I am not part of the Darwin debates generally, but it always fries me when some Darwinists abuse a theory of biological inception and change over time to promote dangerous shifts in human society and culture. Now, over at Psychology Today, we are told that because life evolved, human exceptionalism is bunk, and hence, preventing suicide or opposing euthanasia is sometimes wrong. From the blog post by Steve Stewart-Williams:
…Thus, the injunction against assisted suicide – like that against unassisted suicide – is commonly underwritten by the doctrine of human dignity. But the whole edifice starts to crumble once we bring Darwin into the picture. With the corrective lens of evolutionary theory, the view that human life is infinitely valuable suddenly seems like a vast and unjustified over-valuation of human life. This is because Darwin’s theory undermines the traditional reasons for thinking human life might have infinite value: the image-of-God thesis and the rationality thesis (see my last post). But if human life is not supremely valuable after all, then there is no longer any reason to think that suicide or voluntary euthanasia is necessarily wrong under any or all circumstances. In fact, it starts to seem decidedly odd that we have elevated human life – i.e., pure biological continuation – so far above the quality of the life in question for the person living it. Why should life be considered valuable in and of itself, independently of the happiness of the individual living that life?
We’ve seen this nonsense often. Human exceptionalism doesn’t need religion, and it seems to me, is undeniable from a rational perspective. But note the potential for tremendous harm here. A publication involved with mental health is the forum for pushing an anti-anti suicide meme. That’s dangerous to despairing people and could very well undermine the important work of suicide prevention. The author sees that, and tries weakly to combat the obvious consequence that would result from his advocacy:
Needless to say, we must be very cautious with this argument, especially when it comes to suicide. Most people who kill themselves have not thought their decision through properly, and if they’d managed to ride out the suicidal crisis, they would have had perfectly good and happy lives. Many suicidal individuals are severely depressed, and severe depression involves an unrealistically negative apprehension of the future and the hopelessness of one’s situation. Rational suicides (suicides based on an accurate picture of one’s situation and future prospects) are comparatively rare. Furthermore, in assessing the rightness or wrongness of suicide, we need to take into account its effects on those left behind, as suicide usually causes immeasurable grief and suffering to the victim’s family and other loved ones. Nonetheless, after Darwin, it is difficult to maintain an absolute prohibition on suicide. There may be circumstances – rare and unhappy circumstances – in which suicide is a reasonable and ethically permissible course of action. In any case, this possibility cannot be ruled out on the grounds that human life is infinitely valuable.
That doesn’t work at all because once suicide is validated, you can’t expect suffering people to think–Charlie’s suicide was rational, but mine wouldn’t be. And note the potential harm beyond assisted suicide:
Critics of euthanasia argue that it is immoral to take a person’s life, even when that person is suffering and wishes to die with dignity. After Darwin, we might be more inclined to think that it is immoral to force people to keep on living when they would rather not. Here’s something to think about. In many ways, we treat other animals abysmally. But if a horse or a dog or a cat is suffering terribly from a fatal injury or disease, or if it has limited prospects for quality of life in the future, most people agree that the humane thing to do is to put it out of its misery. Not to do so would be considered inhumane. However, because of the inflated value traditionally assigned to human life, we are less humane in our treatment of human beings who are suffering or have a painful terminal illness. This is an ironic exception to the general rule that the doctrine of human dignity secures better treatment for humans than for nonhumans.
Talk about a slippery slope! We euthanize animals because they are abandoned, because they become incontinent, because they are expensive, because they are vicious, because they cost too much for which to care, etc.. If humans are no different than animals–and if we really come to believe that–what will stop us from treating each other like we do animals–and even like animals do each other? Think about it: We treat animals humanely because of human exceptionalism, not in spite of it. I mean, if all we are is meat on the hoof, why even adhere to a quality of life ethic? Let’s get onto serious social Darwinism and dominance by the powerful, and woe betide the weak that get in the way!
This is an important matter to ponder. Stewart-Williams’ post vividly illustrates the harm that would be caused by denying human exceptionalism, a cost that would be measured in the number of human casualties.
June 21st, 2010 | 1:44 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Dangerous to Abuse Darwinism To Justify Suicide Based on Human Unexceptionalism » Secondhand Smoke A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mKAFU [...]
June 21st, 2010 | 2:01 pm
[...] More details and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments (0) [...]
