Can morality exist absent of a top-down system? The question has been explored in many ways, and the difficulty of it is accentuated by the fact that one of the most compelling arguments is devastatingly simple: no. No, morality cannot exist without a top-down system. And there is no way for the current construction of the world to know any differently, because Western thought has been fused inextricably with Christianity over the past two-thousand years. So even if it were possible, we will never be able to know.
This is essentially the argument laid out in online writer and thinker David Perell’s short-form essay “Why You’re Christian.” Perell himself identifies as a “Religious Atheist” who has forgone the mystical in Christianity but subscribes to the human rights espoused by the faith. His essay aims to prove that it is disingenuous for atheists and non-Christians to denounce Christianity on one hand and claim “self-evident” human rights on the other.
His basis for this is that the only reason human rights are “self-evident” is the ubiquity of Christian influence. In Ancient times, human rights were conceptualized differently, often placing the noble and powerful on a pedestal and leaving the weak and the poor to fend for themselves. This wasn’t like our modern conception of rich against poor class warfare; rather, the noble determined what was “good” and “bad” between themselves and the common people were non-players in morality.
According to the texts of Christianity, this shifted radically under the influence of Jesus Christ as he shared his teachings regarding the poor, oppressed, and destitute. Jesus is credited with saying “blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5) and “he [God] has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate” (Luke 1:52). Through these teachings, the role is reversed—the goal is no longer to rise to the level of the powerful and self-serving elite, but instead focuses on evening the playing field through humility and service.
This is an incredibly powerful argument, and it does reveal some of the disingenuousness that has plagued humanist and non-believing communities. Further, it circles back on itself, positing a defense that is essentially unassailable: there is not a modern world that Christianity hasn’t touched, so there is no way to truly know that modern morality would have risen otherwise. Notwithstanding, there is an alternate theory to this that can fit inside the same framework: human rights are a product of evolution and psychology, not a product of Christian moral pervasiveness.
Human consciousness evolved as a means of planning and deepening their social connections. Together, the earliest humans hunted and gathered, aiding each other in overcoming the wilderness. This cooperativity is inherent to human existence. Anyone who has seen young children play together has a sense of this: usually, children get along and play without hinderance, naturally adapting to be inclusive. If a child begins to exhibit exclusive, selfish or dictatorial behavior, it can usually be traced to an unmet need or a mirrored behavior from an authority figure.
The human spirit of cooperation is so strong that current educational psychology foundationally rests upon it. The Social Constructivism Theory of Education was first detailed in the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky and backed by independent research about constructivism by American philosopher John Dewey1. It theorizes that children are actively engaged in the creation of their own knowledge, and that peer assistance is integral to the development of this knowledge.
This is inherently cooperative; children learn with each other, using the insights of their cohorts to progress their own understanding. In a truly Socially Constructivist classroom, a teacher creates an environment poised for learning and allows students to explore together. Naturally, some students have an affinity for certain knowledge and they will, in turn, guide others to their understandings. The pairing of a student with a “more knowledgeable other” increases lasting learning and understanding in both students.
This is one of the leading theories of education in modern America, and is based firmly on the natural collaboration between children. Thus, evolution through society and the natural inclinations of the less-influenced among us, our children, point toward the logical framework of morality. This same framework was widely explored by the Stoic philosophers, who lived in Ancient Rome in a time that indisputably emphasized the opposite theory: power as the means to human rights.
Stoicism runs contrary to the theory of its day. Musonius Rufus, Epictetus’ teacher who was often called the “Roman Socrates,” taught that women should be educated equally to men. Marcus Aurelius described that all humans are interconnected, and “what is bad for the bee is bad for the hive.” The concept of sympatheia underpins Stoic ethics: the idea that there is interconnectedness in the cosmos, from the lowliest human to the vast expanse of space.
From this starting point, the logic follows: consciousness connects humans and the universe, and gives the ability to work together toward the same goals while reflecting upon our condition. With this understanding, it becomes evident that working together is better than working alone. This togetherness necessitates a certain set of processes and actions.
In order to be a member of the society that forms, a set of norms are put into place to balance the wants and needs of the individuals and with that of the group. These rise from natural inclinations: I do not like to be harmed, so why would I harm others? My burdens are eased when my community helps me, so I should help my community to ease their burdens.
All right and wrong, then, rests on this conception of society as an inherent good, and cooperation being inherent to human nature. Good and bad are not arbitrary and ever-changing; they only change if what is good for the individual-society system changes. Will it ever be good for people to murder each other? No. It is inherently contrary to society, and thus will never be moral in any system. If it were all arbitrary, there would be no intuitive exceptions.
We know, historically, that things have not always followed this pattern, with various groups achieving “civilization” faster than others by forceful exertion of their power over less advanced societies. This is why the Christian morality argument is so compelling. Christianity arose at a time when power was the only way; weakness was the surest death sentence. Christianity worked to effectively flip the script, awakening the people to their internal power.
What was once for the rich and powerful suddenly became accessible to everyone. Christianity handed the common people the keys to the kingdom.
This, in itself, is not where morality comes from; rather, Christianity was an effective vehicle through which pre-existing morality was spread. It becomes clear that Christianity was more about dismantling the system of power from above than originating the ideas. This is why it resonates: it is connected to the truth of human rights and morality, found in evolution and psychology. This truth is more powerful than the “might make right” morality of the ancient world, it just needed a movement to bring it together.
It is impossible to know if these ideas would have spread as quickly and efficiently without the influence of Christianity, though it seems unlikely. The modern conception of human rights and morality undoubtedly owes a great debt to Christianity, but the debt is not so large that, if one believes in the inherency of human rights they must also, in any form, be a Christian.
Reviewed by Jacob VandenBoom, Bachelor of Science in Religion
Edited by Abigail McKay Cherry
On Morality
Outstanding article due to its resonance with me. Only gripe is in the last paragraph when the assertion is made that "it seems unlikely" that pre-existing morality would not have spread so quickly or efficiently without the influence of Christianity. I am not doubting the influence of Christianity. But I also don't doubt the influence of other religions (or non-religious spirituality, if religion is a dirty word), and other cultural constructs (in addition to the Roman Stoics). Christianity itself was constructed on prior ideas and evolved in interacting with other ideas. Many factors contribute to whether "pre-existing morality" spread quicker or slower, efficiently or inefficiently. The social animal nature in humans (if I may may break down my understanding of your term "pre-existing morality") is so inbuilt into our DNA that it HAS to manifest in any family, tribe, community, or country in terms of each of their own idiosyncractic teachings, family rules, spirituality, myths, cultural mores, philosophies, core beliefs, and morality or ethics. The present cognitive construct of Christianity MIGHT have been the agent/tool that enables the quicker and more efficient spread of pre-existing morality. But until we explore how other constructs have also enabled the spread, we cannot say that it is unlikely that the spread would be less quick or less efficient without Christianity.
Very interesting.