The Delusion of Moral Progress
It is delusional to believe that we subscribe to a morality that is morally superior to that of our ancestors.
Written by: David Matthews
Morality, the system for determining which individual behaviour is most appropriate for the survival and well being of the human species, has been selected as part of the human evolutionary process. Because humans are biologically programmed to be self-interested, social animals, morality works to reconcile the selfishness of the individual with the collective interests of the group in which he or she functions.
Morality has a powerful influence over human behaviour, second only to the basic biological drives. Accordingly, religions and other ideologies have historically adopted local moral codes as their own, utilising them in order to gain moral authority over their adherents. Many people therefore, either consciously or unconsciously, assume that morality, supposedly having a divine source, is objective, universal, and fixed. In reality, morality is subjective, varying from community to community in some respects, while being similar in most respects. It is similar in most respects because human nature and the demands of human existence are largely similar all over the earth. Morality is different in other respects because some of the historical and material circumstances in which communities have existed are different.
Morality is also not fixed, but tends to change over time, as our modern moral perceptions of slavery, capital punishment, homosexuality, torture, and smoking inform us. Morality is presumably strongly determined by the circumstances in which a society develops or finds itself, and under which humans have to survive. As circumstances change, it can be advantageous for human behaviour also to change, in regard to those aspects affected by the change. For example, the moral attitude towards slavery in Europe changed after the industrial revolution took place, and produced the machines to do the heavy digging and lifting that human society requires socially, and which slaves had largely performed previously.
Referred to as ‘the shifting moral zeitgeist’ by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, this change over time in moral values has frequently been described as ‘progressive’, as moving in the same forward direction, favouring cultural reform in human society.
The description of the change in morality as being ‘progressive’, rather than as being simply a change, clearly implies movement towards a destination or goal. This is what the noun ‘progress’ means. It suggests that Western morality today is morally superior to that of our ancestors, on the grounds that it is more humane, civilised, and compassionate, which it clearly is. The term ‘progressive’ implies that humans have advanced morally over the centuries, rather than that they are simply holding different moral values than their ancestors.
This belief is highly questionable. The idea of humanity moving towards a morally superior end or goal is a spiritual rather than a rational concept, and presumably originates in the religious concept of a God-derived, objective morality, guiding humanity to the goal of spiritual salvation.
As a bi-product of evolution, morality, together with its concepts of good and bad behaviour, is a purely practical biological phenomenon, facilitating reproduction of the human species. There is nothing at all spiritual about it. Neither can it possibly progress or advance. To be progressive it would have to have a pre-ordained goal, or end, in the distant future, towards which it is progressing. Who or what provides such a goal? If no fixed, rational end or goal can be demonstrated, morality cannot rationally be deemed to be progressive.
It is delusional to believe that we subscribe to a morality that is morally superior to that of our ancestors. While our morality is certainly different to theirs, and being more humane is better suited to our circumstances, it is only apparently morally superior. As noted, morality is determined largely by the circumstances in which a society has to exist. In all probability, the difference between past moralities and ours has arisen simply because the circumstances under which we live are so much easier than they were in the past. It is not humanity that has improved, but our circumstances.
David Matthews is an author and contributor to the Rational Standard.