You want to know the problem with morality today? It’s all head and no heart. Instead of thinking about the difference between right and wrong, we should just trust the instincts given to us through evolution and do what feels right.
After attending a Templeton Foundation event last month entitled “Evolution and the Ethical Brain,” that’s the message a group of us from the office walked away with. David Brooks, who led the Templeton discussion last month, repeated that same sentiment earlier this week in his article “The End of Philosophy”:
Today, many psychologists, cognitive scientists, and even philosophers embrace a different view of morality. In this view, moral thinking is more like aesthetics. As we look around the world, we are constantly evaluating what we see. Seeing and evaluating are not two separate processes. They are linked and basically simultaneous . . . .
Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know.
Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.
Mark Shea wastes no time:
Ah! So the world is basically run on the “Ick! Yum!” principle. Hitler said “Jews! Ick! Ovens! Yum!” but the rest of us had different tastebuds. Moral ambiguity? That’s just when things taste sweet and sour at the same time and you feel conflicted, I guess. You just know. After all, what could be more self-evident that “Love your enemy.”
God? Well, he’s just an artifact of morality. Think of him as a traffic cop conjured by your hypothalamus to make you play well with others. The real God is evolution and progress is whatever comes next.
Yeah. A civilization that buys that bridge has indeed come to the end of philosophy. But the civilization after that—the one that will be picking through its ruins—will perhaps go back through its history and see where it made the wrong turn, then resume the sane Catholic philosophical tradition that does not imagine wisdom begins, much less ends, with us.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
