“Francis
Collins, Altruism, and Human Survival”
By William
Soderberg
April 8,
2008
Francis
Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of
Health and author of the book The
Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), gave a talk recently (1) on
his personal search for a synthesis between his belief in evolution and his
Christian belief. He answered a question regarding the future of human
evolution with the reply that we may never have to face such a future. Collins
stated that the sharp curves on several data charts point to an end of human
existence.
What can account for
Collins’ pessimism regarding the human future? The tradition that he subscribes
to, Christianity, began in a period when the inhabitants of
Religious communities in
major Western traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have emerged in
periods of oppression and turmoil. The faith shared by most community members
during the formative years of each of these traditions turned to an answer in
survival, not suicide.
As I listened to Collins’
talk and his response to the question about the human future, I was struck by
the profound irony of his message. When Collins asserted that he didn’t think
humans would survive much longer, he expressed a profound despair. In defending
his Christian faith, Collins admitted to an absence of faith in the future of
the human community.
The absence of faith in
humanity’s future that Collins expressed may be explained by a reading of
Collins’ book, The Language of God.
He regards the religious point of view as an altruistic or compassionate
perspective. The compassion of a Mother Theresa or an Oscar Schindler is echoed
in the compassion of other healers. (2) The Human Genome Project pursues the
goals of healing and preventing diseases linked to one’s genetic make-up. Such
healing efforts are motivated by altruism, Collins maintains, so the scientific
aims of medicine parallel the religious efforts to bring healing to the world.
Collins’ scientific outlook and his Christian belief are both grounded in a
“Moral Law” that expresses the human capacity for altruism.
While on some occasions
much good has been done in the name of altruism, on other occasions serious
harm has resulted from altruistic motives. When Stalin shared with many of his
contemporaries the altruistic goal of a more equal distribution of social goods,
he was confused by opposition to this worthy goal. People who opposed his
policies, he concluded, were merely self-interested. Because they had the lower
motive of self-interest and did not share the good or lofty goal of equal
distribution, Stalin sought to eliminate the opposition. He ordered the
execution of millions of people who failed to share his political goals and his
allegedly higher motive of altruism.
When a person views
altruism as the religious and moral point of view, self-interest (or egoism)
challenges religious belief and morality itself. Evidence of widespread
self-interest among one’s contemporaries confuses those who advocate altruism.
The struggle against the self-interested seems to be such an uphill battle that
believers who interpret the moral law as altruism may come to fear defeat and
to feel despair. They tend to find consolation in associating exclusively with
other believers who also equate faith with altruism. The believers come to
regard themselves as a remnant chosen to shoulder the burden of promoting
benevolence, compassion, and goodness in the world.
Altruism or compassion is
an important part of religion and morality, but it is only part of the picture.
When altruism or compassion alone is considered the religious or moral point of
view, an important feature is missing. The part that is missing may be
described as fair-mindedness. Fair-mindedness among policy-makers is a
willingness to formulate rules from the perspective of persons who are likely
to suffer from the policies. To minimize suffering, brutalization or
victimization, basic rights are set in place to serve as boundary lines.
Compassion or altruism may bring people to the negotiating table to formulate
policies, but fair-mindedness must then inform the policies if the policies are
to be considered just and wise.
The pursuit of fairness
may help to explain the close association of political and religious leaders in
various settings. Ideally, justice and fairness are concerns common to both
political and religious leaders. Compassion or altruism takes people beyond
narrow self-interest, but fair-mindedness is the quality that characterizes
wise leadership.
The view that altruism is
the religious and moral point of view leads to divisions among people. The
believers tend to place themselves in one group and to regard the non-believers
as belonging to another group. The believers cannot trust the non-believers,
because they perceive the higher motives and views of life’s purpose to be at
odds with the lower motives and goals of non-believers.
As one looks at
environmental and other issues that may threaten human life on the planet, one
may trace such destructive behavior to a pursuit of short-term self-interest.
The threats posed by self-interested behavior may well lead persons who place
themselves in the camp of altruists to say that the world is doomed. The
self-interested are untrustworthy and greedy, according to the altruists, and
the relentless pursuit of self-interest is bringing human life to a rapid end.
Further, the altruists and the self-interested stand in such strong opposition
to one another that they cannot negotiate policies—even to prevent the ruin of
the planet. Collins’ despair over human survival, then, may be traced to his
identification of a religious and moral perspective with an altruistic point of
view. (3)
Fair-mindedness offers an
alternative. When fair-mindedness is included as part of a religious or moral
framework, exclusiveness can give way to inclusiveness. Those who regard
themselves as altruistic see self-interested persons as different and a threat
to their way of life. On the other hand, those who regard themselves as
fair-minded can accept either persons motivated by altruism or those motivated
by self-interest. Given a serious injustice, anyone can adopt the fair and
impartial point of view and accept a change of rules to avoid such injustice.
To be sure, notions of
fairness and justice vary. (4) For example, some maintain that fairness is
achieved when persons serve the social role to which they are best suited by
nature; social stability is present when people accept their assigned roles.
Others think fairness is present when people come together and choose the rules
by which they govern themselves; citizens achieve autonomy in these
circumstances. Some hold that fairness means an equal distribution of the
social goods; the well-being of the many is the aim of such distribution. Still
others say that policies are fair when they permit people to pursue their human
potentials; this approach enables people to achieve self-realization.
