First, I find the concept of "evolutionary ethics" to be very weak way to disagree
with actual ethical requirements. To simply state that our ethical premise and
responsibility is nothing more than a "by chance" naturalistic development that is
out of a persons control is the largest misinformation statement that can be
made about ethics. McQuilkin points out that one of the arguments for such an
ethical stance comes from an idea that ethical beliefs are developed simply to
help the species survive. 1 There are so many examples in nature that actually
point to the complete opposite of this concept. Take the sea turtle as an
example. They come onto the beach once each year to dig a nesting area, lay
eggs, bury them and then proceed to leave them there, defenseless, to hatch and
find their way to the water on their own. This "proposed evolutionary" developed
practice has led to more lost sea turtle eggs than nearly any other process they
could have developed. The question would be, is it ethical for the mother turtle to
leave her eggs?
This is where evolutionary ethics, ethics in general, runs into major philosophical
problems. If we define "ethics" in the most basic way; it means moral code, moral
standard, principles that define right and wrong. In the case of the turtle it is not
making a moral decision, if it were then we would have to contend that it is an
immoral decision or that it is wrong. Why? Because of the great amount of loss
suffered by the innocent. Instead we chalk this up to either natural selection (an
evolutionary term) or a simple reproductive process. In other words the turtle isn't
making a cognitive decision they are simply doing what they were created to do.
The turtle obviously doesn't contend personally about whether it is right or wrong
to lay its eggs, it simply does it on instinct. Biologically the turtle goes through
this mundane motion each time it lays eggs. Biology does not have a factor in the
ethics (moral decision) of the turtle.
Ethics, or moral principles that guide right and wrong behavior, is a cognitive
function. We as humans, created in the likeness and image of God (Gen. 1:26-27),
make conscience decisions about the value and importance of something based
on a litany of reasons. Personal experiences, personal biases, biblical belief
system, world views, environmental conditioning, and parental influences. These
help us develop and guide our decisions about right and wrong. Giving us each a
unique ability to understand g what is "ethical" and what is not. It is this decision
making process that I found most interesting in McQuilkin's book. He states that
having a "God makes better sense of human dignity, which we typically take for
granted". 2 In other words most people, (who have not been overtly corrupted by
sin and evil) understand human life to have intrinsic value. Our genes do not give
the ability to understand. That has been provided by a God who desires for us to
choose to do the "right" thing. Our ability to make such a decision is because God
has also set the absolute standard and given us the necessary information to do
so.
1. Robertson McQuilkin & P. Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in
the Way of Wisdom. (Downers Grove, IL: IV Press) 2014
2. Ibid, 180
