tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4456361559409153106..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: The Moral Realism of Darwin, Lincoln, and ObamaLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-26020824539779270642011-02-08T22:45:04.505+00:002011-02-08T22:45:04.505+00:00Empedocles,
A Darwinian view of morality does not...Empedocles,<br /><br />A Darwinian view of morality does not require genetic reductionism, as you suggest.<br /><br />The tradition of Darwinian ethics--from Darwin and Westermarck to E. O. Wilson and Jon Haidt--supports a view of ethics as rooted in a complex combination of genetic evolution, cultural evolution, and individual judgment. The ultimate standard of the human good is what promotes human flourishing or welfare. <br /><br />The human capacities for moral experience--social instincts, language, cultural learning, intellectual judgment--must ultimately have been compatible with survival and reproduction in evolutionary history. But that does not mean that all of our moral concerns must be reducible to passing on our genes.<br /><br />Our moral life is organized around the 20 natural desires that constitute human nature. Those natural desires are not directly reducible to genetic interests.<br /><br />"Kantian universalism, or maybe utilitarian impartiality" doesn't work, because if we were utterly impartial, we wouldn't have any moral emotions to motivate us to care about anyone or anything. The recent talk among Kantian philosophers about the need for "impure ethics" concedes this point.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-89283339440567637332011-02-08T19:47:52.011+00:002011-02-08T19:47:52.011+00:00I guess what I have in mind is this. You say that...I guess what I have in mind is this. You say that "the extended order of social cooperation is advantageous for us." I assume you mean that it is advantageous in a Darwinian sense, as in increasing probability of passing on ones genes. You also say that patriotism is good in a Darwinian sense because it increases the chances of surviving to pass on ones genes. So isn't the conclusion then that racism is good because it increases the chances of continuing the existence of ones racial genetic material? If not, then "good" means something other than is a effective Darwinian strategy for passing on ones genes. But this goes against your project to use Darwinism to promote a form of moral realism. "Good" would mean something like Kantian universalism, or maybe utilitarian impartiality and the like; in other words, theories of moral realism that have nothing to do with Darwinism, or are even anti-Darwinist if they forbid partiality in favor of those sharing genetic character, even if this partiality ("patriotism") is a good evolutionary survival strategy.Empedocleshttp://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-19839655415295016392011-02-08T18:50:43.780+00:002011-02-08T18:50:43.780+00:00Empedocles,
Darwin's evolutionary science of ...Empedocles,<br /><br />Darwin's evolutionary science of morality predicts--accurately, I think--that racially mixed societies will face tragic moral conflicts, because of the natural disposition of people to favor their race over others. (The same can be said for religious differences or any differences that are salient for group identity.) <br /><br />We can overcome racism only to the extent that we can extend our fellow-feeling to ever wider groups and discover that the extended order of social cooperation is advantageous for us. Economists recognize this as "the gains from trade." Robert Wright--in NONZERO--wrote an entire history of humanity as the history of extending nonzero-sum cooperation.<br /><br />Lincoln provides a good statement of this problem in his first debate with Douglas. He indicates that he does not think perfect "political and social equality between the white and black races" is achievable anytime soon. That's why he recommended colonization of the freed blacks, so that they could establish their own black republics.<br /><br />Lincoln added: "inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position."<br /><br />That is to say, if there must be a "superior position" for one race over another, because racial prejudice makes perfect equality impossible, then all of us would prefer that our race have the "superior position."<br /><br />Lincoln predicted that if racial equality were achieved in America, it would take at least a 100 years, and even then, it would not be perfectly achieved.<br /><br />Darwinian science confirms this, which we should know by common-sense experience, that we are by nature both selfish and social animals, and our sociality is constrained by xenophobic attachments to our own groups.<br /><br />What do you have in mind when you refer to "something abstract and universal . . . a priori and beyond Darwinian analysis"?<br /><br />If you're referring to some kind of Immanuel Kant/Peter Singer impartial concern for the interests of all sentient creatures, then I'm skeptical that this can work. <br /><br />After all, even the most devout Christians have never been able to live by the universal love teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, as indicated by the bloody warfare depicted in the book of Revelation.<br /><br />But, still, we can see some amazing moral progress--particularly, in liberal democratic societies--towards extended social cooperation based on tolerance, sympathy, and reciprocity.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-47139563932854270082011-02-08T18:12:45.823+00:002011-02-08T18:12:45.823+00:00I do have a question for you. You mention that th...I do have a question for you. You mention that those groups that have patriotism will continue to exist because they will be more likely to cooperate to fight for their survival. But isn't patriotism for ones race called "racism"? Is racism an evolutionary strategy to keep your race in existence? So is there good patriotism and bad patriotism? If so, this would have to be based on something beyond the view of patriotism as an evolutionary strategy; are there moral and immoral evolutionary strategies? But what standard could be used to judge them so? Wouldn't we have to appeal to something abstract and universal, and, I guess, a priori and beyond Darwinian analysis?Empedocleshttp://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-56100029553173916072011-02-08T17:58:52.503+00:002011-02-08T17:58:52.503+00:00You might be interested in a book called "Nat...You might be interested in a book called "Nature to Norm: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Morals" by John Post that uses Millikan style Darwinian teleology to argue for moral realism.Empedocleshttp://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-90526811522160607022011-02-08T14:39:23.260+00:002011-02-08T14:39:23.260+00:00Anonymous,
So you think "today interracial m...Anonymous,<br /><br />So you think "today interracial marriage keeps producing the same disgust as ever"?<br /><br />I have one answer for you--Halle Berry!Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-86269659369841537142011-02-08T09:46:25.666+00:002011-02-08T09:46:25.666+00:00Well, to count interracial marriage as a form of &...Well, to count interracial marriage as a form of "moral progress" is biologically absurd and philosophically a progressist teleologism. Biologically is a form a "lesser evil": "it's better to suffer the loss of parental kinship associated with that extreme kind of out-group parenting, than to not reproduce at all". Philosophically is an absurd teleologism: interracial marriage would drive us to "racial equality" (which is also a false believing: historically it turns societies into systems of castes -Mexico, Brazil-) which is a moral good "a priori", no one knows why, because it diminishes diversity and, as a consequence, the resilience of the human species as a whole. Racial equality is, by the way, impossible: if there are real biological races, there can't be equality. If there's real equality, then differences are so negligent than it has no sense to talk about races (=sub-species). <br /><br />"Racial equality" is a radical form of Egalitarianism and thus an extreme type of Leftism. Nowadays it is not regarded like that only because its wide acceptance, very much in the same way that social ortodoxy in Russia in 1950 didn't consider the social organization of Soviet Russia especially "extreme".<br /><br />As a side note: today interracial marriage keeps producing the same disgust as ever, but that disgust gets repressed stronger than never in History, that's all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-31386135833479920282011-02-08T07:55:35.060+00:002011-02-08T07:55:35.060+00:00Another book on Lincoln and Darwin is “Rebel Giant...Another book on Lincoln and Darwin is “Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin,” by David ContostaTeeJawhttp://teejaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-43676677250161475892011-02-08T02:23:37.859+00:002011-02-08T02:23:37.859+00:00Your essay is very good, but I do get confused whe...Your essay is very good, but I do get confused when I try to fuse Darwinism and morality. <br /><br />I kind of understand Darwinism, but morality is a whole different thing. From my Darwinian perspective, morality would be any kind of behavior that increases the fitness of you, your kin or your tribe (i.e., kin or group selection). Any kind of altruistic behavior that doesn't increase fitness is doomed to extinction.<br /><br />When I was first introduced to this site, as a reluctant atheist and Darwinist, my initial reaction was to dismiss your assertion of innate morality, believing that Darwinism was incompatible with the concept of morality. But I now believe that our sense of morality (as you assert) is indeed deeply rooted in our genes, but (now the bad news) that morality is also very specifically applied, with great discrimination and contradiction.<br /><br />Man is very ethnocentric by nature, and his natural sense of morality is not as "moral" as he/she would like to believe. In fact, we are particularly good at deceiving ourself about our sense of virtue (most notably liberals) but would be better off if we (as Clint Eastwood might say) admitted our limitations.<br /><br />We live in an immensely prosperous and peaceful time. The climate has been good for crops, food is generally available for most people, disease has been restrained to a great degree and technology has made out lives much easier. When all of these things disappear, when the lights go out, the trucks stop hauling, food becomes scarce, and our institutions fail, crime and anarchy run rampant, then let's talk about morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com