolutionary concepts, what is actually permitted in an Evolutionary-based morality.

a) Evolution requires a hierarchy of principles

Evolution depends on a hierarchy or principles: matter must exist; water (or some other solvent) must exist; organic chemicals must exist; self-replicating proteins must exist; so on and so on. Each level of the hierarchy is dependent on the preceding one, otherwise, the process stops.

Now let’s evaluate what Dan alluded to: I call it established species continuance (ESC for short). ESC demands that necessary actions are taken to ensure the survival of an already established species. As was noted, for a species to survive actions which facilitate ESC are favored over ones that don’t. This truth, however, does not mean that actions which favour ESC are favoured over ones that don’t absolutely. Such a view ignores the hierarchy of evolutionary principles.

b) Survival of the Fittest is the superior principle

ESC depends on Survival of the Fittest thus, ESC is a lesser principal than Survival of the Fittest. The primary goal of Evolution is the production of new species – the stronger arising from the weaker. While ESC is important, ESC is impossible unless at some point, a fledgling species had done what was best for itself, even at the expense of others. Evolution is not possible unless individual advancement, at some point, takes precedence over the needs of a group.

c) The individual is more important than the group

In most models, Evolution is advanced by mutations within a single progenitor-organism (not a group of organisms). We will call this progenitor, “The One.” Now, according to the goals of Evolution, the One must do what ever is necessary to propagate its genes, otherwise, Evolution does not continue. This then means that Survival of the One is a more important principle than Survival of the Many.

When establishing a moral system, one must appeal to the highest authority possible. Therefore, in an Evolutionary-based morality, Survival of the One is the highest authority that can appealed to. Thus, actions which favor the One are always more justified than actions which simply make appeal to ESC for justification.

d) Any advancing action is permitted to every individual

Evolution advances by a series of almost imperceptible changes, thus, there is no manner in which we could screen individuals to know if they are a necessary link to the future of Evolution or not. Who is to say that the genes that make a person walk the way they walk, talk the way they talk, or wear the clothes they wear, are not connected in some way to the next vital stepping stone? We can therefore not restrict individuals from acting out for lack of obvious Evolutionarily-significant variations. All humans are possible candidates for the “next step.”

What this all means is that every human is entitled to make choices that enable it to survive as successfully as possible, while spreading its genes as widely possible, and removing as many threats (potential predators or competitive mates) from the environment as possible.

Thus, Evolution not only justifies but demands that rape, theft, and murder take place when necessary.

tags: ethics, evolution, Kenneth Miller, morality, survival of the fittest