June 21st, 2010 | 3:43 pm
I would say the critical difference between euthanasia as applied to companion animals as opposed to suffering humans is that a human can have a fairly rich existence despite physical handicap or even impending death.
An animal that is physical disabled, though, has little to live for. I kept my old dog going until, at the age of 15 (far beyond his life expectancy in the wild), it became painful for him to even stand up. For an animal whose happiest moments centered around running, it was pure hell for him. He was listless, and if he was human I would have said he was depressed. I took him for one last walk, pretty much carrying him part of the way, then took him to my terrific vet who put him down painlessly while I held him.
I can’t say my dog “wanted” to die. That was my choice. But I would never make that choice for another human being.
June 21st, 2010 | 3:57 pm
Wesley, Stewart-Williams never says (or even implies) that humans are no different than [other] animals. His argument is rather that while human life is valuable, it is not infinitely so. We might be exceptional but we are exceptional *animals* and there is no reason to believe that biological life in itself (the beating of the human heart or the electrical activity of the human brain) is worth preserving at all costs i.e even if this preservation involves extreme suffering for the individual involved.
The “slippery slope” is admittedly a problem here but I get rather uncomfortable when people use it to refute a philosophical perspective. I have always thought that an argument is either valid or invalid, conclusions are either true or false – and our evaluations of the social consequences of accepting certain points of view, while important, ought not to cloud our primary evaluation of the truth or falsehood of the claims being made. After this has been established *then* we may decide how, if at all, to express the new ideas in public policy, law, or social values.
Widespread acceptance of Stewart-Williams’ ideas would probably lead to an increase in suicide rates. This, however, does not make his primary thesis false. A fable is sometimes of greater social value than the truth.
June 21st, 2010 | 4:30 pm
Thank goodness we have a high quality publication like Psychology Today to bring us into focus by contrast.
Of course we don’t treat each other like animals, for we are exceptional.
Those 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq shouldn’t have been interfering with our mystical quest for the fabled weapons of mass destruction [idiotic smear about religious and racial prejudice omitted. I keep warning you, David.]
June 21st, 2010 | 8:04 pm
Subsequent to Darwin’s great discovery, we’ve seen different groups try and use it to justify their ideological views. Perhaps the most dangerous ideological view to highjack Dearwin was “social darwinism”.
Clearly, evolution must be handled with great care. To misinterpret it, even slightly, could result in considerable harm. “social darwinism” was used to support odious and reprehensible notions, for example, that certain races were “superior” to others, or that the poor deserve their terrible condition. fortunately, we seem to have evolved beyond these spurious interpretations.
But now, as we see here with the Psychology Today blog, we have a misinterpretation, of Darwin, although in a slightly more benign form.Out of “compassion” for the suicidal.
However, if one looks at evolution objectively, one is not justified in making the inference that human life is without dignity, or that suicide is justified.
June 21st, 2010 | 10:25 pm
People are always demanding that religious individuals take responsibility for crimes committed in the name of their religion. Well, I want to see Richard Dawkins and his ilk take responsibility for THIS.
June 21st, 2010 | 10:42 pm
Bret, I agree that there is a sense in which evolution is being hijacked here to make a point which can (and often has) been made without it – but this (unlike social darwinism) hardly counts as a misinterpretation. One of the central insights we derive from Darwin is that human life is not some metaphysically distinct, specially created entity but that rather we exist on a continuum with the rest of the biological world. I fail to see how it’s possible to reconcile a belief in the *infinite* value of each human life with a thoroughgoing Darwinism.
This doesn’t imply that human life is “without dignity” (how could it?) or that suicide is *always* justified but simply restates something most of us appreciate intuitively: our lives are incredibly precious and valuable but when one describes that value as “infinite” one is only speaking figuratively.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:54 am
I wonder if Darwinism is entirely consistent. Why does the Darwinist not argue that evolution has created human beings as the current pinnacle of existence. If it is simply a matter of survival of the fittest then we are obviously the fittest survivors of all.
Have we not therefore earned (or been given) the right, under Darwinism, to do exactly what we please with those who are clearly less fit for survival? Including permitting those who want to to end their lives.
If Darwinism has taught us that we are not metaphysically distinct from the rest of creation then why do we say that we have a higher level of morality? How does Darwinism give us the right to impose this higher level of morality on the rest of creation?
June 22nd, 2010 | 3:21 pm
[Irrelevant Iraq War arguments and religious issues deleted. David. Stop it or leave.]
