In his 1998 book “Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge,” Willson has a chapter entitled “Ethics and Religion,” in which he compares and contrasts transcendentalism and empiricism in ethics and religion. Empirical means: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Wilson is firmly on the empirical side believing that there is a biological and evolutionary basis for ethics and religion. Willson was, in his youth till his 20s, a very committed born again Southern Baptist evangelical. Now he labels himself as leaning toward Deism (the existence of God is a problem of astrophysics). This chapter appears to be a discussion/debate with his younger self.
He begins by noting a philosophical dichotomy in at least the western intellectual tradition. On the one hand you have transcendentalism which believes that “ethical precepts such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience”, that they exist out there in the world waiting to be discovered or revealed. They are “those who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind.” If you believe in the independence of natural law or natural justice then you are a transcendentalist possibly a transcendental scientist if you think you can discover these ethical truths by logic or by looking at the natural world. If you think ethics must be revealed by God or Nature you could be a transcendental religious person or ecologist.
On the other hand, on the empiricist side, ethical and religious precepts are human inventions, “contrivances of the mind.” Empiricists can also believe in God “(though not in a law-giving God in the traditional Judaeo-Christian sense)” Wilson formulates it as such: Transcendentalists “believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not” and Empiricists “believe that moral values come from humans alone; God is a separate issue.” Empiricism has always been in the minority position, all the great ethical codes of all successful religions expounded by all the most famous theologians have been transcendental. “Ethics, in the empiricist view, is conduct favored consistently enough throughout a society to be expressed as a code of principles. It is driven by hereditary predispositions in mental development – the ‘moral sentiments’ of the Enlightenment philosophers – causing broad convergence across cultures, while reaching precise form in each culture according to historical circumstance. The codes, whether judged by outsiders as good or evil, play an important role in determining which cultures flourish, and which decline.” Where in the past the debate was almost academic: In the past all that was at stake in natural selection was the survival of a particular group or civilization – that is that ethics did not have much influence on the survival of our species. But as we navigate the modern world with god-like technology, with medieval institutions and with paleolithic emotions now our ethical systems could lead to the end of our species. In fact, our current transcendental ethical systems around the world are doing just that: destroying the biodiversity upon which our survival depends. Wilson claims that “by exploring the biological roots of moral behavior, and explaining their material origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wiser and more enduring ethical consensus than has gone before.”
As an empiricist, Wilson has no problem admitting that religion is here to stay. It has “an overwhelming attraction for the human mind” and part of that attraction has a destructive side: tribalism. Tribalism was absolutely necessary for survival in pre-historic and most historical time. Today it is still part of our lives and genetic make up. It can be benign (as in one’s association with one’s preferred sports team) or it can be genocidal. With god-like technology we can destroy the Earth. Even latent genocidal biases could rise up easily in an advanced and civilized nuclear armed nation. “[E]very major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals. The swiftest road to success has always been sponsorship by a conquering state…To be fair, let me now put the matter of cause and effect straight. Religious exclusion and bigotry arise from tribalism, the belief in the innate superiority and special status of the in-group. Tribalism cannot be blamed on religion. The same causal sequence gave rise to totalitarian ideologies. The pagan corpus mysticum of Nazism and the class-warfare doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, both essentially dogmas of religions without God, were put to the service of tribalism, not the reverse.”
