The Link Between Intelligence and a Moral Sense

By M. Bassett

Having laid forth his evidence about the structural similarity between men and animals, pointing to a common ancestor, Darwin had another problem to address in his book The Descent of Man. He recognized that the moral sense of man is probably the most important distinguishing feature between him and an animal, which is a fact that could pose a stumbling block to his theory. What is a moral sense? Where does it come from? Can animals evolve into moral beings through evolution, the way men supposedly did?

Modern scientists also ask similar questions. Seeing emotions and actions of cooperation, empathy, and a sense of justice1 in the actions of animals, they debate: do animals have a moral sense, or not? Are they developing a moral sense the way we did? Or is it just a social instinct that comes from living in a group?

Perhaps these emotions and actions in higher-intelligence animals are evidence of a lesser moral sense, or perhaps they are just part of a social instinct. The point is that it doesn’t really matter. What is truly important to know is that moral sense is endowed alongside intelligence, as Darwin and modern scientists note. However, intelligence cannot evolve in the way Darwin states because greater intelligence cannot arise from randomness, or from something without intelligence.


The ongoing debate started with an exceptionally curious man in the 19th century, the father of evolution. Darwin’s belief that a moral sense can be gained through evolution is well stated by the following quote:

The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitable acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man.2

Making observations that many animals seem to act with empathy and other moral emotions, Darwin believed it was likely that a moral sense could arise “firstly, from the enduring and ever-present nature of the social instincts; secondly, from man’s appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of his fellows; and thirdly, from the high activity of his mental faculties, with past impressions extremely vivid...”

Animals give each other aid. They are very sociable and seem, at least by our interpretation, to have feelings of love for each other and sometimes even for humans themselves, as a dog loves his master. Why couldn’t these instincts, along with a sense of social well-being, lead to a sense of morality, which, after all, can be defined as “...certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group...”, or “a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people”3? In either case, morality is a social principle.


There are many examples of animals that seem to show the beginning of a moral sense. For example, rhesus monkeys seem to enjoy unselfishly giving juice to another monkey, even when it not is required of them.4 There are countless stories of animals who protect or save the lives of humans or other animals. Are these instincts? Or are they the roots of a sense of morality?

Many modern scientists also come to the conclusion that morality is linked with intelligence, just like Darwin did. Francisco J. Ayala, in his paper “The difference of being human: Morality”, writes the following:

I propose that the moral evaluation of actions emerges from human rationality or, in Darwin's terms, from our highly developed intellectual powers. Our high intelligence allows us to anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people and, thus, to judge them as good or evil in terms of their consequences for others...[The] conditions [of morality] are (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. These abilities exist as a consequence of the eminent intellectual capacity of human beings.5

Stephen J. Meyer, the author of Darwin’s Doubt, has something to say about intelligence. Throughout his book, Meyer demonstrates that not all scientific evidence fits with Darwin’s theory. When discussing evolution, the most important questions are: What is the source of genetic information? Where does it come from? Where does intelligence come from, if not from an intelligent source? How can it just randomly come into existence? How can something intelligent just happen, Meyer asks. He writes the following:


...standard materialistic evolutionary theories have failed to identify an adequate mechanism or cause for precisely those attributes of living forms that we know from experience only intelligence—conscious rational activity—is capable of producing...Since intelligent agency is the only cause known to be capable of generating information (at least starting from nonliving chemicals), intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first organism.6 Whether or not one agrees with all of Meyer’s argument, it must be admitted that it’s hard

to explain intelligence in any other way. Intelligence cannot be evolved or randomly added upon. It is either there or it isn’t. Intelligent information doesn’t just suddenly arise out of nowhere, and it can’t expand or diminish randomly, as Darwin would have it do. Nothing that is not intelligent (for example, environmental factors or sexual selection) can add or take away intelligence. Intelligence is a constant factor that does not change. In the intelligence something already has, there are deeper levels that sometimes remain untapped, the as-yet undiscovered potential to be a certain way. It is possible to progress, but all progression is done within the intelligence that it already has.

But what about the connection between morality and intelligence? Darwin and modern scientists alike seem to define morality as a social impulse. According to them, morality is just another type of instinct - a higher type, to be sure - but still an instinct, which means it has little to do with free will. Are these observations consistent with true morality? Are scientists observing animalistic social instincts instead of a moral sense? Is morality something more than just a social construct?

These are all valid questions, and the answers are hard to come by. Perhaps Darwin and modern scientists have reduced their concept of morality to a simple instinct that can be developed, removing free will from the equation. Perhaps not. And perhaps some animals are capable of showing some evidence of a rudimentary moral sense. But again, perhaps not. What really matters is the one thing most people have overlooked in this ongoing debate: the connection between intelligence and morality.

So what is the answer? Darwin and scientists already have it. Scientists agree that, no matter their beliefs on evolution, morality comes hand-in-hand with intelligence, the ability to know what is right and wrong: to feel remorse, to feel that there is a higher way. The higher an animal’s intelligence, the higher its sense of morality. It’s quite simple, really. Putting the pieces together: if intelligence cannot be added upon or lessened by outside means, neither can a moral sense. An animal can understand what morality is only to the level of intelligence it has. It must also be noted that intelligence is different from knowledge. Something can have the potential for a certain level of intelligence, but it might still be in the process of learning how to tap into that. It’s the same with a moral sense. But unlike what Darwin believed, that level of intelligence cannot just randomly evolve. Darwin had all the pieces, but jumped to the conclusion that intelligence and moral sense both could evolve and be added upon by outside circumstances, which is not really how intelligence works.

There’s much we don’t know. Moral emotions in higher-intelligence animals may be evidence of a lesser moral sense, or perhaps they are just part of a social instinct. The point is that it doesn’t really matter. What is truly important to know is that moral sense is endowed alongside intelligence, as Darwin and modern scientists note. However, intelligence cannot evolve in the way Darwin states because greater intelligence cannot arise from randomness, or from something without intelligence. Thus a moral sense cannot evolve as Darwin supposes it might.

1. Fitzpatrick, Simon. “Animal Morality: What is The Debate About?” PhilArchive, https://philarchive.org/archive/FITAMW. Accessed 17 September 2022. 
2. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. Prometheus Books, 1998.
3. Gert, Bernard, and Joshua Gert. “The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 17 April 2002, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/. Accessed 17 September 2022.
4. Ghose, Tia. “Scientists identify unselfish brain cells in monkeys.” NBC News, 28 December 2012, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50314249. Accessed 17 September 2022.
5. Ayala, Francisco J. “The difference of being human: Morality.” PNAS, 5 May, 2010, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914616107. Accessed 17 September 2022.
6. Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperCollins, 2014.
   

By M. Bassett


Sources Used


● Ayala, Francisco J. “The difference of being human: Morality.” PNAS, 5 May 2010, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914616107. Accessed 17 September 2022.


● Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. Prometheus Books, 1998.


● Fitzpatrick, Simon. “Animal Morality: What is The Debate About?” PhilArchive,

https://philarchive.org/archive/FITAMW. Accessed 17 September 2022.


● Gert, Bernard, and Joshua Gert. “The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 17 April 2002,

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/. Accessed 17 September 2022.


● Ghose, Tia. “Scientists identify unselfish brain cells in monkeys.” NBC News, 28

December 2012, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50314249. Accessed 17 September

2022.


● Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case

for Intelligent Design. HarperCollins, 2014.