Evolutionary ethics and the work of Charles Darwin
This post is based on a précis analyzing the extract of the text “The Descent of Man”, by Charles Darwin, part of the book “Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings”, edited by Louis Pojman. That said, I have no intention of analyzing the whole evolutionary ethics theory proposed by Darwin or subsequently developed by E. O. Wilson or Michael Ruse. All the pages cited in parenthesis correspond to the book edited by Pojman.
The Descent of Man
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin applies his theory of natural selection to the origins and development of morality in animals. In the beginning, Darwin argues that social instinct inevitably leads to a moral sense, by first creating sympathy with others in the group. Developed animals would recall moments of unsatisfied instincts, and communicate with others about these frustrations, creating a group sense of the welfare of others.
Sociability is found in different sorts of animals. They “mutually defend each other”, “have a feeling of love,” and “sympathise in the pains and pleasures of others” (p. 626). This social behavior is an outcome of the survival of the fittest: they developed a social instinct through natural mutations, this led them to stick with a group, and increased their chances of survival.
Darwin observes that humans are obviously social beings. There are instinctive behaviors which come from evolution, and others acquired in early years through reason. E.g. love, sympathy, and self-control “become strengthened by habit, and as the power of reasoning becomes clearer, so that man can value justly the judgements of his fellows, he will feel himself impelled, apart from any transitory pleasure or pain, to certain lines of conduct” (p. 630).
The next question is why a man ought to obey one particular instinct and not the other. Darwin states that social instincts have become stronger than other instincts. This is due to the reflection that humans do after each action: if we followed our self-preservation instinct today, we would reflect tomorrow on this and regret, in fear of reprobation of others or of God.
Finally, Darwin argues for a motive in our actions, associated with pleasure and pain, similar to a utilitarian view. However, there is some hierarchy between these moral rules: “The higher are founded on the social instincts, and relate to the welfare of others. … [The lower] relate chiefly to self, and arise from public opinion, matured by experience and cultivation.” (p. 636)
Analysis of the argument
The major flaw of Darwin’s ethics is that it tries to explain how things are but creates no basis to say how things should be. In other words, I believe Darwin falls into the naturalistic fallacy, warned by David Hume, where someone tries to derive a sense of oughtness from how the world is.
This is also seen in Darwin’s explanation of the sociability of lower animals. I believe it is true that they have a social instinct in the sense of trying to preserve their group and not only themselves. The major difference to our definition of morals is that lower animals are not seen as wrongdoers if they do not follow these rules. For example, if a wolf abandons other wolf that is hurt, we may think that this is bad for their future survival, but not that the first wolf is wrong.
For the same reason, even though Darwin tries to explain why human beings follow certain rules, there is nothing in his text to argue why human beings should follow certain rules. Actually, at this point it is possible to see a dangerous implication of his thinking. Some may use the fact that our morals is just a way for us to have more chances of survival, and suggest that we should eliminate the weaker humans to strengthen our species. This is very much what Hitler stated.
The basis of human morality is that humans have intrinsic value, and this is not possible to argue from Darwin’s standpoint. Social instinct would only lead us to protect our group, e.g. family or nation, but it can not lead us to protect the whole human species. This sense of intrinsic value clearly does not come from evolution, then. That said, this must exist outside of us, in an objective sense.
In summary, in The Descent of Man Darwin fails to offer a framework of ethics that satisfies our sense of reality. He falls into the same problems of a relativistic morality and his view has dangerous implications. Even if we consider his explanations of how things are as true, he is not able to argue about the oughtness of human morality.
