Several years ago, TIME magazine reported a study done at the University of Hawaii. An attractive member of the opposite sex approached college students. After a brief introduction, the students were asked one of three questions:
1. Would you go out on a date with me tonight?
2. Would you go back [with me] to my apartment?
3. Would you have sex with me?
The male response varied from the female response. Here is how each answered the question of the corresponding number:
Women (yes) Men (yes)
1. 50% 50%
2. 6% 69%
3. 0% 75%
The magazine noted that Charles Darwin considered Man to be a moral species since human beings could compare their past and future actions and motives, and correspondingly approve or disapprove of them.
“In this sense,” TIME said, “yes we are moral. We have at least the technical capacity to lead an examined life: self-awareness, memory, foresight and judgment. Still, subjecting ourselves to moral scrutiny and adjusting our behavior accordingly is hardly a reflex. We are potentially moral animals-which is more than any other animal can say-but we are not naturally moral animals. The first step to being moral is to realize how thoroughly we aren't."
These are fascinating words coming from a secular magazine. Better yet was the title of the article—“Our Cheating Hearts.” Does this title connote an editorial statement in a supposedly neutral magazine’s investigative reporting?