Meditations on the Relativity of Ethics
by Albert Prins
Core sentence: Humans evolved as a species that ensures its survival through genetic drives, variation, and social cooperation.
TREBLA: To get an idea of how modern humans became what they are today, we can follow the following line of reasoning. This reasoning is mainly based on evolutionary theory.
There may have been different ways in which the evolution of humans took place, and they may have followed different unconscious strategies. Only those strategies, such as having genes aimed at continuation, would have led to today's result; otherwise they would have become extinct.
Here we must make a distinction between humans as individuals and humans as a species. The life of the individual is only temporary, but the human species continues to survive. The species has therefore proven to be more persistent than the individual. So in order to be as successful as the human species, there must be an inherent strategy aimed at continuation of the species. But the species itself is not a tangible thing; it is a concept. The species consists only of individual humans who are replaced over time by new individuals. And of course the same applies to every species, both animals and plants. The mechanisms through which this occurs may differ, but we will first focus on the human species.
Regarding option 1, if every person sacrifices themselves for the group, there is a high chance that the person will die prematurely, have fewer or no offspring, and consequently the group will decrease in size or even become extinct.
Rationally speaking, it seems plausible that there is a system that “programs” each individual to strive for their own survival while unconsciously realizing that they must support the group in order to increase the chance of their own individual survival, with the side effect that they help sustain the group.
As we know, a person has only a limited lifespan, and it seems that the survival strategy of each person is not only focused on their own physical survival but also on their legacy in the form of their children. These are not conscious actions but part of a motivational system in a person that has evolved over time through the selection of the species. It is therefore not a teleological system but evolves only through random chance.
ALEX: So it seems that evolution works toward passing on genes so that the species continues to exist.
TREBLA: Indeed, and in order to do that optimally, the main “task” of the individual is to survive in order to pass on their genes. For this, a partner is required. When he or she finds a partner, the individual may realize, perhaps unconsciously, that they must care not only for themselves but also for the partner. Furthermore, the individual will also, perhaps to a lesser extent, care for family members such as sisters and brothers so that the transmission of related genes, those of their parents, continues. Even individuals who are more distantly related are still important for the survival of the individual, and therefore he or she should feel obliged to ensure that those individuals can function well. All of this happens unconsciously for the individual and is an innate or evolutionarily developed drive of each person.
This again is a characteristic of the average human but differs for each individual. When circumstances change, the individuals who are most “suited” to the new situation will thrive best and therefore become the new average. Variety and diversity are of the greatest importance for continuity.
ALEX: I understand what you mean. But don't you think that when a child is born, its main evolutionary drive is to stay alive and to do all the necessary things that its instinct “tells” it to do in order to achieve this goal? So this “selfish” behavior is innate (nature), but soon, through experience with other children and adults, it learns (nurture) to become part of a group and develops a kind of empathy and adaptation to the group. The behavior of the child, in order to have the highest chance of sustaining itself, is guided by feelings of happiness or unhappiness. These feelings will probably guide it in the “right” direction. These feelings are not something transcendent but a chemical reaction in the brain in which a substance (dopamine) is released that produces these positive feelings.
TREBLA: Yes, Alex, that is indeed how I see it as well.
Key Sentence:
Good and evil exist only within the perspective of the organism — the ecosystem itself makes no judgment.
Introduction:
As humans, we regard certain events or actions of other people as good or bad. We use our own moral standards to evaluate these events. Below, we will examine this process of evaluation in more detail.
Core sentence:
In nature there exists a functional balance in which suffering and death are meaningless outside human valuation.
Start:
An example of an ecosystem is shown in the BBC documentary about the migration
of wildebeest on the Serengeti in Africa (“The Great Migration”). Here we see a
large herd moving from one place to another in order to find enough grass to eat.
During this migration there is constant danger from predators such as lions,
hyenas, and others. It is explained that if there were no danger, the wildebeest
would graze the grass so short that it would take a long time before the grass could grow sufficiently again. This would also become life-threatening for other grazers in terms of foraging. When the grass is short, it also becomes more difficult for the wildebeest to find enough food. Together with the constant threat of predators, the wildebeest eventually no longer find it worthwhile to remain in that particular place and move to another area. They are therefore constantly in motion.
By eating grass, the wildebeest ingest many nutrients that are also useful for predators that cannot eat grass due to the characteristics of their stomach structure. In this way lions, crocodiles, hyenas, and others obtain the necessary nutrients contained in grass indirectly through the grazers. The herd of wildebeest therefore resembles a migrating pantry of food. From this we gain an idea of how the system works: the wildebeest mow the grass to an acceptable length and then the lions chase them away so that, unknowingly, the grass once again has the opportunity to grow. Meanwhile the lions are provided with sufficient meat containing the proper nutrients. The same applies to all other predators in this process.
Over time the group of wildebeest returns again, and thus an ecological cycle arises. This appears to be a “beautiful” continuous system because it maintains a fine balance. The fact that wildebeest provide meat and therefore nutrients to predators, and that predators hunt and eat the grazers, is not a matter of good or bad; it can simply be considered an effective system. Although we might avoid asking whether a mother wildebeest is equally impressed by this “beautiful” system when her baby wildebeest is devoured.
So from the point of view of the ecosystem everything is in order, but from the perspective of the grazers there are surely some doubts. Thus beautiful, good, and bad are rather relative terms here.
If the system functions well, there is balance across the entire system, but for the subsystems, such as the wildebeest or the lion, every wildebeest calf that is devoured or every lion cub that dies of hunger causes a disturbance within that subsystem. These subsystems also attempt to restore balance again. For example, after losing her cub the lioness becomes receptive again and the usual cycle resumes.
If we now scale this system up to the world, including humanity, we can consider the following:
In order to ensure the continuation of the world as it is, there must be balance. In the past century the existing balance of the world appears to be under threat. The world population of humanity is becoming very large and begins to exert a major influence on this balance due to the need for food, energy, various raw materials, and the resulting pollution. In earlier centuries there were wars or pandemics that helped keep the size of the human population under control, resulting in the preservation of balance. It appears that evolution did not “foresee” that humans would develop traits to negotiate and compromise when conflicts occurred, and that they would develop the skills to cure diseases. However, if humanity does not arrive at a peaceful solution for keeping the size of the world population under control, the growth of the population may eventually result in a “disaster” such as war, famine, or a pandemic, thereby once again restoring the necessary balance.
As Nietzsche (1844-1900) said, there is no universal good or evil. Moral values such as good or bad are human constructions.
In 2019–2020 a pandemic broke out that shook the world to its foundations: COVID-19, a virus that presumably originated in China and spread across the globe at a rapid pace. The early images from Italy were shocking — every day dozens, hundreds of people died, and the virus steadily moved northward through Europe.
What followed was a unique experiment in crisis management. No one knew how to deal with this virus. There was no medicine, no vaccine, no playbook. European cooperation seemed obvious, yet even at that level people were groping in the dark. And so a remarkable situation emerged: each country chose its own path. Some governments closed everything that was not strictly necessary — restaurants, cinemas, shops — and asked citizens to stay at home. Other countries chose a more open approach and allowed social life to continue largely as usual.
One can argue about this. A central, coordinated approach has the strength of unity and consistency. But if that approach turns out to be wrong, the consequences are enormous and universal. The fragmented approach that we actually witnessed can also be interpreted differently in retrospect: as a series of national laboratories, each with its own method, each with its own results.
Only afterward do we know which approach saved the most lives — and that is precisely the tragedy, because decisions had to be made in the heat of the moment, not from the luxury of hindsight.
Here we again see what we expressed earlier: the system as a whole strives for balance, but for the subsystems — countries, peoples, individuals — every disturbance causes its own shock. Just as in the migration of wildebeest on the Serengeti, where lions and grazers each experience the system from their own perspective, no country in a pandemic can remain neutral toward the choices it makes. And yet: the whole benefits from variation.
"If the system functions well, there is balance across the entire system, but for the subsystems every loss causes a disturbance."
When vaccines were eventually developed that appeared effective, something remarkable happened: a significant group of people refused to be vaccinated. Some believed in conspiracy theories, others had religious or principled objections. Many people found this frustrating. If we act together now, people reasoned, we can suppress this virus more quickly. Why does not everyone cooperate?
But upon further reflection, another perspective emerged — one that is not political or ideological in nature, but evolutionary.
Imagine that a vaccine — despite all care, despite all testing — contains an unforeseen, fatal flaw. A flaw that only manifests itself after years. If the entire world population takes this vaccine, the outcome is catastrophic: humanity becomes extinct. No individual, no system of quality control, is infallible enough to completely exclude that risk.
Evolution, however, is not a system aimed at individuals — it operates at the level of the species. And the species survives not through uniformity, but through diversity. Through variation. Through the fact that not everyone does the same thing.