June 22nd, 2010 | 8:55 pm
Raven: If one believes that God created the process of evolution, then it’s entirely consistent to assert that one should consider life to be the greatest of gifts, not to be disposed of. yes, human life is on a continuum, with all other life, but I don’t understand the extrapolation that you, and others make, that, therefore, one has a “right” to destroy one’s own life. Where’s the causal link? It’s often assumed, that Darwin made these things relative, but the argument has never been demenstrated.
June 23rd, 2010 | 2:15 am
Bret, the argument is not that life isn’t a great gift. The argument is that while it may be so described it is nonetheless not of *infinite* value – and this doesn’t change even if we somehow view God as initiating (and shaping) the process of biological evolution.
[And if, as you say, Life is in fact a "gift" do we not have the right to return it if it does not please us?]
June 24th, 2010 | 1:26 am
Raven: Why can life not be of ”infinite value”, because of evolution. I don’t see an argument here. Maybe there is one, but we can’t just assume it is not of infinite value, merely because we’re products of an evolutionary process.
Also, if our lives can be disposed of on the basis that they “belong” to us, you cannot, logically, merely restrict suicides to those suffering a terminal illness, you would have to allow anyone, for any reason to kill themselves.
June 24th, 2010 | 12:01 pm
Bret: Think about it this way – Why, in the first place, do you feel that human life has *infinite* (rather than merely “exceedingly great”) value? This position may only be held if one believes that human life is ontologically distinct from “animal life” (or that other animals also have lives of infinite value). No measure of improvement, adaptation or change is capable of transforming something of finite value to something of infinite worth (in a finite duration of time).
So if one believes that Darwinism provides an adequate causal explanation for the development of human life it is difficult (nay, impossible) to argue that infinitely valuable human lives arose via a finite sequence of steps from animals lives of limited importance.
[Divine influence changes things only if it involves actual intervention at the moment of humanity's emergence - an Interjection of the Infinite - a hypothesis for which a darwinist has no need, and one which the relevant data do not support].
About “allowing people to kill themselves”: I would argue that everyone has a “right” to kill themselves (in much the same way that we have the “right” to enter into unsuitable marriages, gamble away all our money or drink ourselves into oblivion). On the other hand, most suicides are (or result from) bad decisions and it is our duty as a society to discourage individuals from making these bad choices. You cannot really stop a mentally competent person from ending their lives if they really want to. What you can (and, in most cases, ought to) do is try to stop them doing what, strictly speaking, they have every right to.
I feel, however, that *assisted* suicide should *always* be legally proscribed – even though it may not always be ethically impermissible (And here I am forced to invoke the “slippery slope” argument).
June 26th, 2010 | 2:08 am
Raven: It sounds like maybe we’ve hit an impasse. But I think that you accept certian assumptions, that seem to be implied by evolution, but are not proved, that life is of limited value, etc. This seems analogous to Richard Dawkins, for example, who asserts that the evolutionary process has shown there’s no need for God. That’s niave, and i would submit, that your view is niave as well. You assert, as opposed to argue, and provide evidence for, that life is of limited value, merely because it arose out of a contingent, limited, natural selection process.
Although I’m sure that you completely reject “social darwinism”, it seems that you’re utilizing their same logic, for a different conclusion. (like many great theories, and Darwin’s is no exception, people of all stripes, think it supports their favorite ideological agenda).
I’m unclear (although happy!) how you come to the view that assisted suicide should be legally proscribed?
I don’t want to misunderstand your position. You obviously are an intelligent person, and a morally serious person. Are you saying that Darwinism gives us the moral right to kill ourselves, and yet, we should have laws against it, presumeably, because it’s moral, to have these laws?
And, no one disputes that if someone really wants to kill themselves, we cannot stop them. that’s a tautology. the question is, if we’re in teir presence, should we.
Also, are you comparing bad choices like bad marriages or drinking, to suicide in the sense that they’re bad, but adults should have the right to make bad choices, because intervening legally would do more harm, ultimately, than good? And how do you reconcile this with your view that assisted suicide should always be proscribed legally( we don’t proscribe bad marriages, drinking, etc)?
