Nature and morality: Part I - Behaviour

To what extent should humans strive to emulate the rest of the natural world? We hear arguments in many areas of life, from reproduction to race to food, which advocate a particular act or system because it is “natural” and condemn others for being “unnatural”. The assumption is that if something occurs in nature then it is right. But does the selfish and violent world to which we refer really reflect human morality? If not then why do we continue to strive for this strange ideal? This post covers aspects of natural and human behaviour and how this relates to human morality. A future post will cover food, conservation and resource use.

Why do we aim for nature?

The natural ideal may be seen as the perfect system to aim for due to the perception that everything in nature has its place and is in balanced harmony, never exploiting resources as we unnatural humans do. Humans are seen to be disrupting this balance by our unprecedented industrial development and to rectify this destructive pattern we must return to systems of living found in nature. Regarding social relations, the behaviour of non-human animals may be thought of as being straightforward and rational with no malicious intent compared to our human behaviour often ruled by seemingly irrational and spiteful emotions. However, neither idea stands up to the realities of basic biology, let alone human morals.

Nature is not balanced, it is in a constant dynamic state of fluctuation. Ecosystems have evolved together with species and individuals always evolving in ways which give them the upper hand, resulting in closely linked relationships. It is this close-linked evolution which appears to result in a perfect balance. This is not the case – non-human species would, and do, exploit resources if the opportunity arose. It does not matter if they are parasitic, predator-prey or mutualistic (in which both species involved receive some benefit from the interaction) – each species is in it for themselves and are evolving in ways which increase their reproductive output. Communities which appear to fluctuate about a point and return to this apparent equilibrium may do so over the timescale in which we can study them. But even if undisturbed by outside factors the system will always change eventually as species continue to evolve.  Along the same lines, the social behaviour of non-human animals is not based on simple-minded and well-meaning goals but the constant evolutionary pressure to survive.

Morals in nature?

Many common and natural animal behaviours are analogous to human behaviours which most would agree are abhorrent. But these along with natural behaviours which appear to represent ideal moral positions to our human minds are in fact simply evolutionarily favourable.

Practices which are widely accepted as morally unacceptable or subject to moral debate in human society are often found in nature. Behaviours including rape, infanticide, deceit, abortion, fratricide, theft and murder are all widespread in nature. These are not freak examples, these behaviours are common and part of the lifecycle and society of many species. One does not have to look far to find examples of primates killing the young of females impregnated before they were on the scene to avoid wasting resources on another male’s offspring or chicks pushing their siblings from the nest to gain more food for themselves.

On the other hand, does nature’s better side redeem it? Animal behaviours may also seem similar to good moral behaviour in humans. A key example of this is altruism, a behavioural phenomenon much studied and debated in the last century. Altruism is when an animal behaves in a selfless manner. Many animal behaviours appear to be altruistic, such as bees giving up their lives for their colony. But true altruism does not exist in nature – behaviour appearing to be altruistic is really selfish behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Delving into the genetics involved in seemingly altruistic behaviours in the natural world invariably shows us that the ultimate outcome is optimal spread and continuation of a particular set of genes.

Nature’s morals seem ambiguous at best and evil at worst. Following nature does not appear to make sense when striving for a morally sound life and society. Both these seemingly immoral and moral behaviours are rooted not in the morality of the species concerned but simply in evolution – their outcome is to increase the reproductive output of the animal, no more, no less.

Human morals

Human morals are not completely removed from nature; being part of nature ourselves complicates the argument for aiming for a more natural lifestyle.

The argument could be made that as humans are but animals then there is no real distinction between natural behaviour and our own behaviour, making the aiming for a natural life idea pointless as we are there already.

Even if this argument is disregarded, many human instincts which are commonly thought of as good or bad morals are muddled up with our evolutionary past. The basis for moral behaviours such as heroically risking one’s life for another in danger may be partially rooted in the evolutionarily beneficial goal of increasing the likelihood that this act will be returned in the future or even to increase one’s attractiveness to potential mates. The same can be said for immoral behaviours such as rape, which may be partially driven by the evolutionarily advantageous desire to increase reproductive output.

It seems as if humans pick and choose which of our natural behaviours we accept as natural and right or unnatural and wrong. Nature is used as an acceptable argument for moral behaviour but not for behaviour we have decided is immoral – it is used only to explain but not truly justify our deep dark “immoral” desires. In this way, the nature-is-right idea also breaks down. This could be because human morality is distinct from these reproductive output-increasing behaviours - it is simply the case that sometimes they overlap when animal behaviours are anthropomorphised and look like moral behaviour. However, morality is hard to distinguish from these instincts as it is not easy to determine exactly why we believe something to be morally right, but this does not justify using nature as an argument for or against some behaviours and not others.

Should we accept the argument that what is natural is morally right?

Very often the reasons for aiming for nature are misinformed and a basic understanding of the natural world indicates that nature is not so morally right after all. In any case, this point is irrelevant as both seemingly moral and immoral behaviours in nature are rooted solely in evolutionary survival. In addition, human morality and natural behaviour (though they may be muddled together somewhat by evolution) they are distinct from one another and should not be treated as analogous.