This connects precisely with our earlier statement: when people strive through DNA manipulation or other techniques to create a uniform, “optimized” species, they actually create a vulnerable system. A species perfected for current circumstances, but fragile as soon as those circumstances change. Variety and diversity are of the greatest importance for continuity.
"If we strive to make every person perfect according to the prevailing average characteristics, an incestuous species will emerge that is doomed to disappear."
From this perspective, the group that refused vaccination — for whatever reason, justified or not — is unconsciously an insurance policy for humanity as a whole. If the vaccine works perfectly, the vaccinated survive and protect society. If the vaccine proves fatally flawed, it is precisely the unvaccinated who prevent the species from becoming extinct — those who can reproduce and continue the human line.
Over the centuries, evolution has implanted in us a drive to survive — not as individuals, but as a species. And perhaps skepticism, distrust, and even stubbornness are among the instruments through which that drive expresses itself. Not elegant, not conscious, but effective in the most basic sense of the word.
This brings us to a deeper question: was it “wrong” for anti-vaccination supporters to resist? From a medical perspective the answer seems clear. But we must be careful with precisely that sense of obviousness. Ethical judgments such as “good” and “bad” are human constructions. They do not exist as universal truths, but arise from what at a given moment appears beneficial for the survival of the individual and the group.
Nietzsche argued that no universal good or evil exists. Moral values are contextual, pragmatic, and changeable. What in one situation is considered dangerous obstructionism may in another situation prove to be the salvation of the species.
This does not change the science behind vaccines, nor does it justify unfounded conspiracy theories. But it does invite a different kind of understanding — and humility in our moral judgment.
There is another dimension relevant here, which we discuss in detail in the chapter below: the paradox of equality. Humanity constantly strives for more uniformity, more consensus, more unity. That striving is understandable and in many respects valuable. But here a fundamental law of nature applies: energy always flows from inequality to equality. Without difference there is no movement. Without tension there is no life.
Two rain barrels that are equally full do not flow. Wind arises from differences in air pressure. Rivers flow because one point lies higher than another. Life itself depends on gradients and energy differences. Complete equality — however noble as an ideal — would in practice mean stagnation.
Seen this way, the division surrounding the vaccine is not only a problem. It is also an expression of the fundamental diversity that keeps the species alive. Humanity survives not despite its internal division, but sometimes precisely because of it.
"Perhaps wisdom lies not in achieving equality, but in consciously and courageously continuing to strive for it."
The COVID pandemic confronted us with the limits of our knowledge. We did not know which approach was best. We did not know whether the vaccine was absolutely safe. We did not know why people resisted. And yet we had to act — quickly, collectively, under pressure.
What we may learn from it afterward is perhaps this: the system as a whole — humanity as a species — has developed mechanisms to protect itself, even if those mechanisms at first sight seem irrational or even harmful. Diversity in behavior, variation in responses, resistance to uniformity — these are not shortcomings of human nature. From an evolutionary perspective, they are its most fundamental survival strategies.
We should not judge people who think differently from us solely on the correctness of their reasoning. We may also recognize that their deviant behavior — however unintended — fits into a pattern that nature has applied for millions of years: make sure that not all eggs are placed in one basket.
Humanity survives not despite its internal division, but sometimes precisely because of it.
Key Sentence:
Ethics and religion are cultural strategies that arise from the human need for stability and group cohesion.
Introduction:
Next, we will examine the influence of religion on the formation of ethics and moral values, and to what extent, as some claim, only religion leads to norms and values—thus to what is good and bad. According to this view, without religion we would not be able to form a good society.
Plato (427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) lived around the 3rd century BC and were therefore not influenced by the still non-existent Christian religion. Nevertheless, Aristotle wrote his work Ethica. In this work, virtues and vices are described that strongly resemble the later Christian doctrine. This is not surprising, because Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 AD), about 1500 years later, studied Aristotle’s work and attempted to integrate these ideas into Christian doctrine—perhaps with the addition of concepts such as God, the Trinity, and related theological ideas. Aristotle based Ethica primarily on his view of humanity independent of religious frameworks.
Plato did refer in many instances to a god or gods, but according to Greek religion the gods possessed both good and bad characteristics. Apparently, what was considered good or bad was determined by Plato himself; he needed a god and then shaped these gods in such a way that they fit his own view. In short, he effectively created them himself. He also criticized poets who described the gods with both their good and bad traits. Plato believed that poets should show only the good side of the gods so that they could serve as an example to the youth. Again, the question arises: how does Plato determine what is good and bad here?
Confucius (551–479 BC, China) also concerned himself with morality without being inspired by religion. His statement “Do not wish upon another what you would not wish for yourself” appears in many forms across different religions and moral traditions.
