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. 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]
In their discussion, McQuilkin and Copan identify four key
objections to this theory. First, this theory does not discredit God’s ability
to produce moral beliefs in humans through this process. 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. Third,
our logical trust in our beliefs point to a truthful, rational creation rather
than a naturalistic evolutionary process. Finally, naturalism can only
describe human functions rather than how they should act.[3] Of these
four objections, the most compelling argument to reject evolutionary
ethics is the intrinsic value of human life. If morality has evolved from
survival instincts, the life of another person may fall below your own life in
certain survival situations. 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. 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.
In my opinion, McQuilkin and Copan do not overstate the problems
with evolutionary ethics. Essentially, evolutionary ethics states that
whatever is necessary is moral. If it is necessary to steal food, then it is
moral as it leads to survival. Evolutionary ethics also leads to the idea
that morality is changeable over time, as evolutionary changes may
necessitate things once considered immoral to survival. Similarly,
evolutionary ethics insinuates that other actions may have been
considered moral if alternative evolutions had occurred. Stealing, murder,
adultery, and lying are only immoral because of how humans have
evolved over time. Because of the changeable nature of evolutionary
ethics, the problems stated from McQuilkin and Copan are inevitable
issues that cannot be avoided.
As morality can change in evolutionary ethics, this theory is
incompatible with a Biblical Ethics perspective. Stated over and over in
the Bible, our creator God is unchangeable (Job 23:13; James 1:17;
Malachi 3:6). 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. 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. 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.
