Humanity's Morals: Social Contracts and Zero Sums

I read a recent article in the New York Times that reminded me greatly of some comments that my friend Nikki made on a post a couple of weeks ago.  In both cases (and hundreds of others in the 'humanist movement') the authors were conveying their frustration with people who are of the opinion that morals stem from God, and that a society without religion cannot be moral.  The humanist movement of course stems from the philosophical perspective that humans are innately good.  This is in contrast to the mainstream Christian view of original sin and fallen man, or even the tabula rasa ("blank slate") view that we are as moral as we are taught to be and nothing more.  Without going too much further, Nikki wrote:

The thing that bothers me most about any religion, other than ignorance, is that they believe that without religion, there can be no morals. As if without the (insert religious text here), people would just kill each other right and left, molest children, steal from each other, etc. People with and without a religion do those things.  I consider myself anti-religion but am a very spiritual and moral person.

This is pretty close to what Primatologist Frans De Waal, author of Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals wrote in his recent article: 

Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant — I will get to this — but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality.

Before going any further, I have to point out that I have yet to meet, or read about anyone making such a humanist claim who has not been profoundly impacted by religion.  And while each of the said claimants would no doubt argue that religion was not responsible for their morals, I am not so sure.  Dr. De Waal made another remark in the same article that I found highly relevant:

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious.

In this passage De Waal was speaking of societies, but I am inclined to think it applies equally well to individuals.

Moreso however, I would like to consider just what morality would look like without religion.  I am not inclined to believe that morality would go away.  As De Waal would be quick to point out, morality of a sort is easily seen in primate cultures, and thus religion cannot be its only source.  The question is, is morality completely independent of religion?  Would it be the same?  Using De Waal's terms, and looking at morality through the lens of morality as an evolved feature of humanity, the answer is clearly no.

Primate morality looks very much like human morality, within the primary family group.  Conflicts are mediated.  There is kindness, empathy and altruism.  Everything that we might label morality can be seen in a more basic form, right there in our chimp cousins. 

For De Waal, and most humanists, this is all the proof necessary to toss religion out altogether.  We are obviously evolved to work together for mutual benefit, and this, not God, is the root of morality.  Make sense?  In a very nearsighted way, it does to me. 

The problem is that reality exists well outside our 'primary family groups'.  Every natural analog from which morality is supposedly derived, completely breaks down when faced with the reality of 'other family groups'.

The Savage Beast theory of human nature states that we are evolved from lower animals, and thus we must always guard against our aggressive primate natures.  The last fifty years have left the Savage Beast theory a very un-P.C. relic.  The modern paradigm is that animals are good.  They don't wage war.  They don't commit genocides. They are natural stewards of their own kind.  It is we humans, with our non-animal natures, that are the root of all evil.

Recent research has since shown that chimpanzees do in fact go to war with neighboring groups for nothing more than land.  And by going to war, I mean that they kill their neighbors.  While many an anthropologist has been quick to continue the charade that the Savage Beast theory is completely wrong, I think the evidence speaks for itself.

The truth is that we have every reason to act morally without the influence of religion and God, at least as long as we are confined to a social group that we rely on for our own survival.  Within that context, we are engaged in a 'social contract'.  This idea gained traction in the mid 1700s with the Enlightenment movement - the same movement that spawned the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. 

But what happens when we interact with those who are not of our own social groups?  Are we bound to act morally in regard to them?  Of course we can.  But that is not an imperative.  We can, but there is no reason that we must.

In this respect I reluctantly use myself as an example.  For while so many humanists are quick to claim that they are perfectly moral without religion, I must admit that I am not the same.  Without religion, I AM NOT a moral person.  Sure, to friends and family, the difference is non-existent.  Outside that group - fuggedaboutit.  I have proven this fact objectively on too many occasions to count.  I don't care to go into details.  Let's just leave it at me admitting that I have good reason to be ashamed of some of the things that I have done. 

The real question is, how much worse would my behavior be without religion?  Having been raised with it, there is little doubt that many of my excesses were reigned in by its vestiges.  And having taken religion up again, I can see the dramatic improvement that has resulted.  Simply put, God makes me a better person - a decent person. 

Without God I know that I could choose morality.  But I would not.  And it is not fear of divine punishment that motivates me.  God inspires me.  Without that inspiration, the limits of my behavior would quickly be reduced to cost-benefit-analysis.  What are the risks vs. the possibility of gains?  Simple economics.  Of course that also means that for those outside my inner circle, their well-being would be of significantly less importance than my own, or that of those I love.  Their loss, our gain.

Now, back to the overall question of where morality derives from.  I do not question that a great many people would be perfectly moral without the influence of God or religion.  The problem is that there are far too many people such as myself, who would quite frankly prey upon the naturally moral.

For all those who call on us to abandon our pretenses of religion as the wellspring of morality, I urge you to have caution.  I am not the exception to the rule.  Marx may have been right in saying that religion is the opiate of the masses.  In response I simply say, be glad that we're high.