Although notions of
fairness vary, people who regard one another as fair-minded can generally trust
each other and discuss policies. They can acknowledge different notions of
fairness while admitting that a single notion of justice or fairness may not
prevail in all situations. With this admission, the discussion can then go
forward to determine policies that best serve to preserve social stability,
autonomy, equal treatment of people, self-realization, etc.
To have hope for the
human future, one must trust other humans. Those who regard themselves as
altruistic are inclined to mistrust others whom they regard as self-interested;
on the other hand, those who regard others as fair-minded share a common ground
that promotes trust.
If humans are to have a
future, they must negotiate policies that do not destroy the planet. Humans may
negotiate policies if they view each other as fair-minded. However, if they
divide the world into altruists and egoists, negotiations become virtually
impossible. The social world breaks down when people can no longer talk to each
other.
Some chose mass suicide
during the first century CE in
1. Collins’ talk, “Faith
and Science: Two Paths to Truth,” was given on March 30, 2008 at Adat Shalom
Reconstructionist Congregation in
2. Collins
asserts on pages 25 and 28 that Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa exemplify the
practice of altruism. On page 149 Collins refers to his acceptance of “…the
Moral Law and universal longing for God [and] a signpost within us pointing
toward a benevolent and loving presence.” On page 164 he writes that “…great
acts of compassion have also been fueled by faith,” and on page 169 he notes
that “…the great monotheistic religions of the world…rest upon…the powerful
evidence provided by human altruism.” He cites C.S. Lewis on page 217 in
describing the Christian virtue of agape as “the love that seeks no
recompense.” Collins on the same page links this notion to his personal
experience: “…I had felt the gentle stirrings of a desire to do something truly
unselfish for others—that calling to serve with no expectation of personal
benefit that is common to all human cultures.” Collins contrasts faith with
self-interest on page 222: “Faithfulness to God required a kind of death of
self-will, in order to be reborn as a new creation.” Collins does point beyond
altruism on page 200 when he describes the moral law as knowledge of right and
wrong. This view of the moral law moves toward a notion of fairness, but
Collins does not develop this interpretation.
3. This
account of the source of Collins’ pessimism regarding the future of humanity
helps to explain some weak responses he gives to the problem of evil or brutal
policies. When he raises the issue that religion has been responsible for some
terrible practices historically, he responds that truth is sometimes kept in
rusty containers. This platitude is wholly inadequate for addressing the
potential harms that genetic modification or genetic testing could produce.
Collins was asked at the talk about his
use of the expression “the Moral Law.” The questioner expressed concern about
the use of such a phrase, and wondered if it didn’t imply that some people who
claimed to know the moral law could try to justify outrageous policies—such as
the Holocaust. Collins replied that the Holocaust was a twisted application of
the Moral Law. I would respond that this reply reflects Collins’
altruist-egoist framework: Collins implied that altruism produces a correct
application of the moral framework, but egoism results in a twisted
application.
4. The list of political
and moral frameworks in this paragraph correspond respectively to a Christian
framework in the tradition of Augustine of Hippo, which aims at social
stability; a Kantian framework, which seeks autonomy; a utilitarian
framework—including Marxism—which advocates greater equality in the
distribution of social goods, including income and wealth; and an Aristotelian
or Thomistic framework of self-realization.
The fair-minded approach aims to address
shortcomings of the altruist-egoist approach. It invites negotiation of
controversial policies from an impartial point of view and assumes that the
negotiators are fair-minded. Each of the values—social stability, autonomy,
equality, self-realization, etc.--that is potentially compromised by the policy
is taken under consideration. The goal of the policy-makers is to preserve to
the greatest extent possible the values that the proposed policy places under
threat.
5. Collins’ association of religion
with altruism reflects the religious half-truth that altruism is identical with
the religious or moral point of view. The covenant notion in the western
monotheistic religions takes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam beyond altruism,
but Collins shows little awareness of the contractual nature of the covenant
tradition. By identifying the religious perspective with altruism, Collins
leaves out the perspective of fair-mindedness associated with the rich
tradition of the covenant. The covenant is built on promises—God’s promise to
the people and the people’s promise to God.
Altruism is an inclination
or feeling. Some may be inclined toward altruism. For those so inclined,
certain obligations to help others follow. Persons not inclined to altruism,
however, share no such obligation. Self-interest is also an inclination, and a
morality that draws upon self-interest as the moral point of view traces
obligations to the inclination of self-interest. One has obligations to himself
or herself in this approach to morality.
Obligations do not arise
from inclinations in the case of promises. The fact that one has made a promise
places an obligation to fulfill the promise. While some promises may carry more
binding force than others, some degree of duty is ordinarily attached to any
promise. In the covenant tradition, God promises a reward to those who live a
certain kind of life and threatens punishment to those who go against this way
of life. The writings of Augustine of Hippo incorporate this notion of the
covenant, as do the self-realization theories of Thomas Aquinas (who follows
the Aristotelian tradition).
The covenant provides the historical
background for the more recent development of the theory that a social contract
is the source of morality, law, and of human society itself. The philosophy of
Immanuel Kant is a major expression of the social contract. The contract is
based on a promise made by persons who agree that some practices are acceptable
while others are out of bounds. Consensus among the people creates human rights
that define the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Because these boundaries are
agreed upon through fair-minded negotiation of the social contract, the people
can promise to abide by the terms of the agreement. In this way, moral
obligations are derived from promises rather than inclinations.
His neglect of the
fair-minded point of view leaves Collins’ position closer to a utilitarian than
to an Augustinian moral framework. A major feature of utilitarianism is the
identification of altruism with the moral point of view, while Augustinians
ground morality in the promises associated with the divine covenant.