Why Morality Can’t Evolve: Erik Strandness Responds to Peter Singer, Alex O’Connor, Jessica Frazier and Richard Swinburne

If this recent episode of Unbelievable? is any indication, it appears that evolution has failed in its lofty goal of establishing morality solely on materialistic grounds. The atheist guests, Peter Singer and Alex O’Connor, much to their intellectual credit, have acknowledged the difficulty of producing an immaterial “ought” from a naturally selected “is” and put forth non-reductive explanations for objective morality.

Singer, while still a strong supporter of evolution, recognizes that it can’t fully explain our moral intuitions.

“What grounds morality, I believe, is our capacity to reason…Our moral instincts, our moral intuitions, have a base in evolution. We evolved as social mammals, and we can find something like morality, a kind of proto-morality, in our closer relatives, the Chimpanzees and Bonobos, for example. But if we really want to know what is right and wrong, I think we need to get beyond that. The fact that we have something that is evolved, is not a reason for thinking that that is the right thing to do, especially not in the circumstances that we are now, which may be quite different from the circumstances from which we evolved(Singer)”.

Contrary to his past beliefs, he now contends that objective moral truths do exist, but they are similar in character to both logic and mathematics and can be discerned through reason. Singer, on a 2018 episode of “The Big Conversation” with Andy Bannister, explained it in this way.

“I’m not a naturalist in the ethical sense. I can describe myself [that way] in the terms of understanding the universe broadly speaking, but not in every respect…When we’re talking about ethics, naturalism is the idea that you can derive ‘ought’ judgments from ‘is’ judgments, in other words, you can go from facts to values. I don’t think that’s true. I think there are independent normative truths, which I’m doubtful about saying they exist because that suggests that there is a realm where these things can be discovered or seen, but I think that they’re something we have access to, as we have access to principles of logic or principles of mathematics. If we are rational beings, we can understand them.” (Singer)

O’Connor has similarly moved beyond a naturally selected altruism and adopted an ethical emotivism that explains our corporate moral indignation as an “ick” response to behaviors that even make nature red-in-tooth-and-claw blush. I have always admired O’Connor’s logical reasoning and his thoughtful challenges to Christianity, but it appears he has traded in his materialist sensibilities for a moral “burning in the bosom.” He posits a “pre-rational” emotivism as the basis for objective moral values, which seems no different than the religious conversion of an emotionally vulnerable teenager at a summer Bible camp.

“I am an ethical emotivist. I think the answer to this question is feeling… Ethical emotivists think that ethical statements are expressions of emotion.” (O Connor).

Jessica Frazier is willing to give religion a place at the ethical table, especially Eastern traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but ultimately appeals to an evolved morality, an “ethics of ascent” that emerged as matter became more complex. However, using the “emergent” escape clause to retain evolutionary credibility is still a conjuring act where an “ought” is magically pulled out of an “is” hat. Emergence may provide linguistic cover for one who wishes to retain their evolutionary credentials, but it fails to explain how a plethora of proteins becomes an edifice of ethics.

“I’m going to suggest looking through it like an ‘ethics of ascent.’ Goodness is real, but it’s emergent from out of the natural world, and every being that can help generate an experience of good is part of that.” (Frazier) 

Finally, we come to Richard Swinburne, the Christian voice in the discussion. While Swinburne’s contribution offered a clear theistic grounding, his appeal to parental obligation may not have resonated with an audience of sceptical philosophers. A richer moral vision grounded in divine love might have been more compelling.

“Children have to obey their parents in various ways, even if there is no other reason for doing it, and likewise of course with the state. I would generalize that because the benefit provided by God is far greater than the benefit provided by parents or the state. God gives the state and our parents the power to do things. Everything we do is due to God, who has brought us into being, and it’s reasonable to suppose, for that reason, that if we knew all the good things that had come to us in life, we would have accepted the obligation to follow Him and do what He wants.” (Swinburne)

While the show sparked an interesting discussion, the guests did not do their philosophical due diligence by first defining terms and then building their case from the ground up. I believe the moral argument is one of the strongest proofs for the existence of God, so let me try to do it justice by breaking it down into its components and determining which worldview best integrates them.

Moral GPS

Morality is one of those concepts we all recognize but spend very little time exploring. We recognize good and bad behavior when we see it, but we struggle to explain why the conflict bothers us so much. Everyone has a built-in ethical GPS system consisting of a moral map that shows us the best route to our destination and a conscience that prompts us to recalibrate and correct course whenever we make a wrong turn. Unfortunately, the guests highlighted the problems with making a wrong turn, but didn’t explain where the map came from in the first place. Is morality an ethical trail we blaze or a path that is already clearly marked?

Merriam-Webster defines morality as “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” I would retain the core of this definition but expand it for clarity and reword it as follows: adherence to a set of transcendent relationship parameters universally recognized by all humans, which, when violated, necessitates correction. Any discussion of morality, therefore, must begin by addressing the three key premises contained in this definition: relationships, standards, and choice. Let’s investigate each one and see how they work together to make morality possible. 

Relationships

Morality cannot exist in a vacuum because, without other people, our behavior doesn’t affect anyone or anything. However, once you are in a crowd, you enter a world of relationships where one person’s actions can positively or negatively impact others. I believe life can be simplified into three main relationships: human-to-human, human-to-nature, and human-to-God. While the last one is anathema to atheists, the idea of a supernatural Other is essential for morality to have any true meaning. 

