EP07. ALTRUISM AFTER SOCIOBIOLOGY

Includes notes from the Loccum presentation.

SB07 Version Date: 18 March 1992

ALTRUISM AFTER SOCIOBIOLOGY

Kevin J. Sharpe

The Graduate School of The Union Institute

Mailing Address: 65 Hoit Road, Concord, NH 03301, USA

WORKING DRAFT - NOT TO BE QUOTED WITHOUT AUTHOR'S PERMISSION

ABSTRACT. According to sociobiology, altruism is a moral feeling people have to promote biological "altruism." Further, it suggests God as the objective base for altruism may be a biologically-induced illusion. God's function is to promote altruism and thus "altruism." By undermining belief in this objective God, this interpretation of sociobiology weakens altruism. It also weakens "altruism" as it depends on altruism. To re-establish altruism and "altruism" requires developing the wisdom and power of religion and science.

In another essay I address the rejection of sociobiology by many theologians.[1] Their usual tactic is to set up a dualism between theological and scientific statements. I cannot accept this. I prefer to agree with many sociobiologists and say that genes tether and partly steer all that humans do. Culture adds to what the genes bring and helps enforce what the genes require. I also think that to insist, as do many theologians, on there being no leash from genes to culture or religion is to disagree on world views. My choice is one informed by science rather than dominated by a traditional religion. Given this, theology can seek to build on and with sociobiology rather than be afraid of it. Endorsing sociobiology, therefore, opens the way for constructively facing the challenges it raises for theology.

This essay addresses one of sociobiology's challenges for theology, altruism.

Sociobiology suggests morality comes from biology.[2] People sense what is right and what is wrong. They are aware of morality. They also feel obliged to do what is right. In doing so, in being altruistic, they are also being biologically "altruistic." Altruism promotes "altruism." Both senses exist because of their biological worth.

At the previous Loccum conferences in this series, Michael Ruse objected to the Christian understanding of altruism.[3] His most pungent attack, he believes, undercuts all its forms.

His case concerns the grounds for making ethical claims. To recognize morality as only a biological adaptation, he maintains, undermines its traditional base.[4] The Christian "surely" believes in "an independent, objective, moral code" - a code that does not change and does not depend on humans. Unless people "think morality is objectively true - a function of something outside of and higher than [them] - it would not work."[5] Christians feel this absolute, moral other as a force on them, and so follow its moral dictates. This belief, Ruse thinks, biology destroys. "Morality [altruism] is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no being beyond or without this."

The issue goes further than Ruse takes it. "Altruism" depends on altruism. For instance, sometimes "altruism" needs a push from powerful altruistic feelings to counter selfishness. Undermining these feelings, therefore, also undermines "altruism."

Ruse shows sociobiology eroding the power that supports both altruism and "altruism." What can replace their support? How can altruism and "altruism" survive?

There are two parts to this question. First, what might be the modern content of altruism so it would promote "altruism?" Second, what might give altruism the power of objective truth so people would want to follow it and thus also "altruism?" The remainder of this essay addresses these two questions.

To seek the modern content of morality one should turn to the results of sociobiology.[6] Yet they do not provide a morality broad enough to apply in most circumstances. Neither do they make the choice between competing biological inclinations. Bernard Davis says a scientific process cannot replace a political one, "with its reliance on trial and error and on compromise."[7] E. O. Wilson would have the decisions on social control made by democratic consensus. These descisions, however, he would weight toward behaviors that are natural biologically.[8] Theoretically, therefore, a culture will build a morality from the findings of sociobiology and other sources, probably including religion.

Wilson believes we should accept the scientific world view as adding to religion. Science is synthetic as well as analytic. He thinks they are linked. Science is reductionist, but sensitive to such cultural expressions as art and religion. It does pursue the spiritual to try to explain it. On the other hand, when it comes close "both will evolve into something new, permitting the capture and the resolution." Each will use the other.[9]

Wilson lists values he thinks are essential for ethics: maintaining and preserving the human gene pool; second, maintaining the diversity of this pool; and third, universal human rights.[10] This last value looks suspiciously like Christian love.

