The Teleological Argument

I present here the argument based on features of humans and of all living organisms. This is the most important and deepest argument in favor of my candidate ethical system: morality is the propagation of one's genes. As a result, I will likely need to revisit it and expand further in the future.

The teleological argument can be thought of as an argument about proper function. Simply put, if a human must do X, Y and Z to be considered to function properly then a human ought to do X Y and Z. The central problem of ethics is the is/ought dichotomy. This theory states that we may be able to describe the world as it is, but it does not follow that we can describe the world as it ought to be. The teleological argument, which concerns proper function, argues that there is something about the way humans are which requires a particular behavior to function properly and therefore that humans ought to exhibit that behavior. In this sense it is a direct attempt to defeat the is/ought dichotomy.

A designed object like a watch has a teleological nature. By virtue of the fact that a watch is a tool designed to tell time, it ought to do so within a certain range of accuracy. Similarly, biological organisms of all types and all complexities are designed, in the sense of emerging from dynamic, non-random systems. A bacterium is designed by its genes to form a protective cell wall, to seek nourishment, and to reproduce. If it fails to do any of these tasks, it will die and that individual bacterium will not pass on its genes. If the bacterium is functioning properly and in accordance with the genetic plan, it must act to accomplish these tasks. Larger organisms are not exempt from these facts. A salmon or mackerel that feels no reproductive urge is defective. It is not functioning properly, just as if it lacked a sense of sight or hunger. The same facts apply to dogs, cats, and of course Homo sapiens.

Human function is obviously much more complex than that of bacteria or even simple animals, but it cannot escape the facts of genetic evolution. A human being who is unconcerned with the spread of their genes is defective. That spread could take the form or bearing and raising children, but it can also take other forms such as helping relatives raise their children or even helping perfect strangers with areas that seem at first glance to have nothing to do with reproduction. More on this critical topic will follow. The term for a defect that we do not choose is disease, disability, or even simply defect as in birth defect. We rightly pity and sympathize with those who suffer from these defects through no fault of their own. The term for a defect chosen freely by the individual is evil.