Tree of LifePerhaps the most common mistake people have about evolutionary biology is that it is prescriptive for social progress. They falsely assume that the regressive engineering of natural selection, which operates on the already existent to determine fitness, can be re-directed to the existent in determining the progress of the future.
The deplorable misnomer for this type of thought is Social Darwinism, a theory Darwin neither espoused not would approve. The term was first used in 1944, nearly a hundred years after Darwin, by the historian Richard Hoftstadter. Unfortunately, both the misnomer and the belief that one can take the five theories that constitute Darwinian evolution and apply them as social models to create a better future has come to dominate the distrust -- and rightly so, since Darwin acts on natural phenomena, not on social phenomena.
Common Errors
Let's be clear on how natural selection operates. First, it is over extensive time periods, not from any one generation to the next (the error of intergenerational evolution is known as Lamarckism). Second, genetic mutations generally are unfavorable, resulting in disabilities and dysfunction, rather than being "selected" favorably. Those mutations that are favorable must survive and reproduce, and the progeny must do so in turn. Only then, when the already occurred mutation benefits the species, does natural selection select the fittest mutation to survive. But natural selection always operates on the already-existent, in which a modification demonstrates efficacy over the previous cases as more successful in the struggle for survival.
Effect-to-Cause Direction of Fit
One of the terms to express this feature is regressive. In other words, Darwinian evolution works "backwards," retroactively, from effect-to-cause direction -- not from cause-to-effect direction. Thus, anyone who misuses Darwinian biology in the cause-to-effect direction is socially re-engineering, not stating Darwin's theory properly. Only after the mutated effect has survived is the cause determined. The mutation's random advantage is known regressively, not progressively.
Intergenerational versus Evolution
That's not to deny the deliberate genetic manipulation of a species does not occur or happen, as in the case of cloning, cross-breeding plants, grafting, etc. But to apply genetics in this fashion has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Farmers hybrid plants long before they knew they were applying some of the principles progressively of Darwin's regressive process. When individuals do act in this manner progressively, then it is a form of social Darwinism. But it is not evolutionary Darwinism, which is always regressive! Left to the new breeds own devices, then the principle of natural selection operates -- without human intervention. Deliberate manipulation of genetics is not Darwinism!
Three "Darwinian" Fallacies
The misuses of Darwin's theories are legendary. The very first and obvious mistake is to apply Darwin's theories to social processes, since Darwin acts only on natural processes. The second mistake is to assume that humans can imitate Darwinism over the long or short haul. Natural selection occurs naturally, not by human design. The third mistake is to take a natural fact and make it a human value, to take an "is," and make it an "ought." No "is" gives an "ought," and not "ought" gives an "is." The fact/value divide.
Because nature operates by natural selection does not make it a value people should do likewise. To do this is to commit the "naturalistic fallacy," which David Hume in 1740 and G. E. Moore in 1903, made plainly clear is a mistake. But let's be clear: These fallacies did not originate with Darwin, but by others who misused his theories. So, when politicians use Darwin's theories to justify their political system, their ethical or moral system, etc., they are plainly mistaken. When professors of political science, biology, ethics, religion, etc., try to justify fact by values, or values by fact, they're off on the wrong foot.
Uses of Darwin
Darwin explicates the evolution and origin of species. It's no longer theory, but fact. Variability in nature is the norm, but that fact does not mean variability should be prized because it is a natural fact -- at least not because of Darwin! To infer this is fallacious. That said, variability in nature opens our eyes to the beauty that variability contributes to our experience of nature, and prizing that variability many of use prize human variability. Some of us prize human variability without any regard for nature. But natural fact does not constitute a social value.
How, then, is Darwin useful to us humans? Besides answering questions about our origins, it is the theory of how human life in its immense complexity arrived to exist on planet earth. That complexity is itself valued is a transferred value from natural fact. But natural facts also create calamity, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, poison ivy, etc., and no one "values" these destructive phenomena, much less seeks to imitate them, because they happen to be "natural."
Yet, there are many values we can establish, based on our experience with nature. Prizing complexity may be one; prizing diversity may be another; applying Darwinian theory to our interpretation of texts yet another; understanding ourselves through the lens of Darwin's theory still another; etc. But, it would be better to suggest that no other theory in our other domains should not take Darwin's theories into account, not necessarily prescriptively, but factually. Most of us develop our day-to-day theories based on facts, and those theories cannot exclude Darwin without consequence. So, it would be preferable to say Darwin should not be excluded, rather than Darwin should be the model of our theory about X.
