Which Came First, the Rain or the Umbrella?

In his essay Nonmoral Nature, Stephen Gould describes the debate as to whether nature implicitly reflects morality as a result of God’s design. He presents several viewpoints, with an emphasis on religious creationists and scientists of various disciplines. The former hold to a doctrine which states that the natural world must, by virtue of its creation, reflect some morality relative to the human condition. The latter provide objective analyses of natural beings, arguing that no solid evidence of morality exists. The question remains, however; is morality natural?

One can tackle this inquiry from several different angles, although philosophy presents itself most prominently because it levels the rhetorical playing field. From this perspective, all things are treated as equal, so the existence of God cannot be conclusively proven or entirely falsified. Thus, the question ceases to be whether or not God exists and instead focuses on the matter at hand. Dismissing God as a topic for debate, the only useful inquiry is one concerning the nature of morality.

Morality, in its simplest form, is a sense of right and wrong. This is the definition of the word. How, then, can one attribute morality to such a vast entity as nature? After all, the majority of organisms do not sense anything in the strictest meaning of the word. A tree, for example, lacks a central nervous system, and therefore cannot be attributed with cognition or volition or any other trait of mental functioning. A tree, therefore, cannot know what is right or wrong; it cannot “know” anything. It simply is.

The creationists extend their argument by stating that, according to religious doctrine, the world was created to suit man and, therefore, the morality is an implicit one. It exists despite the organisms that present it for the sole betterment of mankind. This view reduces the natural world from one of equals to one where human beings reign above all other Earthly life. However, one will quickly notice how science makes this idea seem quite foolish. How could the Earth be made to cater to mankind when we have been around for such an infinitesimal period in its lifespan? And, what’s more, how can it be construed as designed for human convenience when it is so often inconvenient? Did God create the rain because he knew man would develop umbrellas, or, more logically, did man invent the umbrella to shield himself from the harsh, inhospitable weather? Obviously, the latter seems far more palatable.

Given this conclusion, one would be hard-pressed to effectively defend the creationist position. It seems quite obvious that most organisms don’t exhibit morality. Quite the contrary, as shown throughout Gould’s essay, many creatures demonstrate remarkable cruelty from our point of view, and numerous others are simply incapable of displaying such human traits. Given this and the fact that the world is obviously not designed with our needs in mind, one must conclude that any morality observed in nature is ultimately inferred. As Gould states near the end of his essay, “there isn’t any answer - and… the framing of the question ‘in our terms’ is thoroughly inappropriate in a natural world neither made for us nor ruled by us” (Jacobus 483).

Resources

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.