Thoughts upon Evolution and Morality

From a mere naturalistic perspective, it can be rightly assumed, as it was put forth by Darwin, that the origin of morality is nothing more than the expression of natural selection; in which case anything that would be suitable to survival or sexual reproduction would be amoral, nothing more than a natural process. Therefore any act or lack of act on our part which is suitable to survival or sexual reproduction is improperly categorized as a matter of morality. Since this line of thinking is the basis for eugenics and racial extermination, which is generally considered abhorrent, then what other basis can be used for morality. Any basis that is used must justify sympathetic virtue as a deterrent to natural selection. Why would the process of natural selection which is considered amoral lead to sentience which chooses to establish a moral basis in order to counteract natural selection as if it were immoral? What may have been appropriate for survival and sexual reproduction prior to sentience, begins to become more inappropriate as sentience comes to full awareness. The difference has to do with the value that is placed upon fully-developed sentience. This would explain why abortion is often justified since it is argued that an embryo has not yet developed sentience, because consciousness is the product of more advanced patterns of electrical impulses and chemical reactions. However, it could be argue that even the process leading up to sentience should not be terminated by a sentient being who has become fully aware as a result of the same process. To terminate a process that would inevitably result in sentience could be seen as no different than terminating a sentient being who is fully aware. 

Ian McEwen in Richard Dawkins' video The God Delusion, explains beautifully the concept that sentience is the starting point of a moral basis: “I guess my starting point would be – the brain is responsible for consciousness and we can be reasonably sure when that brain ceases to be, when it falls apart and decomposes, that will be the end of us. From that all other things follow I think especially morally. We are the very privileged owners of a brief spark of consciousness and we therefore have to take responsibility for it... We have a marvelous gift and you see it develop in children this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings just as important as your own, and this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.”

This shift from an amoral natural process to the emergence of consciousness enables us to determine that the value of a beneficial mutation in an unconscious process is no longer more valuable than the preservation of that brief spark of consciousness. Value is now placed upon the sentient being to explore its potential and to exist. But is this an adequate explanation? Can we reasonably understand that what we experience as consciousness is merely the product of chemical and electrical processes occurring in matter? And if this is the case, is our sense of freewill as free as we seem to experience it or are the unconscious patterns of electrical impulses and chemical reactions deterministic and at such a basic level that we are unaware of our lack of freedom to choose? It may be questionable whether it can be demonstrated that consciousness has any contributing impact upon the unconscious patterns in a reciprocal dance of cause and effect.

Some studies have determined that by observing brain activity one can predict a choice made by an individual as many as 5 or more seconds before the person is aware of it themselves. If this is correct, then we make our choices subconsciously and we do not become aware of them until they emerge in our consciousness. One wonders if the process actually begins within unconscious patterns of electrical impulses and chemical reactions and then begins to emerge towards conscious awareness through the subconscious mind. In which case how can one be blamed for the choices that they make? Naturally we will hold people accountable for their actions. But the question is whether they could have done otherwise? And if it was a mere product of nature for which we are just along for the ride with the appearance of free will then why is it labeled immoral or socially inappropriate? This line of thinking continues to lead us back to the idea that within a naturalistic framework, sentience is now valued more than the blind forces that brought us into existence. Even further, it is the blind forces themselves developing against its own principles. A curious phenomenon. Whatever might be deduced from this analysis, it is extraordinary to think that unconscious patterns of electrical impulses and chemical reactions can possibly result in what we experience as consciousness, a material and mechanical process of which is so consistent that there seems to be no break in our awareness of it at all. The exact nature of consciousness has been debated in philosophical circles and it is even maintained in forms of theism as an immaterial part of ourselves, a view to which I adhere.