Human Nature, Morality, and the Role of Evolution
Do we believe that there are purely evil humans? This question touches on the complex nature of human behavior and our understanding of morality. In reality, humans are more malleable than we might think, with external influences often shaping our actions and beliefs more than we might initially realize. The lens of evolution offers a unique perspective on these concepts, revealing that our behavior has deep evolutionary roots.
The Evolutionary Blueprint of Humans
Our closest living relatives are the common chimpanzees, and there are many similarities between humans and these primates. Having nearly identical organs and brains with a skeletal structure that differs, we share about 98% of our genes. Consequently, we exhibit similar behaviors, such as curiosity, intelligence, playfulness, and emotional responses. Chimps live in troops rather than tribes, just like humans do, and form close family bonds while needing years to mature.
Like chimps, humans are territorial and organize raids to expel rivals and hunt prey. However, we are smarter and thus more violent in the long run. Chimps, though aggressive and violent, still exhibit male dominance, a factor that can be seen in human societies as well. However, the degree of male dominance varies, including less pronounced male dominance in certain human cultures.
The Question of Evil in Humans
Is it accurate to categorize humans as evil? The term ‘evil’ is a social construct, a human-made classification to describe wrongful actions and people. Chimps, despite their aggressive nature, are not inherently evil. This distinction highlights that labeling humans as evil is also a human invention based on our societal norms and ethical standards.
Consequentialism and Moral Neutrality
Morality is often seen as a subjective social construct. It relates to one’s actions and behaviors—what you do in the external world and how you interact with others and the wider environment. Morality does not concern one’s internal composition, such as thoughts, mental events, or desires since these do not directly impact other people.
A consequentialist approach to morality suggests that the morality of an action is judged by its outcome. However, when we consider internal conditions like thoughts, emotions, or desires, they lack external consequences, making them meaningless in a moral sense. An internal experience can be bad in a health or emotional sense but not in a moral or ethical sense.
Given this, my position is that humans are intrinsically morally neutral. We are not inherently good or bad; we just live our lives and have experiences. Cultural pressure often leads many to judge their internal experiences based on societal norms, leading to feelings of guilt or shame for having the “wrong” thoughts, feelings, or desires.
Reflection and Neutrality
Every internal experience is the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain—neurons, neurotransmitters, electrical signals, and hormones. The morality of these processes is the same as the morality of a rock: it does not apply. These internal experiences are neutral, and we should challenge societal pressures to moralize our internal worlds and judge ourselves harshly.
Conclusion
Understanding human nature through an evolutionary perspective can help us see the inherent complexity and nuance in our behaviors. Morality, while a critical aspect of human society, is a subjective construct, and our actions should be judged by their consequences rather than the purity of our internal states. By challenging societal norms and embracing the neutral nature of our internal experiences, we can live more fulfilling lives and foster a more understanding society.