"Altruism" applies to close kin and some others via reciprocal altruism, but not necessarily to others. So proponents of Christian altruism face a difficulty in extending altruism universally. How do universal human rights come from "altruism?" Theologians such as Philip Hefner have tackled this problem.[11] He looks to Ralph Burhoe's theory in which religion promotes altruism as a major contributor to cultural evolution. Burhoe and Donald Campbell prefer sociocultural evolution over sociobiology because "altruism" is too kin centered.[12]

Ruse says something similar.[13] Most people, he writes, are part of each person's social circle because of modern technology. The world becomes smaller and smaller. "Here perhaps our technology has out-run our innate moral sentiments. Our animal nature is, in respects, inadequate to deal with today's problems." Programs devised by culture must supplement biological feelings, Ruse says, because they do not extend to a wide enough circle. This command comes from biology. To devise such programs is to "take our evolutionary evolved powers of reason and understanding, and to apply them to our ultimate biological self-interest."[14] We are morally obliged to all people. This is much like the love command of Christianity.[15]

The problem this essay addresses is the survival of altruism and "altruism" [in the face of sociobiology]. The previous section suggests the contents of a new morality could emerge from joining the results of sociobiology to the wisdom of religion. Part of the task remains. Suppose Western culture works out such a morality. How does the morality have power? If it comes from public debate, from where does it gain its strength of conviction? The power would have to come from within the human mind; it needs a subconscious base.

There are, I believe, two possible sources for its strength: the power of science and the power of religious traditions. Together science and religion have the power the objective God used to have. Science has the power of explanation and religion has the moral wisdom of Western society. Religion used to have both when the perceived power of God supported it.[16] Thus, joining science and religion at their deepest levels may supply us with altruism, "altruism," and the power behind them to make "altruism" function.

Wilson suggests developing a world view based on evolutionary naturalism.[17] It is the myth of scientific materialism, centered on the evolutionary epic. He thinks it competes with traditional religion and will replace it.[18] It also has the power of society's belief behind it. On the other hand, he supports liberal theology.

The best relation between religion and science toward which we might aim...[is] an uneasy but fruitful alliance. The role of religion is to codify and put into enduring poetic form the highest moral values of a society consistent with empirical knowledge and to lead in moral reasoning. The role of science is to test remorselessly every conclusion about human nature and to search for the bedrock of ethics - by which I mean the material basis of natural law.[19]

Liberal religion can fill the spiritual needs of people that attract them to dangerous dogmatisms. Not only this, but by raising deep questions about the human mind, it can challenge scientific materialism. Further, it can learn. From science it can discover new truths and strengthen its goals.[20] Liberal theology could, therefore, help develop the new world view based on evolutionary naturalism, one that society feels has power.

Using sociobiology and religion to develop morality may answer the plea Sol Katz made at our previous Loccum gathering.[21] He wants a global morality. The human species may soon be extinct if we do not act urgently on our problems. How are the peoples of the world to agree on a global morality? Even if they were, where does the morality gain its power from so people will follow it? Fear of extinction is probably not enough. A global morality backed by both science and the world's religious and cultural traditions may be.

I have argued that sociobiology makes claims on theology because human genes condition all aspects of culture, including religion and morality. Thus sociobiology's undermining of the belief in the power behind and content of altruism is unavoidable. Unfortunately, it also undermines biological "altruism." I also suggest there is a way to rebuild altruism and "altruism," and harness power for their support.

[Sociobiology's case [against altruism] is serious. Science again has a strong hand against traditional morality and Christianity. Again the religious tradition adjusts to keep in touch with and appropriate to this continuously changing world.] The [theological response to the challenge of sociobiology] call is not to defend the tradition to the end; it will continue to dissolve with the inevitable growth of science. The call is for positive construction using the wisdom of science and the wisdom of religion.