June 26th, 2010 | 7:30 am
Simon: from an evolutionary perspective, every species, that’s flourishing now, has been “selected” to do so, and it’s not a matter of us humans being “fitter”, just because we’re more rational, than other creatures. we’re just adapted to the particular environment that we and our ancestors happened to be in. Polar bears, for example, are “fitter” in the arctic than we are. But they would not survive, unassisted, in a warm environment. We, would not survive, unassisted in the arctic.
Darwinism does not imply that any moral approach is ok, as long as it increases the survival of a particular species. Humans evolved morality, because it “works”, in terms of increasing our survival, so those who behave immorally, are acting in a way that’s incongruent with our species survival.
One legitimate concern, and I think you’ve touched on this, Simon, is that, due to evolution being a contingent process, it could have been the case that, immoral behavior, if it increased our survival, would be considered “good”.
That’s one reason to believe in a God, who created morality, rationality, as the evolutionary process.
June 26th, 2010 | 9:27 am
“Why should life be considered valuable in and of itself, independently of the happiness of the individual living that life?”
The individual decides? How long until others decide if they are “happy?” Who decides what qualifies as “happy?”
“In many ways, we treat other animals abysmally. But if a horse or a dog or a cat is suffering terribly from a fatal injury or disease, or if it has limited prospects for quality of life in the future, most people agree that the humane thing to do is to put it out of its misery.” People decide the quality of life of the animal. People will decide “for” other people. They can be happy, they are in a wheel chair, they have a clef pallet, downs syndrome, Jews, Christians, blacks, etc.
If some people are “better” than others (or at least think they are) what’s to stop them from not only “humanely putting them down”, why not use them for the betterment of society. You know, the people who make decisions about “other” people. We can use them to test drugs on before they are “put down.” This would be for the betterment of the superior races. Why not make use of them as servants or slaves for the betterment of society. Only the strongest and best are destined to survive and advance society.
This has been tried before.
One last serious comment. Regarding “social Darwinism,” if societies are evolving, what are they evolving to? Where is this taking us? Is that a place we really wish to go?
June 26th, 2010 | 7:15 pm
Bret, my line of reasoning with respect to Darwinism and the “value” of human life is (at the risk of repeating myself) basically this: If animal lives are of finite value, human lives (which arise from animal lives via finite steps) are necessarily of finite value. This not merely something I accept without proof but arises from a well-known principle: It is not possible to move from the finite to the infinite in a succession of finite steps.
Even if we ignore Darwinism completely I still do not understand how anyone could come to the conclusion you do (that human lives are of “infinite” worth). Truth be told, I’m certain most people actually do not know what that means. If we felt human lives were actually of infinite worth, we would immediately pass laws banning the production of cigarettes (and any other good or service which increases the risk of death without saving a commensurate number of lives) and would (for instance) compel rich individuals in the First World to make massive non-fatal sacrifices to stop individuals in the Third World – or indeed less fortunate people in their own countries – from dying. We would pass laws slowing all road traffic to a crawl (the economic losses resulting from this would be more than made up for by the lives saved) . . .
I suspect that most people are simply unaware of what “infinite valuation” would actually entail and use it just as a rhetorical device (as another way of asserting “I feel very strongly that human life is very important and we should never consciously attempt to place a specific finite value on it”).
[It doesn’t help matters that even if we assigned infinite worth to each human existence it still wouldn’t rule out the sort of “pragmatic killing” we seek to avoid http://bit.ly/aTauua
——
Dawkins does (as you state) assert that our acceptance of evolution eliminates the need for God (as an explanatory hypothesis for the origin of Life and not as a source of ultimate spiritual significance) but I have never heard him claim that this *proves* God does not exist. His claim as it stands may be arrogant and rub people the wrong way – but it, with appropriate caveats, is not naive.
—–
On Suicide: As you point out we generally do not (and ought not to) legally prohibit people from making bad decisions if they are largely to bear the negative consequences of those decisions themselves and my position with regard to suicide is consistent with this. I support legal proscription of *assisted* suicide, not suicide itself. In my opinion, a “right” to suicide is just an extension of a right to personal autonomy but a person has no similar right to receive assistance to further these attempt. (The scare quotes are necessary for when I speak of a “right to suicide” I am strictly speaking more in terms of a “liberty to take ones own life” rather than anything which a government is somehow obliged to guarantee or enforce).
I ramble. Should we intervene when faced with a potential suicide? Obviously. The individual in question may be clinically depressed or labouring under some other mental disability. Even if they did happen to be fully competent, an intervention would might still be justified -in much the same way that we would presumably intervene if we noticed a close friend drinking too much, or throwing away a perfect job or marriage (something they would have every “right” to do).
