Free will is such a notorious topic because of its undeniable link to morality and moral responsibility. Morality is the intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not to do that which is bad. And an agent must be held morally responsible for her actions if she performed those actions out of her own free will. But who judges what is moral? Who decides what is good and what is bad?
Following a now familiar line of reasoning, good and bad are not facts of nature. Morality is not a fact of nature. It is not inscribed in the fundamental laws of nature. There is no objective morality. No universal good and bad. Contrary to belief, there are no stone tablets (or electronic tablets) or sacred scriptures that detail the demands of a divine law that we are obliged to obey. There are no ultimate commandments from a supernatural maker that stipulates the rules we must follow and live by.
Unfortunately, it is not that easy. Nature does not work like that. Our maker is the blind process of evolution by natural selection, with no end goal or purpose in mind. There is no universal and ultimate good or bad in nature. Those notions are human constructs, and only exist in our collective minds.
However, nature will favor particular survival strategies over others. There are good strategies that will help to ensure the selfish genes’ survival. And there are bad strategies that will be detrimental to survival and rather lead to the extinction of the genes.
The evolution of moral structures seems to be inevitable for complex animal species that live and function within a society and where the regulation of societal behavior is a chief aspect to the success and survival of the species. Several non-human animal species, such as primates and some birds, display some form of morality, or something closely resembling it. Species of animals that possess the necessary mental capabilities and that regularly engage in cooperative interaction will develop traits that favor a kind of moral system within their societies. And so, like other social animals, our natural impulses evolved to include altruistic and cooperative tendencies—but these tendencies are solely based on the selfish desire to survive. Cooperation is a good strategy to survive longer and reproduce.
Our psychological capacities, and therefore some of our moral dispositions, are outcomes of evolutionary processes. These capacities and dispositions evolved as adaptations to our ancestral hunter-gatherer environments. Our moral intuitions and dispositions are still saturated with evolutionary influence, and these explain certain tendencies and feelings that are associated with moral thinking.
Take as an example the unconscious predisposition to favor our own group over outsiders. This might have been a beneficial moral strategy twenty millennia ago when the likelihood was high that any outsider one happens to encounter would be hostile. But such evolutionary predispositions can easily give rise to abhorrent irrational notions, such as racism.
It is evident that these evolutionary tendencies or feelings are not something we ought to embrace. They evolved merely due to their survival benefit for our primitive ancestors.
But then things changed about ten thousand years ago with the advent of agriculture. The arrival of agriculture resulted in specialization and the creation of various roles in the newly established societies. This enabled individuals to focus on their trade, develop their skills, and become experts. This is paramount for the incubation and thriving of collective learning.
But, in such a society there is a need for new rules or codes of conduct to guide behavior, to ensure continued collaboration to the benefit of all in the society. For instance, telling the truth and trusting others are telling the truth is crucial for effective collaboration. And so too is the comfort of safety and knowing that others in the society will not cheat or harm us. It is in everyone’s best interest to work together and share similar views of a good life. This is culture. A society’s morals are merely a consensus of the obligations of her citizens to establish and maintain large-scale cooperation. Trusting that all in society will adhere to the codes of conduct is necessary for optimal functioning. Morality is therefore an evolving social instrument that arises naturally as part of a culture. If humans evolved under completely different circumstances, we would have a drastically different idea of right and wrong. It is not objective fact.
In the last ten thousand years, culture has played a monumental role in shaping our brains and moral systems. Brains develop within a specific culture and are thus conditioned by the prevailing culture it finds itself in. And because cultures differ around the world, the codes of conduct (morality) will necessarily also differ.
This is evident in the different moral systems that emerged in different times and places throughout human history. Modern culture and institutions play an ever-increasing role in shaping our brains, behavior, and sense of morality. The sense of morality emerges from a sophisticated integration of numerous brain areas and networks. Within our modern societies, we have learned to approach the topic of morality rationally; and within the context of our cultures and institutions we have the ability to go beyond passively listening to our animal intuitions. We can now use reason to form moral judgments, even if they conflict with our intuitions and gut feelings. Our very awareness of the evolutionary influence in shaping our brains and moral dispositions enable us to reimagine morality and to pursue new possibilities.
