ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 1, January 2015
there. The largest end has only recently entered into our considerations because the
theory of evolution has only recently been grasped and there is much epistemic opacity there (it is very hard to know what we see and predict the future given such massive
complexity in the system), which casts doubt over inquiries into and hypotheses about
that realm. Still, we can see that this all-encompassing biological landscape for morality is the one that makes logical sense.
If my hypothesis about morality is true, that it is a growing concern for the survival of
life over larger and larger circles of concern, then this should lead to some predictions.
Perhaps our moral emotions would have evolved along this path. This has not been
fully investigated, but we do in fact see some evidence for this progression of morality
going from concern for the self to concern for others in the evolutionary past of our
brain structures. Evolutionary neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp of Bowling Green State
University has identified seven emotional systems in humans that originated deeper in
our evolutionary past than the Pleistocene era. The emotional systems that Panskepp
terms Care (tenderness for others), Panic (from loneliness), and Play (social joy) date
back to early primate evolutionary history, whereas the systems of Fear, Rage, Seeking, and Lust, which govern survival instincts for the individual, have even earlier,
premammalian origins.29 This is a tantalizing fact that begs to be investigated as part
of an empirically driven science of morality, were an objective basis for the field to be
accepted as has been proposed in this essay.
Bridging the Is-Ought Divide
To reiterate, there is no supernatural force that dictates anything must follow rules for
survival, but this blind and unsympathetic arbiter of the selection process within our
universe means that this is the ultimate judge of all actions. We see this on all the circles of our biology and we see that it holds true for other species as well. Those
pandas ought to want to mate more to ensure the survival of their species. Those humans ought not to want to act in a manner that wipes out bees because their own food
chain depends on it. Those trees ought to grow at higher elevations because the habitat
they are in is changing. Etc. etc. These actions are all different depending upon the
species, the environment it is trying to survive in, and the ability of individuals to
make moral decisions, but all of these oughts must obey the same logic of leading towards survival. All of these oughts therefore lead us to a final inference about a moral
rule that objectively, universally, justifiably, and ultimately compels our actions. The
prescription of morality can thus be generalized to apply to all of life, for the remainder of time. This is our conclusion:
1. Life is.
2. Life wants to remain an is.30
3. Therefore, life ought to act to remain alive.
The first two premises are irrefutably true from observation. The conclusion is logically valid and becomes the final test by which all moral standards must be judged.
24