Humanism vs Intuition: The Moral Dilemma

In recent history the debate regarding the origin of the world has come and gone, and continues through today. I believe that in the current day, we have boiled all the arguments down to two possible options; complete random chance (that is to say evolution) or purposed creation (intelligent design). There has been heated arguments from either side regarding who in fact has the scientific backing to support his/her cause, and I could tout various scientific findings, theorems, and postulates and whatnot in favor of one or the other. However, the issue I want to address is more at the core of the debate. Some people might be indifferent, stating that we're here now, regardless of how we got here, however, I would argue that knowing where we come from is a crucial or at the very least largely insightful part of understanding and knowing who we (collectively as human beings) really are. However, I am not here to argue in terms of science, but of something I think more people can relate to, which is intuition, the intuition of morality, which I believe is insufficiently addressed by any proponent of evolution.

Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".

Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.

Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?

We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.

I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.

I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.

To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.