We are now a global society that needs a global morality such that all humankind can live together in peace and unity. Society’s morality is captured in its cultures and institutions. As we have come to learn by now (ad nauseum), the brain is, to a large extent, shaped by environment and experiences. And this eventually determines behavior and personality.
It is obvious that a society’s culture and its institutions will necessarily play a major role in shaping its citizens. Our institutions determine our day-to-day life. Government and legislators (and religious leaders) habituate the people; they shape their people’s brains by encouraging certain ways of life and discouraging others. This way, society’s conception of what is moral and allowable gets encoded in its people’s brains.
Morality influences and determines law, and it becomes the framework in which brain development then takes place. The moral codes of conduct get ingrained in the unconscious mind, in the background, forming part of our internal models, dictating our worldviews.
But we must also always be cognizant of this—cognizant of the power of cultural conditioning. Many of our daily practices that we accept as moral and natural are only products of cultural conditioning. Therefore, it is important to always question the rules and laws that are thrust upon us from above.
Question authority. Are there rational foundations to the policies and laws? Consider as example some religions’ fascination with our sex lives. In many instances, religions teach us to despise certain sexual acts, or sexual acts between certain people. This then gets so ingrained in the brains of the docile disciples that they form an inherent disgust at the mere mention of anything sexual. Sex becomes a taboo topic.
But this is irrational. Sex between any two consenting adults, regardless of gender or sex position, should be morally permissible. The fact that a large majority of people tend to have an automatic disgust reflex to the mere mention of sex illustrates the power of conditioning.
In the same vein, we can also start to question several of our other blindly accepted practices and institutions, such as marriage. Is the institution of marriage still relevant? Why is there a need for a tripartite contract (the two lovers and the state) when two people are in love? There is a plethora of such examples.
Always keep in mind that there is no objective right or wrong. Morality is a human construct. A mere social instrument. We can decide what is right and what is wrong. And we do so through rational discussions. The topic of morality should be an ongoing open discussion by all of Earth’s inhabitants. It is a dynamic process. There is no ultimate right answer. We must aim to find consensus about our shared view of the good life. And we must base these discussions on the latest and best scientific evidence, and not on superstitions or the supernatural.
Morality changes with time; it changes with science as we gain more knowledge and understanding. Our descendants will most probably hang their heads in shame over our treatment of animals (or something else we assume to be okay today), just like we are ashamed of our ancestors and some of the things they have done (read: slavery). That is moral progress. Today’s morality must be informed by today’s science.
Morality also changes depending on society’s goals or what is seen as humanity’s purpose. Our view of the good life changes over time. Are we striving toward happiness? Wellbeing? Human flourishing? Should we include other species in our deliberations?
Moral responsibility is something we grow into. We are not born morally responsible. We gain the status of moral agents as we mature in society; as we learn what is right and wrong according to current culture. Our morality is captured in the sophisticated integration of a wide range of brain areas and networks, including cognitive, emotional, and motivational mechanisms. And these need to mature and develop within society’s culture and institutions.
Damage or impairment to any of these networks can affect one’s moral compass. Many studies have now shown that neurological impairments can lead to disturbances of moral cognition. Damage to certain areas of the brain can lead to defects in decision-making and planning, which influence social conduct.
In many cases, such patients behave inappropriately even though they know what behavior is considered morally appropriate. They just cannot seem to help it. Hypersexuality, inappropriate sexual behavior such as aggressiveness, incest, and even pedophilia and zoophilia, have been linked to brain damage.
Neuroscientists have a pretty good idea of the brain areas involved in moral reasoning and how impairments can affect moral cognition. (The frontal lobes are essential in controlling impulsivity and moral judgement—these areas only fully develop in one’s mid-twenties.) All the evidence just reinforces the idea that morality and moral behavior is a function of the brain, which is influenced and formed by society. Damage to the brain can impair moral judgement.
But what does all of this mean for moral responsibility? Can and should we hold people responsible for their actions and behavior?
Further Reading
Internet Resources:
Stanford Philosophy – morality definition
Stanford Philosophy – moral responsibility
Scientia Salon – free will skepticism and its implications
Books worth reading:
The moral landscape: how science can determine human values by Sam Harris
The Evolution of Morality (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology) by Richard Joyce
Just Deserts: Debating Free Will by Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso
Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality by S. Matthew Liao
Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit
