Euthyphro and the search for Morality’s origin (Part 2), an article taken from
https://philosophience.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/euthyphro-and-the-search-for-moralitys-origin-part-2/


As we saw in our previous section (Euthyphro and the search for Morality’s origin : Part 1), “Euthyphro dilemma” controverts the idea that moral values originates solely from a supernatural, intelligent, omnipotent Being, implying that these human principles exist in and of themselves. In this one, we are going to cope with somewhat more controversial themes. What exactly are moral standards and whence do they spring from? If we could imagine a world without belief in God or gods, would it be a world where Morality continues to play a cardinalrole in peoples’ lives? In Dostoyevsky’s book “The Brothers Karamazov”, Dmitri asks Rakitin: 《But what will become of men then, without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then and they can always do as they like?》

Before I disclose my opinion about this subject, it would be appropriate to give the definition, or to be precise, the definitions of Morality. According to Collinsdictionary there are three definitions: 1. Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. 2. A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people’s behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people. 3.The morality of something is how right or acceptable it is.

The second definition is the one of most interest to us on this topic. A system of moral values concerning people’s behaviour. Goodness, kindness, sincerity, humility, generosity, patience, loyalty and so on; these are some of the highest moral values of our era. But why do we humans value these qualities so high? Why these particular moral standards and not others? In order to answer these questions we should go long back in time, to an age when our ancestors had not evolved advanced language and “theory of mind” (ToM) yet. When we speak of advanced language, we do not mean simple vocal calls or danger signals that are common in other primates and also in non-primate animals. We are talking about a high-level instrument of communication that enabled the exchange of vital information, even those of abstract nature.
ToM is the ability to attribute mental states- beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc. – to oneself and to others. ToM is necessary to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one’s own(source: Wikipedia).

Before the advent of language and ToM humans were very alike their first cousins i.e. chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos. Physical strength, big bodies, aggressiveness, belligerence, swiftness and so on, were the most covetable features. Why that? Well, because these were the tickets for a successful life in Darwinian terms; survival and reproduction. A primate that could win fights, would attract allies, rise through the ranks, perhaps become the alpha-male, get exclusively access to the most females; and in the end leave a great number of offspring behind, increasing his genes’ frequency in the genetic pool.

But everything changed when, for some still disputable reasons, the human brain increased tremendously in size and complexity. And with the voluminous brain came the ToM, the language and finally the advance of projectile weapons that could kill effectively from distance. The ToM and the complex language allowed somatically weaker members of the community to build coalitions and overthrow alpha males. Projectile weapons (spears, bows and arrows) facilitated their attempts. As Peter Turchin explains in his book Ultarsociety: 《 The killing power of projectile weapons is what made men equal. It also made men and women equal. Well, more nearly equal than males and females among gorillas, chimpanzees, and even bonobos.[…] The invention of lethal weapons reduced the intensity of selection on physical strength, simply because a man armed with a bow and arrow […] is equal to any other similarly armed man. Skill matters more than physical brawn. A puny David felled the giant Goliath with a well-aimed sling stone.[…] With physical strength largely neutralized by lethal weapons, the emphasis shifted to selection for social intelligence. The best way to control an aggressive and violent upstart is with a coalition.》 What all these mean? It means that bodily might is no longer the most important trait. The ability to attract allies and build coalitions weigh much more in this new epoch.

But to do this, you must have a cluster of some specific characteristics e.g. loyalty, sincerity, generosity, collegiality etc. that will inspire trustfulness to your potential partners. Exactly these personal features would make men more attractive to women, too. That’s because the prolongation of gestation and infancy in humans required a higher Paternal Investment (hPI). Generosity, goodness, loyalty are hallmarks for a hPI which in turn raises the probability for offspring’s survival.

The next problem was how to ensure that all the members of the community would stick to these “moral values”. There is something deceptive about moral values. For the “selfish” individual the best deal would be: everyone else hang on them, except from me, provided that no one notices that I don’t. If I benefit from the morality of all people around me, while at the same time I am acting unethical, pretending that I also stick to the moral standards, then I am better off. Fortunately that was quite improbable to happen in the small-scale communities of our past. Even Uruk, often considered to be the first “city” in human history, had not more than 15000 inhabitants by 3700 BC (according to professor George Modelski) and most people still lived in small villages of a few hundreds to a few thousands residents. Swindlers, thieves, liars and all kinds of free riders could not thrive in so small communities, where everyone knew everyone and everything. No wonder that these communities were so egalitarian (as evidence suggests); nobody could tolerate selfishness and no past life was a secret.

