As readers of this blog would know by now, there is a good deal of overlap between the results of scientific studies and the Bible, insofar as both are concerned with the reality of the world and everything in it. However, as the belief system or worldview of scientists colour their interpretation of their results, these may differ sharply from interpretations based on a Biblical worldview. It came as no surprise then, when the moral foundations identified amongst a wide range of people who took part in scientific studies were not unfamiliar to the moral commands given in the Bible.
As I argued in the previous article, human morality originally came from God, and despite our attempts to corrupt it, He has ensured that each one of us still retains a conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). These survey results therefore reveal something of the human conscience, and Haidt attempts to show how this conscience comes from the process of human evolution. Here, I will look at each of the moral foundations and show how the evolutionary explanation fares against the Biblical one. Furthermore, I will demonstrate how the moral commands of the Bible reach far beyond what we would like to believe is “good enough”, revealing that: we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6a).
Each of these foundations is given as per the categorisation in The Righteous Mind, where they are seen as two sides of one coin – ‘good’ and ‘bad’ versions of the same basic moral foundation. I give a highly abbreviated version of Haidt’s suggested evolutionary history of each foundation, along with his suggestions of how these are manifested in the real world. He uses the differences between the moral values of liberals and conservatives to provide examples of each foundation. I then provide the Biblical view of each foundation (as I understand them), and compare God’s standard with man’s standard.
The Care/Harm Foundation
This is perhaps the most obvious moral value – shown by caring, kindness, and acts of love. The opposite is cruelty, murder, and hatred. Haidt suggests that this trait evolved from a mother’s care for her children, or the care shown by relatives of those children in helping to raise them, which can also be found in the animal world (particularly among social animals). According to Haidt, somehow our animalistic care for direct relatives (those in our in-group) has now evolved to manifest itself as care for those less fortunate than us, even if they live on the other side of the world or are from an entirely different species.
Haidt’s studies suggest that liberals tend to emphasise care for others strongly, especially those seen as vulnerable (e.g. women, racial minorities, immigrants, endangered species, etc.). He further suggests that whilst conservatives agree that “Care” is right and “Harm” is wrong, they tend to place more importance on those within their social groups (e.g. of their own nationality, religious affiliation, race, etc.), than people outside those groups.
The Bible, too, puts this concept front and centre, describing it as love (the opposite being hatred). The centrality of love is strongly stated by John in his gospel and epistles, for example: He who does not love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:8). In His teachings, Jesus points out that the commands to love God and to love others are the very essence of the Old Testament laws, and remain the essence of God’s dealings with humanity (Matt. 22:37-40). When Jesus was asked what exactly God meant when commanding us to “love your neighbour as yourself”, He told the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). With this story, He clearly shows that the love of God is not something that we should show only towards our friends or family (i.e. our ‘in-group’), but also towards those of a different race and who are vulnerable (the man being helped had just been robbed and severely beaten; left on the roadside to die – a vivid picture of vulnerability). Jonathan Haidt dismisses the story of the Good Samaritan, as his evolution-based view morality is all about looking after those in your own group, especially if doing so enhances your reputation (thus increasing the chance that potential mates will find you attractive).
Although the care shown for people by liberals is commendable in the sight of other people, it does not go nearly as far as God’s love. Very few people, irrespective of their political leanings, are willing to die for others. Those they may be willing to die for are their closest family, and perhaps their friends. Such sacrifices are viewed (rightly) as the highest expression of love. Yet how many stories have you heard about someone dying for those who openly despise, reject, and even torture them? This is exactly how Jesus demonstrates God’s love for us (Rom. 5:6-8). How many people truly turn the other cheek to those who slap them (Matt. 5:39) or “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you”(Matt. 5:44)?
God’s standard of love is clearly far beyond even our noblest attempts at kindness or care. Furthermore, God’s view of so-called “Harm” is far more serious than we see it. We tend to think of murder as really bad, but hatred and anger (without actions following these feelings) are just mild offenses. Yet, in God’s eyes, our ‘mild offenses’ of bearing a grudge, or thinking about doing someone harm are as bad as actually carrying out those horrible fantasies (Matt. 5:21-22). Simply not forgiving people who have wronged us is seen as grievous sin in God’s eyes (Matt. 18:21-35).