Darwinism doesn’t give us the “moral right to kill ourselves” – and I don’t think I’ve ever said that. Evolution is consistent with the idea (and even supportive of it in the loose sense outlined above) but as I mentioned in my first(?) post the argument had been made by others long before Darwinism and does not require it.
June 26th, 2010 | 7:32 pm
Bret, hope this doesn’t belabour the point but I just needed to emphasis that the extraordinary claim is that human life is “infinitely” valuable. *That* proposition (rather than its negation) requires proof – and I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can demonstrate this without resorting to theological arguments.
June 27th, 2010 | 1:33 am
Dear Raven
Your logic is fine. And you ask for proof for what others say.
However, you say that “Darwinism doesn’t give us the “moral right to kill ourselves” – and I don’t think I’ve ever said that.” But is that not what you said in June 24th 12:01 post: “About “allowing people to kill themselves”: I would argue that everyone has a “right” to kill themselves”?
I agree that those of us who want to argue for the infinite worth of human life do need to resort to theological arguments. And in a world where we seem to have lost the argument for God that is not going to wash with many people.
In your post of 21st June 10:42 you say: “we exist on a continuum with the rest of the biological world” What does that mean?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 27th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Simon Whitney: No, everyone has the power to kill themselves. Rights are enforceable by law. No one has the right to make themselves dead in this sense. Even in states where assisted suicide is legal, there is no right to it. In other words, if doctors say no, tough. It can’t be forced, at least, not yet. Pt perhaps doctors have a right to participate in those states, in that they can’t be prevented. But that is as close as it gets.
June 27th, 2010 | 4:36 am
Does anyone know of another species that commits suicide?
June 27th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
Bret: Can’t find any clear statements in which I express that point of view. I know I said several times that “a thoroughgoing Darwinism can not be reconciled to a theory of absolute human value” but I consider that assertion materially different from “Darwinism gives us the moral right to kill ourselves”. Darwinism is “consistent” with a “right to suicide” and may even be said to support it if our opposition to suicide is based on assuming an ontological gulf between humans and other animals. It does not however (and cannot) confer a “right to suicide” in and of itself.
I also need to clarify (once again) that I have been using the phrase “right to suicide” rather loosely. I certainly do not mean that one possesses a separate right of this sort comparable to the right to life (which states are obliged to enforce). I mean it more in the weak sense in which one may say one has a “right to be heard” or a “right to one’s own opinions.”
The “right to suicide” (as I have been referring to it) is part of a general right to personal autonomy and self-determination. A mentally competent person generally has the right to engage in risky behaviour or to deny medical treatment even if this results in death – but if that person indicates that death is in fact the desired outcome then that assumption of mental competence is usually set aside. This is as it should be.
The discussion we’ve been having has not really been about the “average suicide” (hounded to the precipice by private demons, this hypothetical individual more often needs our assistance, rather than an indication that we consider his intentions “acceptable”) – our argument has really been about the outliers: rational people faced with the prospect of intolerable suffering avoidable only by death. Are these people “morally permitted” to kill themselves? I say yes. After suitable evaluation, they should be permitted to do this without condemnation. And that is as far as my support for suicide goes.
Existing on a continuum: It’s just a re-statement of a fact obscured by human culture. We are animals, biologically – even if (sigh) we happen to be “exceptional” ones. Trace out the lines of descent from one species to the next and we find out place in the diagram, part of evolutionary history and not removed from it.
June 27th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
Simon: To say that an animal committed suicide we would need to establish (1) that the animal had a sense of self (2) that, for the animal, death was a foreseeable consequence of its action (3) death was the action’s intended outcome rather than merely an inadvertent consequence. I am unaware of any cases in which these have all been demonstrated.
Usually when people speak of animal suicides they usually refer to equivocal cases (whales beaching themselves, for instance), cases in which the self-injuring behaviour clearly results from illness and “altruistic suicides” in which animals sacrifice themselves to protect their genetic relatives or human masters.
True suicide, it appears, is one more thing which makes us truly “exceptional”. Yay!
June 27th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
Raven: thanks for your intelligent response. I think that, ultimately, one has to remember that EVERYTHING one does, thinks,feels, etc., depends on one being alive. One’s existence provides the basis for everything. If one kills oneself, one has essentially ended reality.