NOTES

REFERENCES

Alexander, Richard D. 1987. The biology of moral systems. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Austin, William H. 1980. "Are religious beliefs `enabling

mechanisms for survival'?" Zygon: Journal of Religion and

Science 15(2)(June): 193-201.

Burhoe, Ralph Wendell. 1981. Toward a scientific theology.

Belfast: Christian Journals Limited.

Campbell, Donald T. 1976. "On the conflicts between biological

and social evolution and between psychology and moral

tradition." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 11(3)

(September): 167-208.

Davis, Bernard D. 1980. "The importance of human individuality

for sociobiology." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science

15(3)(September): 275-293.

Hefner, Philip. 1984. "Sociobiology, ethics and theology." Zygon:

Journal of Religion and Science 19(2)(June): 185-207.

Irons, William. 1991. "How did morality evolve?" Zygon: Journal

of Religion and Science 26(1)(March): 49-89.

Katz, Solomon H. 1989. "Toward a new concept of global morality."

Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, to appear.

Peters, K. E. 1980. "Evolutionary naturalism: survival as a

value." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 15(2)(June):

213-222.

Ruse, Michael. 1989. The Darwinian paradigm: essays on its

history, philosophy, and religious implications. London:

Routledge.

_________. 1989b. "What can evolution tell us about ethics?"

Pp. 203-225 in Kooperation und Wettbewerb: zu Ethik und

Biologie menschlichen Sozialverhaltens, ed. May, Hans;

Striegnitz, Meinfried; Hefner, Philip. Loccumer Protokolle,

vol. 75/1988. Rehburg-Loccum, Germany: Evangelische Akademie

Loccum.

Ruse, Michael; Wilson, Edward O. 1985. "The evolution of

ethics." New Scientist 108(1478)(17 October): 50-52.

Sharpe, Kevin J. 1984. From science to an adequate mythology.

Auckland: Interface Press.

_________. 1992. "Religion and morality intersect biology:

sociobiology and altruism." Preprint.

Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

_________. 1980. "The relation of science to theology."

Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 15(4)(December):

425-434.

Wilson, Edward O.; King, S.J., Thomas M. 1987. "Religion and

evolutionary theory." Pp. 81-102 in Religion, science, and

the search for wisdom: proceedings of a conference on

religion and science, September 1986, ed. Byers, David M.

Washington, DC: Bishops' Committee on Human Values, National

Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[1]Sharpe 1992.

[2]Ruse 1989.

[3]Ruse 1989, 258.

[4]See also Wilson 1978, 3. Austin 1980 explores this claim and suggests that explaining religious beliefs as sociobiology attempts does not necessarily discredit their rational credibility.

[5]Ruse 1989, 268; see also Sharpe 1984.

[6]Hefner 1984, 203. This statement does not fall to the naturalistic fallacy because it leaves to us the decision as to what is good.

[7]Davis 1980, 279.

[8]Wilson 1980, 431.

[9]Wilson 1980, 429.

[10]Wilson 1978, 195-209.

[11]Hefner 1984, 197-202.

[12]Burhoe 1981; Campbell 1976.

[13]Ruse 1989b. He also thinks the opposite, rejecting universal altruism because it is not biological. See Ruse 1989.

[14]Ruse 1989b, 219. See also Ruse and Wilson 1985, 52.

[15]Richard Alexander (1987; see also Irons 1991) suggests morality evolved because it permitted early humans to limit conflicts within groups. They could then form larger groups, which was to their advantage because of intense competition between groups. Thus, sociobiology extends the application of its theory of morality from within a kin group ("altruism"), to a circle a little beyond that (reciprocal "altruism"), to within a larger group and between groups. We do not yet know how Hefner, Burhoe, Campbell, and Ruse might adapt their ideas to Alexander's theory.

[16]See Sharpe 1984 for a further development of this theme.

[17]Peters 1980, for instance.

[18]Wilson 1978.

[19]Wilson and King 1987, 89.

[20]Wilson 1980, 433.

[21]Katz 1989.