Standards

We all understand that for any community to succeed, it must establish a set of rules and regulations that govern the behavior of its members. Personal ideas of ideal conduct are ineffective in changing others’ actions unless they exit our minds and take up residence in a transcendent moral realm that hovers above us all, like a great cloud of ethical knowing —an immaterial realm that defines and governs the rules of material interaction. Interestingly, we often appeal to immaterial standards to judge material achievements, recognizing that nothing in this world can serve as a perfect exemplar. This is similar to Plato’s Theory of Forms, where physical objects are imperfect copies of ideal, unchanging, eternal forms. Morality, likewise, reflects a struggle between a perfect set of transcendent rules and their imperfect application on Earth.

We know that alone, we cannot dictate the behavior of others, so we must appeal to a transcendent realm to which everyone is beholden, which establishes relationship parameters, and has the authority to make them normative.                                                   

Singer recognizes the existence of this moral space but locates it in the same abstract zip code as Pythagorean numbers and Aristotle’s laws of logic. O’Connor tries to fill that space with a corporate “ick!” and equates morality with a kind of emotional mob mentality. And Frazier suggests that once you acquire enough neuronal matter, you will magically fill your brain with moral antimatter.

Sadly, rather than solve the problem, the guests merely kicked the problem upstairs and posited a space with ethical principles without explaining what qualifies that space to pontificate on all things moral.

It appears that for these thoughtful atheists, the question is no longer whether a moral space exists, but rather what qualifies it to make ethical judgments. If you accept my definition of morality, then this space must be Immaterial, Personal, Relational, and Authoritative. It must be able to see the big picture and have the foresight to recognize the essential relationship parameters necessary for a perfect society to exist. However, there is still one more component to consider, free will.

Read more: 

Why does God allow pain and suffering? A series on the most googled questions

Is the Problem of Suffering the strongest argument against God?

Cancer, War and the God Question: why so much suffering?

Free Will

Free will is essential because “right human conduct” requires the possibility of “wrong human conduct.” If we lack free will, as many atheists argue, then our actions are naturally selected behavior templates solely designed to promote survival, which seems odd considering we tremble at the thought of all of evolution’s hard work being undone by one of its accomplished graduates choosing to push a nuclear button.

As previously discussed, life is concerned with three main relationships: human-to-human, human-to-nature, and human-to-God.  The common thread between each of these relationships is the presence of at least one person with free will, in other words, one who can choose to conform or not conform to the rules of relationship engagement. We don’t consider the relationship between animals to be moral because neither party can select one behavior over another. We don’t hold cats responsible for decimating the mouse population, we don’t get offended when reindeer exclude other reindeer from reindeer games, and we don’t accuse animals of cruelty when they abandon the runts of the litter. Yet, if humans engaged in similar behaviors, they would be accused of ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and child abuse. Choice is therefore essential if morality is to be meaningful. Consequently, it follows that whoever or whatever occupies the previously described moral space must be familiar with choice. 

Materialists want an ordered, deterministic universe without free will, but ironically acquire it through a natural selection process that is repeatedly asked to make tough life choices. Darwin described natural selection as if it were a choosing agent, yet it’s an impersonal process. Ironically, this language of ‘selection’ smuggles in the very concept of choice that a deterministic framework seeks to avoid. He knew he needed selection verbiage because an evolutionary process that isn’t pro-choice is incapable of promoting its pro-life agenda.

It is our freedom to choose that necessitates moral guidelines. If we are not free, then we can never be proven innocent or guilty. The criminal justice system, the institution enforcing morality, would be rendered meaningless if crime were merely reduced to slam-dancing to the tune of our DNA.

Intuition or sensus divinitatis?

I was somewhat surprised by how often the panelists appealed to “intuition” as the mechanism by which they acquired moral knowledge. It was surprising because Merriam Webster’s definition of intuition as “the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference” precludes the use of a slide rule, microscope, or syllogism to formulate an ethical theory. Intuition, therefore, seems to have more in common with a sensus divinitatis —a God-given awareness of the divine—than a rational calculation - a sensus rationis. I think atheists use terms like intuition and emergence not as explanations but as shields to protect themselves from “He who must not be named.”

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Connecting the dots

I contend that the three necessary criteria for morality — relationships, standards, and free will — are all met by the Christian worldview. The Bible fills the moral space with a transcendent, immaterial God who exists in a trinitarian community of Persons. A God who established an ethical gold standard by creating “good” things and placing them in “very good” relationships. A God who created unique beings who, unlike animals, were formed from both dust and breath, and are able to bridge the gap between materiality and immateriality. A God of love who knew that true love can only exist if there is the possibility of no-love, necessitating free will. And perhaps most remarkable of all, a God who occupies the judgment seat, but who has spent a significant amount of time rehabilitating the criminals.

The last WORD on morality

We began by acknowledging that morality is meaningless in the absence of relationships and that, for those relationships to be successful, they must adhere to a set of standards that are universally applicable, objectively discernible, and transcendently authoritative.

We can adopt Singer’s abstract moral realm, but then we will need some help reading the moral tea leaves. We can adopt O’Connor’s primal moral scream therapy, but we will find that rather than encouraging civil discourse, we will only get hoarse. Or we can trust in Frazier’s emergent morality and hope that by producing more neurotransmitters, we can achieve “better moral living through chemistry.”

I think it makes far more sense for morality to be based on a transcendent, personal God of love who exists in a relational Trinity and who made His ethical stance known from the beginning in “good” words spoken in a rhetorically “very good” way. Words heard by image bearers equipped with divine voice recognition software capable of altering their behavior and getting back on Message.

While the show offered an engaging discussion, it appeared that the guests were hesitant to delve too deeply into this ethical space for fear that they might have to hear the final WORD on the morality matter.

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who practiced neonatal medicine for more than 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com