A profound question about the apparent stagnation of human morality, despite millennia of other advancements, has been posed by a reader to The Guardian's long-running Notes and Queries column.
The Core of the Question
John Gorrill from Cumberland asks why, over the vast sweep of human evolution, our fundamental nature seems unchanged. He observes that while our brains, knowledge, technology, and healthcare have progressed enormously, our moral character appears to lag. Every country still has criminals, and every historical era has witnessed warfare, suggesting we remain as morally primitive as our distant ancestors.
The reader's query cuts to the heart of a timeless philosophical and scientific debate. It challenges the assumption that material and intellectual progress automatically translates into ethical or spiritual betterment.
A Forum for Collective Wisdom
This inquiry is part of The Guardian's popular series where readers answer other readers' questions on topics ranging from the trivial to the profoundly complex. The platform encourages a crowd-sourced exploration of life's big puzzles.
Responses to John Gorrill's question, along with any new questions from the public, can be posted in the comments section online or emailed directly to nq@theguardian.com. A curated selection of the answers will be published the following Sunday, offering a mosaic of perspectives from the readership.
What Does Evolution Mean for Morality?
The question implicitly probes the mechanisms of evolution. Biological evolution, driven by natural selection, operates on a vastly different timescale and set of pressures than cultural or moral development. While our physical and cognitive capacities have adapted, the deep-seated drivers of human behaviour—such as tribalism, self-preservation, and competition for resources—may be more resistant to change.
Some might argue that our moral frameworks have evolved, pointing to concepts like universal human rights, international law, and widespread empathy as modern constructs. Yet, the persistent reality of conflict and injustice, as highlighted by the reader, presents a powerful counter-argument.
The discussion invites reflection on whether true moral progress is even possible on a species-wide level, or if it remains a perpetual, individual struggle.
