So exactly how is total depravity worse than common descent in terms of producing a hopeless attitude? Common descent does not even suggest that we are morally hopeless, but rather than we come from a morally neutral background in which our ancestors behaved as beasts, presumably in the way proper to their species and situation. We come to the point of ethical decision making at the same time when we take on whatever distinctive characteristics make us moral creatures.

Henry, I’m going to object to this claim. Evolution does not teach that “we come from a morally neutral background.” It teaches that we descended from a long line of ancestral species and are related to all species on earth. Some of those related species display behaviors that we would call “moral” in humans (e.g., vampire bats providing food to non-kin conspecifics) and some display behaviors that in humans we would call “immoral” (e.g., a male lion killing the offspring of other males when taking over a harem of lionesses).

If anything, evolution teaches us that behaviors that we now label “moral” are not confined to homo sapiens, but rather have precursors in non-human species. While the labeling of behaviors as “moral” or “immoral” is (probably) unique to humans, the behaviors that are so labeled are not. That is a distinction that is virtually never made but is very important in these kinds of discussions.

Now, one might assume (as you seem to do in using “morally neutral background”) that a behavior is not “moral” (or “immoral”) if the organism did not choose to perform it but was constrained by (external or internal) causal determinants. Off we go into the free will discussion. I will not go there, since my major point is to suggest that it’s entirely possible that the behavioral trait called “morality” when displayed by humans is more about how we humans label acts rather than about why we perform them.

RBH