Download BHA Education Humanist Perspectives.indd

Humanist Perspectives
The evolution of morality
‘I have never yet met the child – and I have met very few adults – to whom it has ever occurred to
raise the question: ‘Why should I consider others?’ Most people are prepared to accept as a
completely self-evident moral axiom that we must not be completely selfish, and if we base our
moral training on that, we shall be building on firm enough foundations.’
Margaret Knight, humanist and psychologist (1903 – 1983)
When discussing what is right and wrong or making moral decisions, we often don’t worry about where our
moral values came from. We are more concerned with what they are and how to apply them in a given
situation. This is where the real work of morality is done: in living life. However, if we do stop to consider
where they came from, we tend to credit our upbringing or our education. But where did the moral values of
our parents and teachers, and their parents and teachers, come from?
The most common answer to this is that moral values come from religions, transmitted through sacred
texts and religious authorities, and that even the values of non-religious people have been absorbed
from the religions around them. Even some non-religious people believe this, and it can be a source of
insecurity for them. Some people worry that a general move away from religious faith will bring about
some kind of moral breakdown in society. But humanists believe that moral values are not dependent
on religion and it is a potentially damaging idea in an increasingly secular society, to assert otherwise.
Others say that they trust their ‘conscience’ as a guide. This is the feeling that there is a something like a
voice in our heads that helps us decide what to do and affects our mood after we have chosen, depending
whether we did the right or wrong thing. Some people think that our conscience is a voice from God, but
humanists believe that it is instead has a more natural source.
‘Why should I consider others?... Myself, I think the only possible answer is the humanist one –
because we are naturally social beings; we live in communities; and life in any community, from the
family outwards, is much happier, and fuller, and richer if the members are friendly and co-operative
than if they are hostile and resentful.’
Margaret Knight, humanist and psychologist (1903 – 1983)
Humanists believe our conscience and our morality evolved naturally. We are social creatures with social
instincts. Altruism has its roots in biology: it is built into our genes (our genes may be ‘selfish’ but that does
not mean we are). Indeed, humans are not alone in displaying empathy and compassion for members of
their own species. We see such behavior across the animal kingdom and perhaps most strongly in those
animals most closely related to us. Our pro-social behaviour has evolved alongside us, through both our
biological and social history. Recent anthropological studies, and the work of evolutionary biologists and
psychologists, have brought home to us how much of our behaviour is both instinctive and universal,
including our basic needs and values. Self-interest and survival may be the origins of our behavior and
values, but genetic influences mean we also value our children and close relations, and culture and society
can widen our moral circle beyond our immediate family. There are pragmatic justifications for our moral
principles: they allow us to live in harmony, they facilitate cooperative activity, and they allow us to thrive.
The communities in which we evolved would never have survived without empathy and cooperation, and
across the world diverse populations display shared human vales (looking after the young and vulnerable,
valuing truth and respecting promises, fair allocation of power and property, mutual assistance in defence
and disasters, disapproval and punishment of wrongdoers, and restraints on violence and killing).
British Humanist Association ©2016
Humanist Perspectives
The evolution of morality
Some have argued that human nature is self-interested. A person only helps another to make themselves
feel better. However, this is putting the cart before the horse. Humans may get pleasure from helping
others, but that is because they first desire the wellbeing of the other person. The pleasure comes from
fulfilling that desire. If it was the other way round, that would mean someone who has no concern for the
wellbeing of others would still gain pleasure from helping them and therefore act accordingly.
‘The underlying assumption is that only purely selfish behaviour is natural to man; so that if it ever
happens, as it not infrequently does, that people behave unselfishly, they must be inspired by a
higher power. This assumption is false and the conclusion that is drawn from it is invalid... if
experience shows that people act unselfishly as well as selfishly, we can only conclude that both
types of behaviour are natural. If the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so is the capacity for
good.’
AJ Ayer, philosopher (1910 – 1989)
Religions often highlight the differences between acting in our self-interest and in acting morally. They
claim we need divine moral laws to guide against our instincts. Humanism collapses that distinction.
Humanists believe that children still need to be taught about morality but in a way that they can be made
to see that there is not a sharp divide between acting with concern for the wellbeing of others and living a
flourishing life for themselves.
For humanists, morality does not come from a divine source (humanity was not dragged into a civilized
state) but it instead evolved alongside us. Religions and philosophies share so many values because they are
human values. For humanists, these values evolved naturally as a result of our sentiments and sociability and
were adopted by religions. If human civilisation evolved all over again, many humanists believe it unlikely
that the same religions would develop, but very likely that our basic moral principles would be the same.