The Fairness/Cheating Foundation
The simple concept of fairness is apparent to everyone, and we all seem to have an acute sense of fairness even as children (who else can remember proclaiming “but it’s not fair!” to their parents when ‘wronged’ by a sibling or friend?). We have a desire to be treated ‘fairly’, and feel especially hard done by when we appear to have been ‘cheated’ out of something we thought was ours. This is a key element of our justice system, particularly when it comes to dealing with crimes such as theft and fraud. It is clear, then, that this moral sense is an integral part of our humanity.
Haidt explains the development of this moral foundation as a progression from what is known as reciprocal altruism. Animals that live in social groups appear to show this kind of behaviour by repaying favours (although, as Haidt admits, hard evidence for this is slim). It is a simple case of cooperation – “I will scratch your back, if you scratch mine”. Haidt makes a case for reciprocal altruism among humans – we are willing to do favours for others, but usually because we expect some sort of payback at some point. We are also quick to judge others who are seen to be cheating the system or free-riding.
The political examples he uses show that both conservatives and liberals have finely tuned concepts of fairness, even though they express them differently. Liberals want to see all people treated the same way (i.e. equality), and want the rich to share with the poor via increased taxes. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in equity, whereby it is fair for people who work hard to be wealthy, whereas it would be ‘unfair’ to tax hard working people in order to provide hand-outs for those who don’t work. At the end of the day, it is easy to show (as Haidt does) that our basic concepts of fairness and cheating come back to human selfishness. Whilst those campaigning for one side or the other may say they are concerned about the wellbeing of others, or because it is a good moral principle for all to live by, we have in reality not progressed much further than “But mommy, it’s not fair!”
This moral concept is found clearly in the Bible, but from quite a different perspective to that of atheistic psychology (or selfish humanity). Rather than the terms fairness or cheating, this principle is found frequently as justice, with God being portrayed as the only truly fair Judge of human actions and motives (Rom. 2). With His complete understanding of the human heart, God knows that our sense of justice is twisted and coloured by our own self-interest. Consequently, the Bible is full of warnings about what we judge and how we judge, and to leave any kind of judgment about the unseen motives of others entirely to God (e.g. Matt. 7:1-5, John 5:20).
Furthermore, God knows that we are likely to be partial towards someone we view as respectable, likeable, or influential, rather than those we perceive to be unimportant or unlikely to be able to repay us in any way (Jam. 2:1-4). Whilst such partiality is considered as perfectly normal human behaviour in The Righteous Mind, it is viewed as a terrible sin in the Bible (Jam. 2:8-13). Christians are meant to be representatives on earth of the one true, impartial Judge; any partiality on our part is therefore an insult to the character of Christ.
The Lord Jesus contrasted reciprocal altruism with true acts of kindness. As part of His teachings on loving our neighbour, He points out that all people love those who love them in return, but this is not seen as a demonstration of God’s love (Matt. 5:46-48). Furthermore, Jesus counters the human tendency of doing favours for those who are likely to repay us in kind: “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbours, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12-14). Besides not expecting others to repay our kindness, we are called to forgo justice we feel is our due, out of love for whoever wronged us (1 Cor. 6:7). As we saw with the comparison between human love and God’s love, God’s idea of treating others fairly reaches far beyond what we are naturally willing to do.
The Authority/Subversion Foundation
This is described in The Righteous Mind as respect for hierarchy within a group, the opposite being insubordination or disrespect. It can be seen clearly in more traditional societies where children pay respect to their elders, or in any situation where people show respect towards someone in authority (e.g. bowing/curtseying to a king or queen). Although he recognises that those in authority often abuse it and become tyrants or dictators, Haidt also points out that legitimate authority allows groups (e.g. nations) to set and enforce rules for the good of all. As has been said before, the best or most efficient form of government is one that is run by a benevolent dictator – it cuts out all the bureaucracy associated with democracy, yet ensures that everything is done in the best interests of the citizens. The only problem, of course, is that no one human being is completely benevolent, which would mean putting others’ needs before their own all the time.
As with the previous foundation, this one fits better with conservatives who tend to be strongly nationalistic and have highly traditional views of respect, than liberals who tend to view authority as a short step away from tyranny. According to Haidt, this foundation evolved from the tendency of social animals to live in hierarchical groups and show submissive or dominance behaviours according to each individual’s status within the group. Although the dominant or alpha individual may come across as a bully, they play the critical role of enforcing social rules when a subordinate breaks them. In the animal kingdom, and in human societies, it is possible (and even likely) for the majority to rebel against those in authority, if their power is seen as illegitimate or being abused.
In the Bible, the idea of authority is very clear – as the Creator of all things, God is the legitimate King of everything in the universe. This concept is also linked with submission. Besides ultimately submitting to God as our legitimate Ruler, throughout the Bible the concept of submitting willingly to human authorities is reinforced (e.g. Rom. 13:1-7). Clearly, God has made us such that we require social hierarchy to fully function, but earthly authorities are all ultimately subordinate to God’s total authority. Tyrants and bullies will one day have to explain the abuse of their power before the Source of all power (Ps. 2).
In 1 Peter 2&3, submission is portrayed as a way for Christians to win the hearts of those in authority. Peter describes submission of everyone to the government, slaves to their masters, and wives to their husbands – obviously all in different ways, but the principle is the same. Furthermore, he does not say that we must only submit to people who are nice rulers/masters/husbands, but that we must submit to them irrespective of how badly they treat us. We are thus a reflection of Jesus who submitted to those who crucified Him (1 Pet. 2:21-24). At this time, Peter was addressing people who would have experienced the cruelty of Roman law, abuse suffered by slaves at the hands of terrible masters, and (likely) husbands treating their wives as property that could be used or abused as they saw fit. As with the other foundations we have investigated, the Christian is called to go above and beyond what is normally expected in human societies, by submitting even to those who treat us harshly.
God’s plan for those who are given authority within His Church is very different to the way people use authority in the world. Jesus continually reminded His disciples that humility and a willingness to serve were the key marks of those who are ‘great’ in His kingdom (Matt. 18:1-5). When His disciples argued about who was ‘in charge’ among them, He responded: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave” (Matt. 20:25-27). Christians who are lower down the social hierarchy are thus called to submit to everyone above them, regardless of how good or bad those leaders are. Meanwhile, Christians in leadership positions are called to serve their subordinates as though they were their slaves. Quite a different picture of authority and submission to that found in the world!
The Liberty/Oppression Foundation
This foundation was not part of the initial set of foundations Haidt and his team of researchers discovered, but one that they added due to how people responded to their research. In particular, it seemed that his initial view of Fairness was too simplistic, as people did not seem to feel as strongly about being cheated as they did about losing their liberty (i.e. feeling oppressed).
Oppression is the abuse of authority (see previous foundation) to over-ride the rights of the subjects. Haidt shows that whilst human society tends to be hierarchical, there are some cultural groups that are egalitarian (e.g. the San or ‘bushmen’ people in southern Africa), where no one individual is seen as the leader of the group. In these societies, rather than the alpha individual enforcing the rules, the whole group enforces the rules by punishing anyone who breaks them. Haidt admits that this sort of cooperation is not found at all in the animal world, but is unique to human societies.
Politically, it seems that conservatives and liberals both want liberty by avoiding oppression by rulers. However, the conservatives view liberty as freedom from over-bearing government regulations (e.g. taxes), whereas liberals view liberty as being allowed to live as they please without government interference (e.g. rights for LGBT groups). It seems then, that human societies are continually struggling between structured hierarchy and associated rules (with authority, that may lead to oppression) and the desire for individual freedom based on willing cooperation.
Interestingly, the gospel and the New Testament lifestyle are called the law of liberty (James 2:25). In explaining what that means, James shows how the ‘law’ by which a Christian should live is far more stringent than the law given in the Old Testament. However, our King is not an oppressor, but one who has rightful authority. He also actively assists His people in their efforts to obey Him. His laws are not meant to push us down, but lift us up. God’s law brings joy and liberty to all who live thereby. God’s plan for human society (i.e. before we sinned) was a perfect mix of authority and freedom, governed by a legitimate King and perfectly impartial Judge, according to His righteous law.
The Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation
Jonathan Haidt describes this moral foundation as an outworking of our ‘groupish’ nature, which is a direct result of group selection supposedly playing a key role in human evolution. As per my previous article on the merits of the group selection theory, this particular evolutionary explanation for human nature is on rather shaky ground. Nonetheless, it is clear that people naturally enjoy identifying with a group, tribe, sports team, or nation. This moral foundation is supposedly based on our tendency to bind together in groups for mutual protection, and these groups are kept together by showing outward signs of loyalty (e.g. national flags, team colours) and by punishing any form of betrayal (e.g. treason or apostasy). Haidt also correctly points out that conservative people seem to place more emphasis on loyalty (in the form of nationalism) than liberals, who may even be actively against all forms of nationalism.
