Evolutionary ethics presents the belief that our ethical beliefs have developed
through evolution to help us survive and reproduce. As described by McQuilkin
and Copan, “Some evolutionary ethicists emphasize that we think we have duties;
however, there is no real moral obligation behind those beliefs.”[1] Therefore,
morality is only a sort of “best practices” that allow a greater chance for survival
for the human race. e For example, “the more of the offspring of individuals with a
genetic disposition to behave cooperatively are likely to survive than are the
offspring of those who lack such a disposition, with the eventual effect with an
innate altruistic tendency will come to dominate in a community.”[2]
e e e e e e e e e e In their discussion, McQuilkin and Copan identify four key objections to
this theory. e First, this theory does not discredit God’s ability to produce moral
beliefs in humans through this process. e Second, the intrinsic belief of human
dignity and value is more aligned with being made in God’s image than the result
of an evolutionary process. e Third, our logical trust in our beliefs point to a
truthful, rational creation rather than a naturalistic evolutionary process. e Finally,
naturalism can only describe human functions rather than how they should act.[3] e
Of these four objections, the most compelling argument to reject evolutionary
ethics is the intrinsic value of human life. e If morality has evolved from survival
instincts, the life of another person may fall below your own life in certain survival
situations. e For example, if faced with the situation to kill another person to obtain
food for yourself or starve, evolutionary ethics would consider the moral action to
kill the other person as it allows for survival. e However, as morality universally
believes in the value of human life, the validity of evolutionary ethics can be
rejected for an alternative, such as a moral, creator God.
e e e e e e e e e e In my opinion, McQuilkin and Copan do not overstate the problems with
evolutionary ethics. e Essentially, evolutionary ethics states that whatever is
necessary is moral. e If it is necessary to steal food, then it is moral as it leads to
survival. e Evolutionary ethics also leads to the idea that morality is changeable
over time, as evolutionary changes may necessitate things once considered
immoral to survival. e Similarly, evolutionary ethics insinuates that other actions
may have been considered moral if alternative evolutions had occurred. e Stealing,
murder, adultery, and lying are only immoral because of how humans have
evolved over time. e Because of the changeable nature of evolutionary ethics, the
problems stated from McQuilkin and Copan are inevitable issues that cannot be
avoided.
e e e e e e e e e e As morality can change in evolutionary ethics, this theory is incompatible
with a Biblical Ethics perspective. e Stated over and over in the Bible, our creator
God is unchangeable (Job 23:13; James 1:17; Malachi 3:6). e Because of His
nature, morality therefore is unchangeable as well, as He was the initiator and
creator through the Ten Commandments and the Law to the Israelites. e God has
prescribed how humans should live to be considered holy (or righteous) through
the Law and as He is unchanging, so is His standard for moral actions. e
Therefore, the potential variation in evolutionary ethics is incompatible with
Biblical ethics.
Word Count: 568
[1] Robertson McQuilkin, and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking
in the Way of Wisdom (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 180.
[2] Jane Maienschein, Biology and the Foundation of Ethics (Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 278.
[3] McQuilkin and Copan, Introduction to Biblical Ethics, 180-181.