But that, at some point, changes. More and more people move to the cities, which in turn become bigger, heterogeneous, full of women and men who don’t know each other, and they are not relatives. Moreover, they are people from different nations, religions, cultures with different languages and practices. Now it’s much easier to be a cheater, shirking your obligations to the society, still enjoying the common goods and everything the city may have to offer. Amongst hundreds of thousands, in the absence of organized police, cameras, satellites, registries etc. there is a relatively little risk to be caught. And even if caught, neither newspapers nor television exist to cause you  substantial reputational damage. Humans needed to solve the problem of selfish individuals and find new ways to make citizens cooperate and work for the common cause.

Here comes again the relentless force of Darwinian selection. Cities or states that solved the problem of free riders prospered and dominated those that plunged into chaos. The ways to enforce the laws and keep the order, varied. King Hammurabi ruled Babylon with extremely harsh laws. We all know the Code of Hammurabi. Rome did it with its intricate political and judicial system. But the majority of successful states “created” moralizing gods or, even better, one moralizing God. A usual misunderstanding of Darwinian selection is that every living being, tribe, country, institution etc., via a magic procedure finds directly what is best for its survival. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Probably, the great majority of cities or nations at the time did not invent moralizing gods. But the few that did, were able to preserve cohesion and slowly (sometimes rapidly through a war) absorb chaotic and “selfish” ones.
No wonder that the mightiest nations of the last two millennia worshipped a single, all-powerful God. In Dominic Johnson’s book “God is watching you” we read: 《[…] Anthropologist Guy Swanson’s famous comparison of fifty indigenous societies around the world found that as societies increased in political complexity gods were not necessarily more common or important, but they became more moralizing. In other words, as societies became larger and more structured, the type of gods people envisaged became more involved with their moral conduct. Perhaps, in other words, big societies were not possible without big gods, as social psychologist Ara Norenzayan has argued.》

So belief in a powerful, moralizing God reduces selfishness and promotes cooperation. But what in religion particularly boosts cooperation? Studies show that divine punishment and belief in the existence of eternal hell in the afterlife is what makes the difference. Again, from “God is watching you” book: 《 […] In another study comparing countries around the world, psychologists Azim Shariff and Mijke Rhemtulla found that the more a nation’s population believes in hell, relative to belief in heaven, the lower the crime rates. Here, it was specifically beliefs in negative supernatural consequences that were statistically significant. Curiously, greater belief in heaven (over and above belief in hell), was associated with more crime. Such studies are at risk of many potentially confounding factors, but even controlling for several such variables, the results held up. Indeed, belief in hell was a better predictor of national crime rates than previously implicated socioeconomic factors such as GDP or income inequality. Religion, and specifically beliefs in supernatural punishment, were able to explain a large amount of variation in these data.》And another excerpt: 《Secular and supernatural punishment may each be able to establish and maintain cooperation on their own. But in combination they reinforce each other, and indeed the total effect may be stronger than the sum of their parts. There are interactions by which secular and supernatural mechanisms of punishment may empower each other. Even where only secular laws apply, for example, they often have legalistic foundations rooted in the local religion—which adds to their salience for the people that must adhere to them.》

Thus, it seems that religion and belief in God, albeit not indispensable, are accelerators of human cooperation and ideal deterrents to selfish behaviour and to human exploitation. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there are no true believers who commit crimes, or no atheists who live decent, ethical lives. There are many on both sides. Similarly, there were, are and will be prosperous nations with little or no religion at all. But religion is still one of the most effective concepts man has invented and Darwinian selection has spread through millennia. As Voltaire’s famous saying goes《If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him!》. Modern countries of today, even those having a good name for their democratic sensibilities, acknowledge the importance of police force, courts, jails, fines, patrols etc. According to estimations, one billion surveillance cameras will be watching citizens around the world in 2021; more than half of those cameras will be in atheistic China. Telecommunication companies, credit cards, GPSs, banks are watching us day and night. But in the end ,nothing compares to the ever-vigilant Eye of God. And earthly punishment, however severe, can never match the unavoidable, eternal divine punishment.

Here comes my conclusion. There has been moral values and virtuous men and women long before the advent of the belief in a God that rewards or penalizes. And they will continue to exist in the future, even if God would be dead, as Nietzsche has envisaged. Nevertheless, we are not even close to such a possibility.

Before I complete this article I have to give some clarifications. In my opinion we should not think it’s cynical when we say that the fear of hell is more crucial for cooperation than the reward of paradise; that happens because of the “negativity bias”; a ubiquitous phenomenon in the animal kingdom. The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things (source: Wikipedia). The negativity effect has been proven both in the lab and in the real world.
Moreover, the explanation that our moral values are a product of evolutionary procedures does absolutely not mean that we humans are conciously hypocrites about our morality (well, ok, sometimes we are!). For what our ancestors have bequeathed to us is not something we have chosen. We are moral animals and we should be thankful for that! A scarlet rose do not stop being beautiful, only because we get the explanation that its scarlet colour is just another wavelength of visible light; it really is beautiful and that’s all that matters!