For Wilson moral precepts and religious faith “are entirely material products of the mind. For more than a thousand generations they have increased the survival and reproductive success of those who conformed to tribal faiths. There was more than enough time for epigenetic rules – hereditary biases of mental development – to evolve that generate moral and religious sentiments. Indoctrinability became an instinct.” In a typical group with an equal mix of selfish and altruistic people the selfish people tend to get ahead moving the balance of selfishness and altruism in the direction of selfishness over several generations. At the group level though a group of predominantly altruistic individuals tend to displace groups of predominantly selfish people. Moral and ethical codes are an evolutionary adaptation to prevent individual overly selfish actions from becoming the norm which thus limits the survivability of the group. Wilson defines ethical codes as: “precepts reached by consensus under the guidance of the innate rules of mental development. Religion is the ensemble of mythic narratives that explain the origin of a people, their destiny, and why they are obliged to subscribe to particular rituals and moral codes.” This is important because if it becomes accepted that ethics is a biologically evolved cultural tendency with large space for innovation then “more emphasis in moral reasoning will be placed on social choice, and less on religious and ideological authority.” Hithertofore, all existing moral and ethical precepts have been at best lucky guesses that have been more helpful than all the other moral and ethical precepts that they have competed against and that have been selected out of human culture. The term ‘ought’ in ethics is a sure sign of transcendentalism. There is no ‘ought’ in biology or empiricism. When ‘ought’ is used it is short hand show that we believe ethical precepts should be followed but we really do not know why. Using ‘ought’ is like talking to a child with a fairy tale. When ‘ought’ is used it really means the user believes that the suggested course of action is better for survivability of the individual and the group – but the reality is the user does not know because the precept might fail at the next bout of intergroup conflict. “[O]ught is just shorthand for one kind of factual statement, a word that denotes what society first chose (or was coerced) to do, and then codified…Ought is the product of a material process.”
Wilson supports the 18th century British empiricist and Enlightenment notion of moral sentiments. In particular he credits the notion as the first profound step in the right direction and credits Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith as having initiated the turn towards a likely solution to the survival of our species. Wilson rebrands moral sentiments as moral instincts. “The primary origin of the moral instincts is the dynamic relation between cooperation and defection. The essential ingredient for the molding of the instincts during genetic evolution in any species is intelligence high enough to judge and manipulate the tension generated by the dynamism. That level of intelligence allows the building of complex mental scenarios well into the future.” In other words, moral instincts are instances of game theory. You are pressured by your moral instincts to cooperate or defect at every social interaction. “[T]hese instincts are vividly experienced by every person variously as conscience, self-respect, remorse, empathy, shame, humility, and moral outrage. They bias cultural evolution toward the conventions that express the universal moral codes of honor, patriotism, altruism, justice, compassion, mercy, and redemption.” On the dark side, moral behaviour is xenophobic. Moral instincts evolved to be very selective. As evidenced by how much people sacrifice for close friend and family and how hard it is to trust the stranger. “The complementary instincts of morality and tribalism are easily manipulated. Civilization has made them more so.”
Religion, like morality is also an instinct. “If the religious mythos did not exist in a culture, it would be quickly invented, and in fact it has been everywhere, thousands of times through history. Such inevitability is the mark of instinctual behavior in any species….Its sources run deeper than ordinary habit and are in fact hereditary, urged into birth through biases in mental development encoded in the genes….There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose.” Membership requires increased levels of altruism. Altruism makes the group more likely to successfully compete against less altruistic groups, hence membership makes passing on altruism genes more likely. “The individual pays, his genes and tribe gain, altruism spreads.” Religion is a biological adaptation that has been so successful it has become instinctual. But more than that all mammalian societies are hierarchical to some degree. Religion puts a God at the top of a hierarchy – a more or less un-disposable entity which adds stability and breadth to the hierarchy that is not present in other mammalian hierarchical societies. Religion provides for the extension of kin selection beyond biological kin. Co-operation and altruism can be extended far beyond one’s extended family. Civilizations are built on religious foundations. “[M]embership in dominance orders pays off in survival and lifetime reproductive success. That is true not just for the dominant individuals, but for the subordinates as well. Membership in either class gives animals better protection against enemies and better access to food, shelter, and mates than does solitary existence….True to their primate heritage, people are easily seduced by confident, charismatic leaders, especially males. That predisposition is strongest in religious organizations.”
Our historical ethical and religious precepts will have to be modified, rebuilt, and reinvigorated. We need a new formulation of altruism and sacrifice to deal with our existential challenge today in which we face our immanent extinction from ecological collapse.