Summary of a Number of Reflections

Key idea:
Human behavior arises from a complex interplay of evolutionary drives, neurological processes, individual experiences, and social structures, in which both self-directed behavior and cooperation and empathy can play evolutionary roles.

When we bring together the preceding reflections, a picture of the human being emerges that is shaped biologically, neurologically, and socially. Human beings are not separate moral beings who freely and independently decide what is good or evil, but organisms whose behavior arises from a complex interplay of many different factors.

In the first place, everything we do is mediated by our brains. The structure of the brain differs from person to person and is influenced to an important degree by our genes, which we have inherited from our parents and more distant ancestors. But genes do not directly determine behavior. Behavior emerges from a continuous interaction between biological predisposition, development, experience, environment, and social circumstances. This helps explain why people behave differently: not necessarily because they have fundamentally different goals, but because their biological and psychological characteristics and their experiences differ.

Behavior is also influenced by reward mechanisms. An important component of these mechanisms is the dopaminergic system in the brain. Dopamine should not simply be described as a "happiness chemical." Among other things, it plays a role in motivation, learning, reward prediction, and the reinforcement of behavior. When a particular behavior is associated with a positive outcome, such mechanisms can contribute to that behavior being repeated under similar circumstances.

It follows that every person, consciously or unconsciously, is often inclined to seek situations that are experienced as rewarding, satisfying, or meaningful. What this means exactly differs from one person to another. For one person it may mean acting in their own interest; for another, acting in the interests of others. Altruistic behavior can also produce rewarding or positive feelings, for example through appreciation or a sense of connection within a group.

This leads to an important insight: behavior that we consider "good" is often behavior that is rewarded by the brain. But that does not mean that it is objectively good. It means that, within a particular context, the behavior can be functional or rewarding.

When we extend this perspective to the biological level, we see that DNA forms the basis of many of these processes. DNA contains the genetic information that contributes to determining how the body is constructed and functions, while RNA acts as an intermediary through which genetic information is used within the cell, including for the production of proteins.

It is therefore useful not to think of DNA literally as a computer program. It is better understood as a system of genetic information that influences the development and functioning of an organism through complex cellular processes.

Within the biological systems partly constructed through genetic information also lies part of the basis of our drives: the tendency toward survival, both of the individual and of the group. This is expressed in a combination of self-directed behavior and altruism, cooperation, and care for others. From an evolutionary perspective, these characteristics can be understood as behaviors that, under particular circumstances, can influence the survival and reproductive chances of individuals and their relatives or groups.

It is important not to attach a moral judgment to this. Under certain circumstances, these characteristics contributed to our survival. Species and populations whose characteristics did not sufficiently contribute to survival and reproduction could disappear over the course of evolution. What we observe today is therefore partly the result of a long process of variation, selection, and reproduction.

Variation is essential to this process. Without variation, a species would have much less capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Genetic and behavioral variation increases the possibility that at least some members of a population will possess characteristics that prove advantageous under changing conditions. Diversity is therefore not merely a by-product of evolution; it can be an important condition for the adaptability of populations.

All of this supports an idea expressed, among others, by Swaab: life has no predetermined purpose. From a naturalistic perspective, there need not be any predetermined purpose underlying life. What we experience as purpose can instead be understood as the result of processes directed toward survival, but also of needs, experiences, relationships, and the creation of meaning.

Yet the question of morality continues to concern us. Philosophers such as Susan Neiman have asked whether human beings are naturally good or instead fundamentally self-directed. The fact that this question keeps returning suggests that human beings have a deeply rooted tendency to assume or seek some form of morality.

That in itself is meaningful.

It indicates that morality, regardless of its objective status, plays an important role in how people understand themselves and their behavior.

But perhaps we should approach the concept of morality differently: not as something absolute, but as an expression of underlying drives.

Through evolution, human beings have developed both:

• self-preservation as individuals
• an orientation toward the group

It follows that both self-directed behavior and altruism can, under particular circumstances, have evolutionary advantages. Without both tendencies, the species would not have been able to persist.

It therefore makes little sense to label one as "good" and the other as "evil." They are behavioral strategies whose consequences can differ depending on the circumstances.

We see this not only in humans, but also in other animal species. Primates, dolphins, elephants, and many other species display behavior that we might describe as social, empathic, or even moral, without possessing religions, legal codes, or explicit moral systems.

This suggests that these characteristics are not exclusively imposed by culture and that some forms of social behavior have a biological basis.

The familiar example of a lion killing a lamb illustrates this clearly. From a human perspective, such behavior may be perceived as cruel. But within the lion's ecological system, the behavior may be necessary for the lion to survive and to provide food for its offspring.

The question of whether this is "good" or "evil" loses its meaning when we attempt to look exclusively from the perspective of the ecological system. From a human perspective, of course, we can still morally evaluate the behavior.

What remains from this perspective is primarily the question of functionality.

The idea that all of this ultimately reduces to a "chemical process" can also provoke resistance. But even if feelings of happiness, love, and meaning arise from chemical and neurological processes, this does not diminish the experience itself.

We live, experience, enjoy, strive, and form relationships regardless of the mechanisms underlying these experiences.

The fact that an experience has a biological and neurological basis does not make that experience less real. Love, grief, happiness, and meaning are real human experiences for the person experiencing them, even when we increasingly understand their biological mechanisms.

The fact that all of this occurs without an explicit purpose or higher assignment has not prevented humanity from developing, reproducing, and forming complex societies.

Philosophically, it is interesting that even before religious systems such as Christianity, thinkers such as Aristotle developed ethical reflections that resemble aspects of later moral systems. This suggests that ethics does not necessarily depend on religion, but that human beings are also capable of developing moral rules and ethical theories outside religious frameworks.

Religions may reinforce or structure these systems, but they do not necessarily appear to be their origin.

Finally, when we take a step back and place humanity within the larger whole — the universe — it becomes clear that human ethics is a local phenomenon.

From a naturalistic and cosmological perspective, human ethics is a phenomenon that has emerged within human societies. Whether this means that universal moral values cannot exist, however, is a philosophical question and not a scientifically established conclusion.

Nature itself does not appear to possess morality, but follows processes governed by physical, chemical, and biological laws. This does not mean that natural systems always evolve toward a stable or optimal equilibrium; systems can also become unstable, change, or disappear.

The second law of thermodynamics should also be interpreted carefully. It states that the entropy of an isolated system does not spontaneously decrease. It does not simply mean that every system directly "moves toward equilibrium." Living organisms can build and maintain local order by taking in energy and matter from their surroundings while transferring entropy to the environment.

But no ethical principle follows from this.

What all of this asks of human beings is humility.

Humility in our beliefs about good and evil.

Humility about our place within the whole.

And above all, the recognition that our moral systems arise within human cultures and societies, and that we should therefore be cautious when treating our own moral frameworks as universal truths.