Morality is a survival tactic

The argument

Morality is not a collection of absolute truths that exist in a vacuum, removed from humanity. Rather, our sense of right and wrong is inexorably linked with mankind’s survival. More specifically, morality exists as a way to promote the longevity of both individual people and the human race as a whole. Countless moral maxims we still follow today have persisted for thousands of years because they help groups stick together and function harmoniously. Looking at the most long-standing moral rules, it is easy to see why. The notion that it’s wrong to kill helps community members function harmoniously, free from the threat of unnecessary war or violence. Likewise, the idea that it’s good to share allows communities to pool resources in times of need. Regardless of what rules a given society chooses to live by, having a shared moral code unites individuals and builds community in the process. However, as times have changed, moral rulebooks have done the same. For example, in modern society, we value diversity and empathy more than ever before, because in our newly globalized world, broadening our collective horizons to understand the experiences of others will help us survive and prosper. Similarly, we have largely rejected archaic moral norms that run contrary to science, since we see that technological advancements will advance our species as well. In this way, we can see that morality is neither absolute nor arrived at arbitrarily. Rather, by creating and upholding moral “rules,” communities increase their chances of survival.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There are numerous accepted moral rules that cannot be accounted for with a purely survivalist outlook. For example, our society considers rape as morally wrong. However, from an evolutionary perspective, it could increase the chances of reproduction, and hence, the survival of the human race.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise runs together two different claims: that moral rules have survival-promoting effects, and that this is what they are. An account of why a norm persisted is not an account of what makes it right, and treating the first as the second is the step the argument needs and does not defend. [Rejecting P2] The examples are selected to fit. Prohibitions on killing and norms of sharing are group-functional, but the same societies sustained slavery, infanticide, blood feud and caste for long periods without collapsing — so persistence cannot be evidence of survival value, or those would qualify too. [Rejecting P3] The modern examples do not support the mechanism. Diversity and empathy toward distant strangers are difficult to derive from group survival, since they extend concern beyond any group whose survival is at stake, and the argument offers no account of how that extension confers advantage. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record presses the decisive case: rape is held to be seriously wrong while being, on a purely reproductive-survival analysis, not obviously disadvantageous — which shows that our moral judgements are not tracking survival. The conclusion also does not follow even if the account were right, since a universal function shared by all human communities would be evidence for a common basis for morality rather than for its relativity.