For humanists then, religion is not the foundation of our morals, but rather morality precedes religion.
Religion cannot inform morality, and humanists highlight the fact that religion is increasingly interpreted
according to our moral standards. Many religious people today simply disregard any morally dubious lessons
from scripture. Problematic passages about punishment, discrimination, sacrifice, and genocide are often
ignored. Rather than letting scripture govern their lives, many religious believers go with their gut feeling,
the generally accepted morality of their time, or like humanists, use their ability to reason and learn from
experience to help them decide which moral rules are worthwhile. They will then select from scripture
according to their moral needs. Morality then tames religion and such an ethics is humanist in all but name.
The European Convention on Human Rights declares: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.’ However, it also states that, ‘Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary in democratic society in interests of
public safety, for the protection of public order, health, or morals, or for protection of rights and freedom of
others.’ This makes it clear that even our laws place consideration of morality above religion and many
religious malpractices from the past are now ruled out by legal institutions. Only when religious practices are
not considered to be a serious infringement of our moral values are they acceptable under the law. For
example the ritual slaughter of animals is allowed. However, should our ethical framework develop in the
future to place more importance on animal welfare (as many believe it should), then morality is again likely
to trump religion.
British Humanist Association ©2016
Humanist Perspectives
The evolution of morality
Of course, it can be harder to do what is right than to know what is right. The fact that we have a natural
concept of the good and bad does not mean we are naturally good. Nor can we always be guided by our
instincts. We now live in a very different world from the world our ancestors evolved to survive in and
inappropriate biases, prejudices, and fears linger on. However, humanists believe our ability to reason
allows us to rise above our instincts and we are able to recognise when they lead us astray.
Even if we all agreed that our moral values are both natural and universal, they would still leave considerable
flexibility in their interpretation, and many moral questions are far from easy to solve. Everyone agrees that
murder is wrong, but we might disagree about what counts as murder. Abortion? Voluntary euthanasia?
Killing in war? Killing animals? Everyone agrees that children should be protected and nurtured, but there is
considerable disagreement about how exactly this should be done and the best family arrangements in
which to achieve it. Modern science and medicine have added to the complexity of moral dilemmas. Moral
principles we might choose to guide us, such as maximising happiness and respecting human rights, can
often be in conflict. Many problems have no single, unique solution. Even when humanists agree on their
general moral values, they will sometimes disagree with each other (and often with themselves) on how to
achieve them, or which to prioritise in a particular situation. Humanists value individual freedom, because
choice and freedom contribute to human happiness, but they are aware that individual freedom can often
lead to disagreement.
However, just because we face dilemmas does not mean humanists think we should abandon the quest, it
just means there is more thinking to be done. We will make mistakes, but we can learn from them. Morality
is something we learn and experience through living, and experience can help us to learn which tools and
principles are the most appropriate to the particular situation. Freedom of belief and the right to disagree,
providing your arguments are based on reason, are essential to the humanist project. Disagreement can be
positive: it enables dialogue and debate. It encourages us to recognise, empathise with, and take into
consideration opposing arguments.
Humanists are, therefore, allowed to change their minds. New evidence and arguments will often demand
this. For humanists, morality is not fixed but an ongoing journey throughout our lives and across human
history. We need to continually review and develop our moral codes in the light of changing technology and
human understanding. Humanists do not believe that we can rely on the rules found in ancient texts and
commanded by those who claim to represent divine authorities. Instead, the freedom to argue about
morality, and for human beings to reach their own conclusions, helps to ensure progress – progress towards
a way of living that provides the best for all human beings. Morality is a human construct, and one of which
we can be immensely proud.
Finally, some have argued that Humanism is too utopian: it is unrealistic and sets too high a standard for
itself and places too much expectation upon human beings. However, humanists would point to
developments in democracy, social justice, human rights, and the rule of law as evidence that we can
improve human welfare. Much of the moral progress made over last few centuries (for example, the
abolition of slavery, the extension of votes to all men and women, and the decriminalisation of
homosexuality) is because individuals (religious and non-religious) had the courage to apply their own
intellects, and to question the moral wisdoms of the day. Humanists acknowledge that the world is still full
of injustice. However, by empathising with the suffering of others they believe we can work towards making
the world a better place.
British Humanist Association ©2016