This observation strengthens the idea that human beings possess an intrinsic sense of good and bad—most likely an evolutionary characteristic in which “good” means beneficial for the survival of ourselves and the group, and “bad” means threatening to the survival of both.
Plato:
“For no one will ever understand how God should be honored and served unless he first comes to know who and what God himself is. Nor can we see the divine Sun unless the sun first reveals itself.”
According to Plato, we can gain insight into the laws and rules of God with the help of Apollo—that is, divine light. “But that insight,” he says, “is not obtained with words, but through a pure and serene mind.”
ALEX:
Many people believe that a god created the world and humanity. They consider the idea of evolution to be in conflict with the idea of creation. What is your view on this, Trebla?
TREBLA:
Even if there is a God who created everything, it seems very likely to me that he would also have integrated the mechanism of evolution as part of creation, because this would simplify the process of creating different species of living beings. But as Plato already suggested above, if we have no idea who God is, what his influence is on living beings, and what he expects from them, it seems better to leave the matter alone.
Hume argued in his work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) that a wise person adjusts their belief to the evidence. The more improbable an event is, the stronger the evidence must be to justify believing it.
Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677 AD) regarded God as equivalent to nature—a God without any special devotion to humanity. Perhaps it would have been better if Spinoza had not made this comparison, because the word “God” is heavily burdened with the historical meaning of a deity who has a direct relationship with living beings; this easily leads to confusion.
ALEX:
But how is it that so many people have a religion and that almost every group worships some kind of god and follows its rules?
TREBLA:
That is also a mystery to me, but the only logical explanation I can think of is that it is very difficult for most people to accept phenomena they do not understand. Therefore, they invent an explanation—for example that it is the work of a god or gods.
Take the phenomenon of thunder and lightning: impressive, unpredictable, and sometimes deadly. The Vikings attributed it to Thor, the god of thunder; the Germanic peoples to Donar; the Greeks to Zeus; and the Romans to Jupiter. All these peoples lived far apart, yet independently arrived at the same solution: a powerful deity must be behind it.
Today we know that thunder and lightning are the result of electrical discharges between clouds and the earth—a phenomenon that can be fully explained without any divine intervention.
The same applies to the aurora borealis. This overwhelming natural spectacle, where the sky lights up in waves of green, red, and purple, was seen by the Norse as the reflection of the shields of the Valkyries—the divine warriors who carried fallen heroes to Valhalla. The scientific explanation—charged particles from the sun interacting with Earth’s atmosphere—is at least as fascinating, but requires no god.
We see this pattern repeatedly: earthquakes were attributed by the Greeks to Poseidon, diseases to the anger of the gods, and the positions of the stars to divine will. Each time science found an explanation, the god retreated. The gods therefore filled the gaps in human knowledge, which the philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer later described as the “God of the gaps.”
For leaders it is also easier to tell people that they must behave according to the rules of a god than to convince them through logic that they should obey the rules of the leader. In this way God is used, for practical reasons, as a kind of enforcer (Thomas Hobbes, 1588–1679, used the concept of the Leviathan for this). In essence, religion and God can therefore be seen as human constructions.
ALEX:
I understand your point. Indeed, if you cannot properly define God—what he looks like, what he expects from us, what his intentions are for us, or what we can expect from him/her/it—then, when something is defined so vaguely, we will simply continue living our lives without adjusting our behavior to any religious dogma, especially when there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a higher being.
TREBLA:
As for ethics and morality, I also consider these to be human constructions. There is no universal goodness or evil. It simply depends on the group itself. That the group tries to survive and creates rules to achieve this goal is understandable, but this can be accomplished with different rules—and these rules also change over time.
In the past, slavery was considered “normal,” but today we view many historical practices in a very different light. Christians have their rules, as do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or even followers of ISIS. Yet not killing fellow human beings seems to be a nearly universal rule among humans. Even here, however, exceptions are sometimes made—for example euthanasia for people suffering without hope of recovery, or in some countries the death penalty for severe crimes against humanity.
However, when we examine the killing of fellow humans from a purely earthly—or even holistic—perspective, one could argue that overpopulation, with all its negative consequences, might be prevented, and in that sense it could be considered beneficial behavior.
We must therefore be careful about considering our ethical rules and norms as something given by God or universally valid. Rather, they can be understood as a social contract that applies only between human beings. We may drive on the left side of the road or on the right; there is nothing inherently good or bad about it—it is simply an agreement among people to make living together easier.