Is Moral Aversion to Evil Part of Natural Selection?
As a species, our ancient ancestors thrived better the more members they had in the troop who could cooperate with each other. We're weak individually, but as a tribe, we were formidable. This cooperation led to what we call 'morals': choices that allowed us to live together peaceably. Conversely, 'evil' refers to actions that harm others, making it challenging to trust and work together.
Cooperation Through Morality
Morals are not inherent traits but are choices that facilitate social harmony. 'Evil' is merely at the far end of the spectrum of immoral actions. In other species, what we consider immoral might be morally neutral or even positive. For example, in the case of a bullfrog snatching a smaller frog—a behavior instinctive to frogs rather than moral. This behavior is neither moral nor immoral but practical for their survival.
Subjectivity of Morals and Evil
Framing these actions as 'moral' and 'evil' might make it seem as though they exist separately from humans. However, this classification is human-centric. In a context like a pond teeming with frogs, a larger frog's action might appear evil to us, but within the frog's social structure, it is simply a matter of survival. Frogs, being non-social creatures, live peacefully in close proximity without the need to cooperate. Instead, they follow behaviors that prevent them from being predated, such as avoiding behaviors of their own kind that might make them targets.
A similar concept applies to social species. Behaviors like not eating members of one's social group are common, not because they are more moral or universally moral, but because they help individuals work together. Take the example of a suicide bomber. From their perspective, their actions are seen as moral, divine, and even heroic. However, this view is self-defeating, as the act itself does not contribute to the survival or prosperity of their genetic lineage, thus significantly reducing their chances of passing on their genes.
Practicality Over Moral Standards
The key takeaway is that what we perceive as moral or evil is often rooted in our human-centric view of social interactions. In nature, these classifications often lack the nuanced moral distinctions we attribute to them. For instance, frogs do not have the concept of morality, yet they coexist peacefully. What is harmful to one species might be beneficial or neutral to another, highlighting the importance of understanding and respecting different natural behaviors rather than applying our human morals to all life forms.
Finding Common Ground
Understanding the natural selection and cooperation dynamics can help us navigate ethical decisions and social interactions. Instead of viewing actions through a moral lens, we can look at their impact on the collective well-being. This perspective helps in fostering a more inclusive and cooperative society, where actions are judged based on their practical outcomes rather than preconceived moral standards.
In conclusion, while moral aversion to evil is a product of human social structures, it is not inherently part of natural selection. By recognizing the subjective nature of our moral and evil classifications, we can better understand and appreciate the diverse behaviors in the animal kingdom and in human society, leading to a more harmonious and cooperative existence.