This strikes me as one of the most irrational of choices that one can make. it cuts one off from all.
this is not an argument for human life being “infinite”. I doubt that one can provide one. But, I doubt as well, that one can provide a good argument for the legitimacy of suicide.
June 27th, 2010 | 10:55 pm
Dear Raven
Don’t worry about a few loose expressions – we all do it and have to go back and tighten them up.
There are a few other areas that your position might need to address.
For example, if your continuum is simply about the biological make up of humans and other creatures then it does not seem to be doing much work. Does this continuum contain Moral Agency?
If it does then you need to explain how. If it does not, then your earlier statement that human beings are not metaphysically distinct from the rest of creation may need some attention.
You have used a naturalistic argument to support someone’s right to commit suicide and yet we find that nature itself has no known examples of suicide. What is your explanation for that?
June 28th, 2010 | 1:53 am
Simon,
Explaining culture and philosophy in the language of biology is very hard work (and certainly not something I’m either willing or able to attempt right now) but to give you some idea of the sort of question you’re asking think about explaining a biological process like the sexual behaviour of horses in terms of physics.
The biological continuum (as you choose to call it) is perfectly consistent with moral agency and with the fact that humans are, in many ways, unique. This uniqueness, while resting on a few biological traits (opposable thumbs, comparatively larger brains, respiratory tracts suited to vocalisation etc) results mostly from an accumulation of small cultural advances which take us further and further away from our biological ancestors (in much the same way that a man who spends a life in academic halls and dinner parties and conferences diverges ever more starkly in his thoughts and actions from one who spends his entire life in a pre-literate tribe in the Amazon). Explanations of these differences abound, but the language of biology is usually inadequate to the task.
[That said, there is a great deal of literature on the evolution of morality freely available on the web, if that sort of thing interests you.]
Our “right to suicide” is not based on examples of suicide in non-human animals and exists even if other animals are strictly incapable of it (just as the “right to enter into unsuitable marriages” is not based on any comparable activities in the animal kingdom). The naturalistic perspective with respect to this is rather to show how some arguments against suicide (ie that suicide is wrong in all cases, without exception) implicitly rest on some theological assumptions and are insupportable in the absence of these assumptions (i.e inconsistent with our present understanding of the biological nature of life and life’s origins).
June 28th, 2010 | 12:49 pm
Dear Raven
Thank you very much. It is all hard work, this thinking! And in case you think I am picking on you – well, in a sense I am. But it is because of what you have said about arguments against suicide having to rest on theological arguments that are not within the world view of non-Christians (and, as far as I know, adherents to other monotheistic religions who posit a creator God). In fact, what is becoming clear is that even some of those who would count themselves to be Christians do not accept the implications of a human being made in the image of God. (I am not trying to say that they are not good Christians – although the language comes out a bit like that)
What I am trying to do is find some arguments that do not rely on theology. And it seems perfectly sensible to ask why, if we are just animals on a continuum with all the others, they do not practice suicide and we do.
It also seems sensible to ask just what this continuum is. I have looked at a couple of articles on the development of morality in humans and they don’t seem quite conclusive yet. (I will do some more homework on this).
What I found in one article was this quote from Darwin: “If such men [i.e. intelligent men] left children to inherit their mental superiority, the chance of the birth of still more ingeneous members would be somewhat better, . ” Wow – sounds like we will soon be breeding the perfect race if we follow Darwinism to its logical conclusion.
Another quote from the same article which was directly addressed at the evolution of morality: “Thirdly and finally, (3) the Darwinian view suggests a certain approach to ethics, say the Reductionist approach (I borrow this word from Parfit, who uses it in the context of the problem of personal identity; and Daniel Dennett also defends this approach, with respect to cognitive science, in his Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 1995). This is the view that all ethical concepts can be analyzed into more basic concepts which are not themselves ethical. In other words, it is the view that concepts such as ‘conscience’ or ‘moral goodness’ will be well understood only in terms of concrete workings of human faculties and feelings, without postulating any peculiar realm of moral value.” So, now we have a logical conclusion of Darwinism to be that there is no such thing as a “realm of moral value” at all – let alone having to wonder whether other animals should or should not be included in it.
To return to the first point: if we cannot find good arguments to show that there is a metaphysical difference between human beings and animals (preferably not using theology) then the logical development (or evolution) of the theory of evolution will be quite ghastly.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact