Well, you could make a case that, though our moral “progress” to date has been driven largely by self-interest, with only a smidgen of true enlightenment, the role of enlightenment will have to grow if we are to venture beyond our solar system a century from now.
After all, to do that venturing, we first have to survive the intervening 100 years in good shape. And that job is complicated by various technologies, notably weapons that could blow up the world.
More to the point: these weapons are now embedded in a particularly dicey context: a world where shadowy “nonstate actors” are the looming threat, a world featuring a “war on terror” that, if mishandled, could pull us into a simmering chaos that ultimately engulfs the whole planet. And maybe “winning” that war ”” averting global chaos ”” would entail authentic and considerable moral progress.
That, at least, is a claim I make in my most recent book, “The Evolution of God.” I argue in the penultimate chapter that if we don’t radically develop our “moral imagination” ”” get much better at putting ourselves in the shoes of people very different from ourselves, even the shoes of our enemies ”” then the planet could be in big trouble.
People like this make a living writing books?! Maybe the Pope could banish him to a period of prayer and penance with the additional requirement that he read Reinhold Neibuhr.
Tell you what, instead of “Ethics for Extraterrestrials,” let me offer this puzzle in “Ethics for the NYT”:
Suppose that folks who decode electronic signals, hoping to locating an extraterrestrial civilization, actually find one. Not only that, the signal is specifically beamed to Earth, in a way that can be easily decoded by computers. It says:
“Dear Earthlings: We are an advanced civilization located 40 of your light-years away from Earth. For millions of your years, we have been expanding from our home planet, eradicating anyone in our path. This is because we are millions of your years more advanced than any other civilization, including your own. Thus, there is no point in trading knowledge, as you are not even close to us. A little more than 40 of your years ago, we detected that you had advanced to the point where you could emit electromagnetic signals (emitted 80 of your years ago). Thus, we have put you on our list for extermination. We plan to arrive at your planet in your year 2500, and eliminate all life forms. There is no point in arguing with us. Nor could you possible develop sufficient knowledge to defend yourselves. We tell you this now, because in the intervening five of your centuries, you can gradually reduce your population to the point that there will be no sentient life forms on Earth when we arrive. Thus, there is no reason for anyone to care about us when the time comes, if you plan ahead. The choice is yours.”
Now I ask, what would be the Christian response to that? What would be the secular response? What would the NYT opinion columnists advise?