Richard Dawkins Struggles to Explain Morality: His Answer ‘The Moral Zeitgeist’
How do you describe the color gray, when black and white don’t exist? This is the heart of the problem Dawkins raises when considering morality and goodness. Having claimed to get rid of the idea that we do not base our morality on sacred texts, Dawkins is left with a void. It begs the question: where does our morality come from? Enter The Moral Zeitgeist.
Before embarking on his discussion of such a zeitgeist, Dawkins establishes a little preliminary work on the question of universal morality. He argues that there is a striking consensus between what we consider to be right and wrong, a consensus that has no obvious connection to religion, although he argues that it clearly extends to religious people. As an example, he includes a list he found on an atheist website:
• Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.
• In all things, live to do no harm.
• Treat your fellow human beings, living beings and the world in general with love, honesty, fidelity and respect.
• Do not overlook evil or avoid administering justice, but always be ready to forgive freely admitted and honestly regretted wrongdoing.
• Live life with joy and wonder.
• Always seek to learn something new.
• Proof of all things; Always compare your ideas with the facts and be ready to dismiss even a cherished belief if it doesn’t fit them.
• Never try to censor or isolate yourself from dissent; Always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
• Form independent opinions based on your own reason and experience; do not be blindly carried away by others.
• Question everything
Dawkins suggests adding:
• Enjoy your own sex life (as long as it does not harm anyone else) and let others enjoy yours in private, whatever your inclinations, which are none of your business.
• Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race, or (to the extent possible) species.
• Don’t indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate the evidence, and how to disagree with you.
• Assess the future on a time scale longer than yours.
It’s hard to argue with Dawkins’ list as such, except to say that much of it is irrelevant to morality. For the most part it focuses on mutual pleasure and enjoyment. Don’t ruin my sex life and I won’t ruin yours, etc. It is not that there is something wrong with such a perspective in itself, simply that we must be clear that we are talking about mutual self-interest and not principles of what is right and what is wrong. Given that Dawkins argues that morality does not exist except as a psychological hoax, it is perhaps not surprising that his list approaches that way. However, a closer look at Dawkins’ principles for life encounters difficulties when it deviates into areas of morality. For example, statements like ‘don’t overlook evil’ require a clear definition and understanding of evil. In Dawkins’ world, where morality does not exist, neither can evil exist. In fact, one wonders why Dawkins cares about the question of moral standards of behavior. Presumably, the idea of morality is a higher meme, replicating itself at the expense of lesser memes.
Dawkins ignores the question of how a value system can exist without an explicit understanding of right and wrong, but I would argue that such a value system is a path to tyranny. Consider Dawkins’s argument once more. Our sense of morality and goodness is derived from evolution by natural selection (via evolutionary psychology). Therefore, this moral sense is not a moral sense with reference to an external standard of good, but a strategy to promote the long-term interests of the species. As such, it is indisputably based on self-interest. It is this perspective that gives rise to what Dawkins calls utilitarianism and consequentialism (he tells us that he is consequentialist himself): according to the precepts of utilitarianism, law is defined as that which brings the greatest benefit to the majority of people. This is a dangerous philosophy. It validates the sacrifice of the individual to the interests of the group. According to this philosophy, when the world finds itself short of food, we will be executing and devouring the vulnerable minority to keep the majority alive. A closer examination of Dawkins’ “commandments” reveals the nature of this morality as it is. To consider:
“Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (to the extent possible) species.”
The rating “as far as possible” reveals that this is nothing more than a matter of convenience.
Let’s move on. Having established this foundation, a kind of Moses and the Ten Commandments for the atheist stage, Dawkins expands his idea of The Moral Zeitgeist. He argues that changing times reveal a changing morality; He cites slavery, women, and child abuse as examples. He argues that in any society there is a spirit of the age (zeitgeist) that is a “mysterious consensus” and that governs / reflects our morality. Examples cited include our attitudes towards women and racism, as well as the toll of wildlife and wartime casualties. This zeitgeist changes over time and this change is in spite of religion, not because of it. What’s more:
“The change is in a recognizable and consistent direction, what most of us would call an improvement.”