Ethics, Morality, and Nature
Thus, when James Q. Wilson wrote his book The Moral Sense, he did not make Darwinian theories the basis of his moral paradigm, rather he considered Darwin's influences on the viability of his moral theory and their compatibility. Conversely, Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature conceives of "Darwinian natural right" based on the claim that the good is the desirable, the author argues that there are at least twenty natural desires that are universal to all human societies because they are based in human biology. Arnhart is gravely mistaken. Natural desires do not constitute human good. Nor did Darwin or his theory invoke a "natural right." Arnhart confuses is for ought.
I cite these two works because they illustrate the important difference between natural facts and social values. The Fact/Value Divide! It just so happens that I support Arnhart's promotion of Aristotle's ethics, and I also support an awareness of Darwinian biology, and I believe that Aristotle's ethical theory is compatible with Darwinian biology. But neither depends on the either for its justification, which is evidenced by the fact that the two writers are separated by 2,300 years, and neither makes reference to the other. Nothing in Aristotle suggests Darwin, and nothing in Darwin suggests Aristotle.
Social versus Natural Fact
In fact, the moral theories of David Hume and Adam Smith, written a hundred years before Darwin, have proved themselves worthy of Darwin, but only after Trivers and Williams discovered human empathy as "biologically hardwired" in humans in the mid-20th century -- 200 years after Hume and Smith and 100 years after Darwin. Empathy, or what Hume and Smith called "sympathy," are not merely compatible, but virtually identical. But, the similarities may be necessary, yet not sufficient, which I believe to be the case. Indeed, I don't believe Aristotle is even necessary, but he is sufficient. One could simply impose the Epicurean Rule: Avoid Harm and Injustice as the moral law, which Aristotle's theory does, but goes beyond, while neither Smith nor Hume do.
Separating Facts from Values
Let's begin with separating two facts: surviving and flourishing are different facts. Darwin speaks to survival, Aristotle speaks to flourishing. Clearly, survival is presumed in flourishing, but flourishing is not presumed of survival. The two are different states of affair. Secondly, we are "biologically hardwired" with empathy, which leads to altruism and reciprocal altruism. But universal altruism (benevolence) is not entailed; merely altruism toward our family, friends, clan, in varying degrees, and our cooperation with others in exchange for mutual favor is reciprocal altruism, not universal benevolence. Thirdly, ethics, morality, politics, etc. are part of our values (axiological) systems, while Darwinian biology is part of our factual (epistemological) systems, and facts (is) and values (ought) are irreducibly divided.
Necessary and Sufficient
Philosophers love this distinction, because it is important. A trivial example to illustrate: A cup of flour is necessary to make a cake, but it is not sufficient, as other ingredients, cookware, cook, and oven are also necessary; altogether, they are sufficient. Biologically, for example, Darwin is necessary, but insufficient, as atomic theory, physiology, anatomy, biophysics, genetics, etc., are also required. Likewise, Aristotle's ethical theory is unnecessary, but sufficient, while Epicurus' principle is necessary, but insufficient, and Hume's and Smith's benevolence is necessary, but insufficient.
Conclusion
I've written about the tripartite axiological requirements of Aristotle's ethics, Smith's benevolence, and Epicurus' Harm-Injustice Avoidance as the ideal ethical and moral system, but concede only Epicurus' Harm-Injustice Avoidance are necessary, but insufficient. The question of benevolence may go either way, if it is presumed as necessary for the Harm-Injustice Avoidance, and sufficient if Benevolence presumes Harm-Injustice Avoidance.
The language of "rights," such as those in the U.S. Bill of Rights, are social facts, not natural facts, and therefore any appeal to Darwinian natural rights is entirely confused. Life on the savanah, the jungle, or oceans has no "rights," only survival of the fittest. The "rights" enshrined in the Constitution are those discovered in the Age of Enlightenment as part of "social contract" theory. "Natural right" is therefore an oxymoron and contradiction, confusing natural fact for social fact.
Insofar as Darwin's five theories inform our present existence, clearly everyone benefits from the knowledge, which then can be used in making our values. These theories help us to understand how and why we have developed our social facts and values, but do not constitute them. Indeed, most of the theories and social facts we have embraced were done without knowledge of Darwin's theories. That Darwin's facts shed additional information on how we as a species came to be, interact as naturally constituted, certainly augments the understanding and appreciation of our values. But facts will never constitute values or vice versa. But values that incorporate fact (versus myth) certainly are more valuable because of it.
Thus, Trivers and Hamilton and Williams' works are valuable for the light they shed on our natural constitution, but neither justify nor deny the value of a moral, much less an ethical, life.
RELATED POSTS:
Facts & Values, Scientific Method & Evidence
Ethics & Morality: An Immense Divide
Greek Love: Homoerotic Love (A Series)
Ethics: A Way of Life
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species and Descent of Man
Epicurus, Principle Doctrines, XXXII
David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature. III.1.i
T. H. Huxley, Evolution & Ethics, 1894.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica, 1902.
Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1790.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment