Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Man is more than an animal

To the editor,

This letter is in response to the article by J. Derekh Froude regarding the creationist vs. evolution debate. I consider the issue made by Mr. Froude regarding secular morals to be one of utmost importance. The assertion that morals are a function of a supernatural entity and have no place in secular philosophy is a dangerous, but common, misconception that is propagated by those on both sides of the creationism debate. The foundation for this idea is the premise that man is merely an animal and is, therefore, not responsible for his actions. Proponents of this fallacy ignore the fact that man's evolved volitional capability distinguishes humans from other animal species. While religious free will has its seat of decision in the soul, rational free will is based on the realization that the human brain is of such complexity that it can monitor and change its own internal state. This emergent property of complex neural interactions is both non-mystical and non-deterministic because it is based on the idea of entity-based causation as opposed to event-based causation. This concept of entity-based causation is counter-intuitive in a macroscopic world but is present at a quantum level.

Man's ability to make decisions provides for the existence of the individual as the purpose of morality. The ability to reason is man's basic tool of self-preservation, and therefore, thinking is his primary virtue. Morally good things uphold the virtue of thought, while evil things destroy it. Thought presupposes three other basic moral imperatives: reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason is the way in which humans gain knowledge and thus, their ability to survive. Purpose is the mind's choice to achieve happiness through the control of its own existence. Self-esteem is the mind's choice to accept itself as worthy of happiness and life. An extrapolation of these basic virtues provides a non-mystical moral framework for all other values. For example: the use of force against other rational beings interferes with their ability to act using their own judgment (their means of survival) and is therefore immoral.

While a complete defense of natural morality is beyond the scope of this forum, my purpose in writing this letter is not to turn our student newspaper into a stage for philosophical grandstanding, but simply to introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on this debate.

Jake Bailey

Planetary Geology Freshman