Dawkins asks the question; Where do these changes come from? But before we answer that question, we must examine the assumption Dawkins makes in the statement above, that most of us would call such a change an improvement. I think most of us would agree that this is the case, but before asking where from, we should ask why. Putting the fact of the matter aside for the moment, why should we consider it an improvement? Dawkins does not address the issue, but the obvious answer is that there is an external standard (of goodness or morality) in the world to which we are all connected, and that is separate from our own existence and that of the universe. Dawkins does not care about such difficulties. Instead, he concentrates on the question of where, and even here he has no clear answers other than “not religion.” (By the way, Christians argue that morality comes from God, not religion.) If pushed to advance a theory, he postulates the following approach:
• How is the change timed? By a change in the frequencies of memes in the group of memes: the propagation between the communities through an increasingly sophisticated interaction.
• What drives constant leadership? Individual leaders, education, and increased comprehension skills are cited as possible factors.
Readers should remember Chapter Five and the section “Be careful because you step on my memes” when evaluating the relevance and probable validity of such views. In my opinion, it makes no sense to talk about frequencies of memes and groups of memes, when no one has the slightest idea what constitutes a meme. Remember the words of Susan Blackmore:
“I’m just a story about me writing a book.”
And what about the definition of the moral zeitgeist as a “mysterious consensus”? Such vagueness only confirms the insufficiency of Dawkins’s explanation. He would never tolerate such carelessness in his adversaries, yet he freely indulges in it. Frankly, his explanations lack authority and he seems to acknowledge this aspect of his argument when he says:
“It is beyond my amateur psychology and sociology to go further to explain why the moral zeitgeist moves in its widely concerted form. For my purposes, it suffices that, as a matter of observed fact, it moves, and is not driven. “. by religion, and certainly not by scripture.
Without having said anything of any merit, except that he is not qualified to pass judgment, he finally concludes that:
“The manifest phenomenon of the Zeitgeist progression is more than enough to undermine the claim that we need God to be good or to decide what is good.”
Is this the anthropic approach to morality? Does the moral zeitgeist exist because it exists and progress because it progresses? Hardly irrefutable logic. Faith, possibly, rhetoric, certainly. Even from a purely logical point of view, your claim is wrong. The changing zeitgeist he analyzes has occurred with the present religion. Therefore, any conclusion drawn on an observable basis that excludes religion must be suspect. He has identified the change, but has failed to show that God had nothing to do with him. As he usually does, he concludes what he wants to conclude.
The truth is that this changing zeitgeist is not morality itself. Morality exists independently of this zeitgeist, which is simply a reflection of our understanding of this morality. We progress politically, socially, technologically and economically and we become more educated and more civilized. However, the fundamental nature of good and evil remains constant. And as far as the zeitgeist is in a recognizably consistent direction, this is not always the case: by Dawkins’ own admission, Hitler was just as evil as Caligula or Genghis Khan.
To appreciate the distinction between zeitgeist and morality, let’s consider Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Self realisation
Esteem
Love / belonging
Safety
Physiological
Technological, social and political development moves us up this hierarchy of needs, particularly through education. The first civilizations would have been concerned with physiological needs and would not have been entirely concerned with concepts such as morality. Western civilizations of the 20th century, on the other hand, would have been implementing such concepts in their worldview. Indeed, we begin to implement more kindness in our lives. That said, of course, goodness itself has not changed or evolved. Witness the 20th century, one of humanity’s bloodiest times, two world wars, the dropping of the atomic bomb, the napalming of innocents, Stalinism, Nazism. (By the way, none of these atrocities were carried out in the name of religion.) Dawkins describes them as gruesome setbacks, but considers them temporary phenomena and consistent with a sawtooth improvement in the spirit of the moral age rather than a mild improvement. He says:
“It is important to separate the evil intentions of men like Hitler and Stalin from the vast power they wielded to achieve them.”
Important? Because it is important? History is littered with evil men wielding great power and committing atrocities as a result. The question remains, how are Stalin and Hitler different from those who committed such atrocities in the name of religion? Clearly there is no difference. Dawkins argues as if Hitler and Stalin were alone in their corruption and evil. The truth is that millions connived to some extent with both, and the truth is the same for atrocities committed in the name of religion. The responsibility lies in the nature of man, not in his belief or disbelief in God.
Improving the moral age spirit, therefore, is not a matter of evolving goodness, but a matter of deepening our understanding of morality. Simply put, improving our physical condition allows us to invest more in the physical manifestations of this goodness in our lives and less in the fight for survival. Dawkins’s argument, on the other hand, simply reflects an increase in the sophistication of our application of self-interest principles.