A Problem of Ethics

Recently my brother got into a bit of an email debate with a former science teacher of his about origins. I've seen and heard some of these kinds of debates before: the Christian adamantly asserting a young earth and pointing out common flaws in the theory of Evolution, and the Darwinist begging the Christian to leave behind antiquated superstitions in the name of scientific reason. My brother wanted to make sure the teacher knew of his conversion to Christianity and the seeds of doubt planted in his mind with regard to the truth of Christianity in this class. And boy, did he let him know!

One of the arguments brought up in the discussion was that of morality and ethics. My brother made the argument that, given Darwinism, morality (or at least the idea of universal right and wrong) could NOT have "evolved." In other words, if we are just advanced animals, how can anyone claim murder in the human world, when murder is is a preposterous claim in the animal world?

This science teacher retorted that morality did evolve, or at least appeared at some stage in our "evolution," and that morality is just evidence of our becoming more "fit" for the "survival of the fittest" game each species is playing.

I disagree with this. The following (between the asterisks) is what I believe would be a reasonable extension of this guy's reasoning about morality.

*

If we were to take a completely Darwinian approach to our species, I claim that the illusion of morality keeps us from evolving faster. In the survival of the fittest doctrine, if it is the fit that survive and the less fit that eventually fizzle into extinction, thus leaving the "better" species to inherit the earth, then I maintain morality is holding us back.

For instance, I think we need to manage the species, in much the same way we manage renewable resources. We always want the best resources, and so those inferior resources that keep the best from thriving need to be eradicated. So I say we need to figure out everyone's IQ and eradicate everyone whose IQ is less than say, 115. We should also eradicate everyone who is old, handicapped, and carries a gene mutation that is not helpful but harmful to our species. Over time (and if we do this right, over a much shorter period of time than if we left it to nature's course) we could do a great deal of improvement to the overall gene pool, thus furthering our species and making it even more "fit" for survival.

Now it is unfortunate that "morals" and "ethics" have been introduced into our species, be it through religion, superstition, or evolution, because a great number of folks would disagree with my plan based on the idea that eradicating those with inferior genes is not "compassionate" or "just" or "right." These folks hold us back from evolving, because these inferior genes will either never go away, or it will take an incredible amount of time for them to be "naturally selected" out of the gene pool.

*

What a disgusting line of reasoning this is! Nevertheless, if you subtract any spectre of justice, morality, ethics, right and wrong, compassion, and love from the picture, this line of reasoning is not all that unreasonable. And yet, an overwhelming majority of people would be absolutely appalled at just such a suggestion. Why would that be?

~

WJS