In the Bible, we find yet more evidence of God’s full understanding of the human psyche, both as it was originally created to be and as it is now, having been twisted by sin. The idea of loyalty or betrayal is shown in the Word by obedience or disobedience, respectively. The very first sin committed was an act of disobedience towards God, and thus a betrayal of His trust (Gen. 3). This sin was soon followed by Cain killing Abel (Gen. 4), which shows that betraying God very soon leads to people betraying each other. The original purpose of our sense of loyalty was therefore to bind us to God first and foremost, with the secondary effect of binding us to one another within the entire human race.
The Tower of Babel incident (Gen. 11) that initially created separate nations among humans shows us that our ability to join together in a cooperative group, although originally a good thing, can be used for evil purposes (in this case, rebellion against God). Nonetheless, God still worked within a nation (Israel) and used signs of national identity (e.g. circumcision) as a means to reach out and bring people back into a loyal, obedient relationship with Him. As the Creator of us all, however, His ultimate goal is to bring people out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev. 5:9) back into a right relationship with Him.
As with the other morals we have seen thus far, God does not expect us to have a standard of morality that He has not demonstrated Himself through Jesus’ life on earth. In the last moments before Jesus is taken to the cross, He demonstrates His complete faithfulness to God by His determination to be obedient right up to the point of death (Matt. 26:39), and loyalty to His disciples by praying fervently for them (John 17:6-19). This is contrasted sharply by Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of the Lord (Matt. 26:14-16) – a representation of mankind’s usual response of rebellion and betrayal in spite of God’s continual demonstrations of faithfulness. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13).
The Christian life must reveal loyalty as God originally intended it to be, rather than as it shows up in sinful human society. The Bible portrays the Church as a bride waiting expectantly for her Groom (Jesus). As a sign of her total devotion and loyalty to Him, she must keep herself as a chaste, pure virgin, waiting expectantly for Him to come and take her to their wedding (2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 21:2). This devotion and loyalty leads us to separate ourselves from the sin and idolatry of the world, but it does not cause us to hate those who are not part of the Church (hatred of those not part of your ‘group’, even in church history, is man’s corruption of God’s morality). On the contrary, while we wait for the Groom we must be busy preaching the gospel through God’s love in order to bring others from all nations into the same loyal, obedient relationship with Him (Matt. 28:18-20).
The Sanctity/Degradation Foundation
This foundation is described as the human tendency to feel disgust or repulsion by some things that are seen as degrading to human nature (e.g. cannibalism), yet attach enormous value to things that are viewed as sacred. Haidt tries to show how these strong feelings have evolved as a mechanism to defend us against disease and pathogens. This disgust then changed into feelings that certain impure behaviours are degrading, particularly those involving sexual immorality. The opposite of this, according to Haidt, is when people hallow things as sacred or pure (e.g. temples). He points out that conservatives tend to emphasise this moral foundation, in that they support notions of sanctity (e.g. sanctity of marriage, or of life). Liberals tend to reject the concept altogether, although some view the environment as sacred, rather than the human body or religious sites.
Although Jonathan Haidt tries to stretch the theory of evolution to accommodate many of the other moral foundations, he fails entirely with this one. His best attempt starts with ‘early man’ who, as an omnivore, must learn which foods are poisonous and which are nutritious. People who had a moderate sense of ‘disgust’ for new foods were more likely to survive in new environments than those who tried everything without thought, or those who refused to try anything new. However, no animal seems to show similar behaviours of disgust or concept of purity. Whilst people readily attach symbolic significance to certain objects or places (e.g. flags, churches), animals never do. These behaviours simply do not exist in the natural world.
Once more, where evolutionary explanations fall short, the Bible provides clarity and understanding. In particular, it reveals why people are so different to animals – we are the only created things that were made in His image. This basically means that we share some similarities with Him, and even though we have corrupted this image, we cannot change this fact. The key Biblical concept here is holiness, which means to be separate, but also has connotations of purity, perfection, and sanctity. God is revealed in the Word as The Holy One (e.g. Isa. 43:3), and holiness is one of His core attributes.
The concept of holiness is perhaps one of the most difficult to demonstrate on earth, as everything around us has been hopelessly polluted by sin. However, God uses the sense of disgust or defilement within us to help us grasp what it means to be holy. Throughout the book of Leviticus, laws about purity or sanctity (e.g. not eating unclean animals or birds, not inter-marrying with other nations) are frequently associated with phrases such as: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Lev. 19:2b). In creating this clear connection between our purity and His holiness, God shows that sins that we commit against our own bodies (e.g. sexual immorality) are unlike those that we commit against others (e.g. stealing), because they degrade His image within us. This is why comparing the sexual world of animals (e.g. the bonobo, with its ‘promiscuous’ behaviours) and that of humans simply does not work as a justification for our behaviour.
This particular aspect of morality is under greater pressure than any other today. I have no doubt that the tendency to view sexual sin as less serious than other sin is a direct result of mankind’s rejection of God’s role as our Creator. If He did not create us in His image, then we would have every right to do as we please with our bodies. However, if He is the Creator, then even those who do not believe that He created them will have to answer Him one day about how they treated their own bodies. They ignore His call to holiness at their own peril.
Conclusion – Is Morality Just a Matter of Taste?
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt uses the metaphor of “a tongue with six different taste receptors” to frame his explanation of the six different moral foundations. Although a liberal himself, he recognises that conservatives tend to focus on more ‘taste receptors’ (i.e. moral values) than liberals, who emphasise only three of the six (Care, Fairness, and Liberty). He also insists that although he sees morality as a ‘matter of taste’, he understands that complete moral relativism (i.e. each person or culture defines good or bad according to their own taste) leads down some very dark holes. In particular, if human success as a species is a result of group selection, and we make up our own morals to suit the ‘taste’ of our group, then Nazism should be seen as the perfect example of human morality.
Knowing this logical conclusion, yet also understanding its horror, Haidt retreats to what he calls “moral pluralism” where there are an unknown number of ‘valid’ variations of morality that are based on giving more or less emphasis to the six moral foundations. He does not explain who decides what variations are ‘valid’, or whether one version of morality is more or less ‘valid’ than another. One thing he does stand firm on, however, is that no one should ever claim that their version of morality is the correct one: “anyone who tells you that all societies, in all eras, should be using one particular moral matrix, resting on one particular configuration of moral foundations, is a fundamentalist of one sort or another.” And he means the term “fundamentalist” in the way many liberals mean it – as one of the worst things you could call anyone (a person so arrogant that they can only see one point of view – their own).
This is one area where his atheism clearly clouds his judgment. If there is no God, then his distaste for anyone who presumes that their version of morality is correct is sensible. We are all humans, and who am I to decide that my ideas of morality are better than yours? If all versions of gods and the religions organised around them are merely human constructs that evolved to maintain social order (as Haidt suggests), then no one religion is actually true and no kind of god actually exists. However, if you have been following along with my arguments against his evolution-based theories, you will have seen by now that Haidt’s arguments have more holes in them than the average sieve. What if his atheism is merely a human construct designed to reject God’s true authority as the Creator, King, and Judge of mankind?
As a Christian, my job is not to show others that my version of morality is better than other versions. On the contrary, I must show others that God is the Creator of us all, and that His version of morality is therefore the only one that is valid. As the ultimate Judge, He will not judge us based on a law we made up for ourselves (particularly because our morality has been twisted by sin), but based on His law, which is the only one that counts.
This brings me back to the foundation of all of morality, as revealed in the Bible and understood innately by all people – love. I was particularly saddened by Haidt’s studies revealing that political conservatives, which are frequently linked in America with religious Christians, appeared to underemphasise the Care/Harm foundation. In other words, they lacked love, especially for those not of their same race, religion, or nation. This is one of the reasons why people may have a dim view of Christians claiming that their morality is the only correct one – because so many make this claim out of self-righteousness, rather than love.
If you saw a friend of yours breaking a law in ignorance, would you warn them? Is your warning them of a law that already exists the same as you making the law in the first place? Would it be more loving to warn them about breaking the law, or instead of warning them, to report them to the police? Christians cannot be smug about knowing God’s law – we did not make it, and every one of us has broken it. However, now that we know the law, and we understand the eternal penalty facing those who break that law, how should we react if we love those who are breaking it? Furthermore, God has pardoned our transgressions of His law through the blood of Jesus. That pardon is freely available to anyone else, and we should love them enough to tell them about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment