Darwinian Nobility

_{April 21, 2008

Off Topic, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Please note this is categorized in off-topic philosophy.

Does Darwinian Nobility, capitalized no less, sound like a contradiction in terms? Not really. In the Descent of Man, Darwin talks about the noble nature of man like it was a tangible thing.

“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

Who’s responsible for eugenics? Simple. People who don’t have the noble nature of man that Darwin mentions like a physical thing.

If you don’t instinctively know that the right thing to do is help rather than harm those less fortunate in life than you are then you lack Darwinian Nobility.

Is Darwinian Nobility due to nature or nurture? Who the hell knows. One or the other or both. All I know is the world would be a better place with more of it.

Comments

Bob, The NAZIs were very definitely not anarchists. They worked together. The very idea of fascism is "strength in number". It would be hard to do eugenics without some sort of social backing. So a criticism against the NAZIs cannot come from a perspective that we all need to work together. If Darwin argued that we injured our race by suffering imbeciles, then it could be the collective good of the race to change that outcome. The NAZIs raise no appreciable objections to the idea of working for common good. The main question is how universal the "common good" must be, and whether or not that value translates to a universal scale or how mercurial an idea "The Common Good" is. There's no doubt that fascists found an empirical core in all this. The only difference comes with a reassessment of the "good" that tolerates "injury" from dilution of the pool. Stephen, Arguing what Darwin felt in his inner heart of hearts is best left to the principle that (if it fits you) only God can judge that. Darwin's duplicity is somewhat documented, so it's not totally unthinkable. But there is no need to condemn Darwin directly. His unwittingness is enough. One can wonder though, how he could lament the imminent supremacy of the Caucasians, in following the evolutionary path, but exude confidence than our "nobler" natures would provide assurance in other cases. How is it one "evil" is inevitable and the other not? We do not have to infer the worst implications of following our "strongest and best" instincts, especially if Darwin didn't think it all through. We equally have the case that he was a shoddy philosopher who didn't check his math. There's even a stronger case that he shaped the internal/external separation of the NAZIs. Internally, we create much evil by advancing programs on our society; externally, there are no such counters, so one race might just exterminate the others. The fact that we can speak about the movement on the eugenics front in the century after the his period, means that Darwin was mostly wrong on the predictions he did make. In turn, that explains why a number of his observations did not survive: they were not fit.jjcassidy_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

-----Bob O'H: "The fact that we are social animals, so we can and do work together, and everyone benefits: just look at the number of successful anarchist states. This then implies the need for rules of social behaviour, which are formalised as morals." Which anarchist states did you have in mind?StephenB_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, "The fact that we are social animals, so we can and do work together, and everyone benefits: just look at the number of successful anarchist states. This then implies the need for rules of social behaviour, which are formalised as morals." Benefits as defined by what measure? Pleasure? Honor? Simple happiness? Freedom? Materialism (itself filled with a variety of philosophers, each arguing about what constitutes the truly material, or whether they should all just abandon the term for physicalism) on its own can't supply what's needed to shape morality in any meaningful way. At best, it can argue that everything is subjective, therefore if materialists persuade others to follow their models, it can be "functional" - it just is ultimately meaningless, as it's not objectively better or worse than any other subjective system.nullasalus_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Materialism has no real foundations for morality. Thus, nobility, being itself some metaphysical quality of moral character, has no place in true Darwinism, whether the man recognized his own self-contradiction or not.
wrong, wrong, wrong on every count. sorry. firstly: by what criteria do you label Darwin a materialist? he was alive in Victorian Britain and it is almost certain that he would have ascribed to at least some of the superstitions of the day. secondly: your claim that "nobility" is metaphysical is simply baseless - why do you think that? do you know anything about neuropsychology? ethics? finally, to answer your statement - morality exists everywhere in nature, heck it's even observable on a very basic level in social animals. evolution would almost certainly entail that any animal living in a large group would have to be kind to its neighbours, selfish behaviour would confer much less of an evolutionary advantage in such situations. such behaviour continues in other creatures apart from us humans. to claim that materialists simply "aren't moral" is observably false in the real world, and is fairly offensive. ever heard of Humanism?alext_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s comment about nobility in man was, in my judgment, his spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. What was that medicine? It was the controversial notion that man is not noble at all. So, yes, I am saying that he was being disingenuous when he wrote this. I contend that he believed no such thing. Put aside the fact that his life was full of examples of holding back his true beliefs for strategic reasons, or that, for a time, he even allowed his own wife to believe he was a Christian. I don’t really need his life history to make the case. There are too many examples of Darwin crossing the threshold of science and taking on the role of moral philosopher. In fact, Darwin was more than a scientist; he was a social reformer and an iconoclast. First, he attacked traditional morality with a vengeance. As he put it, “one can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” Thus, in the name of science, he undermines the traditional moral law and promotes his own law of the jungle. Second, he “expelled” God from science. In the past, the greatest scientists insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Darwin would have none of that traditional Christian morality that characterizes man as being “made in the image and likeness of God,” and, therefore, endowed with “inherent dignity.” He considered such notions as “anthropocentric.” In effect, he argued against the rational justification for placing value on life by stripping it of any transcendental value. Not even Mr. Natural himself, Francis Bacon, took such a radical view of science. Third, he blurred the ontological distinction between man and animal. Indeed, for him, Blacks were subhuman and scarcely distinguishable from animals. Before Darwin, conventional wisdom held that we are all planted in two worlds, spirit and matter. While being part animal, we did, nevertheless possess an immortal soul, complete with intellect, will, and moral conscience. When Darwin tried to strip humanity of all these things, he was not doing science; he was doing social commentary in the name of science. Why shouldn’t we extrapolate from his science to its social consequences when he himself made that same leap with alarming regularity, all the while trying to pass himself off as a disinterested researcher? Darwin changed the world with his own interpretation of his science. It was his moral philosophy that did all the damage, and he used his science to make it happen. So, I don’t take his intermittant forays into nobility very seriously. They always seem to follow comments that indicate the opposite point of view, leading me to believe that they were placed there soley as a rhetorical ploy to cushion the blow.StephenB_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Materialism has no real foundations for morality.
The fact that we are social animals, so we can and do work together, and everyone benefits: just look at the number of successful anarchist states. This then implies the need for rules of social behaviour, which are formalised as morals. This gives at least an outline for a material basis for morals.Bob O'H_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

If commonality held the same value as suitability for modeling then we might not doubt the existence of God, as this concept is very common in humans. We might argue that we "instinctively know" there is a God. But this smacks of Popular fallacy, and as such we have a known invocation against this conclusion. In light of this, God must be reconstructable from the evidence in this value system. Instinct is often given as "unlearned" behavior. Unlearned behavior makes doubtful that we could ever reconstruct a case for an apprehension by instinct by prerequisites, because we cannot trace our prerequisite conditions in gathering this knowledge--because we don't gather it. Thus given above the fact that we can relate to each other within a specific concept, both ourselves and our laws have become increasingly doubtful that it matters. So by this general methodology it is rather unsupportable to argue that if we are injuring the race by some instinct that we are acting in a rational way. It's a strange conjunction to talk about "instinctive knowlege" especially if we invite the criterion that instinct must be present in every member of the species, knowing that the commonality is not a great argument for the concept it represents. I just think about the experiment of passing a cardboard cutout in the shape of a hawk over its prey. The argument was that it acted by instinct to the shadow of the hawk. Whereas it would be a little less hassle for the same creature to look up, assess that it is not a real hawk and continue what they were doing. Invariable and irresistible impulses via instinct are little argument for clearly seeing the subject of the instinct. In fact, it has often been argued that this predisposition is proof enough against it. Darwin is likely more the participant in a history than the creator of anything. He was influence by trends as well as he influenced others. But as he is often cited as a major influence in this field (regardless of who did it first) and the record shows that he was a skilled popularist of this concept, his reflections don't matter as much as the general trend. I don't see the Expelled quote as trying to dig up Charles Darwin and sentence him, as much as it is a comparison of popular trends on the subject of what has the name "Darwinism". The point of the quote is to bring the parallels to surface not to be entirely faithful to the full sympathies of Charles Darwin. Actually, we need more of Charles Darwin with the temerity to attribute moral judgments to something perhaps unseen, than a Charles Darwin who throws up his hands and says "instinct". One is more powerful than the other. Notice how that even in light of history's verdict about eugenics, Inherit the Wind can still divorce Jennings (ala Brady) from his convictions and perceptions, because he wasn't thought to be procedurally right, because he was relying on non-evidential grounds. By protesting Jennings concerns about eugenics on the basis of secularism and censorship, in the narrative of progressivism, it gives a case--however ignorant--that we must be free to rethink our moral conceptions against the reflexive and unelaborated intuitions of others. Darwin participates in the narrative of progressivism, the progressives participate in the promotion of Darwinism. It's much the same thing as NAZIs participating in their brand of ruthless progressivism. And Jones gives legal stamp to the idea that objective truth is more sacred and important than reflexive. Instinct cannot survive this rationalistic onslaught. Darwin gave it scant defense. All narratives are linked stories, Inherit the Wind is just a particular egregious example of the Progressive narrative. That the NAZIs are distinct from this progressive urge is another story in the narrative. Darwin is amply evident as a cheerleader (if you prefer a background role for him) in the state of the progressive narrative in his time. Thus he probably did not invent his main incentives to contribute as he did.jjcassidy_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Jason Rennie : "Actually what Darwin is referring too is the idea of Natural Law, and it has no place at all in the materialist worldview." I agree completely. Whatever Darwin considered 'noble', his materialist view could not lend any support to. Materialism has no real foundations for morality. Thus, nobility, being itself some metaphysical quality of moral character, has no place in true Darwinism, whether the man recognized his own self-contradiction or not. Morals do not exist in rocks or flesh. This is a logical conclusion based on materialist philosophy. "No ultimate foundations for ethics" (Provine) means no objective basis for any rule of law whatsoever. And without the external 'Natural Law' there is, logically speaking, no such thing as nobility of character. Darwins words were based on his hanging on to the branches of certain Natural Law value principles, while rejecting the root of the tree. But rejecting the root while demanding the branches always ends in failure. As we have seen throughout the world in the past century of materialist reign. They "cut out the organ but demand the function". It can never work.Borne_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Dave, I guess you're aware of the shock you're causing on "the other side". We're beginning to worry that you've been replaced by an intelligently evolved replica. Seriously, whatever our disagreements, I think we should try and remember that we're all still human, and we diminish our own dignity if we don't treat each other with dignity. It's hard at times, I know.Bob O'H_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

This is a very interesting question and its very refreshing to see someone not equating Darwin to Hitler! I would argue that there have to be genetic influences on altruism simply due to variation across all populations. The more interesting concept is the 'nurture' aspect of nobility. I have always found great insight from Thomas Hobbes observing the 'natural state of war' and that given total freedom we have no freedom whatsoever. Why build a house or grow food when someone can just take them from you without fear of consequence? You can call the trade off between freedom and civility a social contract or any type of law but it's interesting to consider the concept as Darwin observed no such parallel in the animal kingdom. Regardless of belief about the origin of life its nice to see that humans as a species can hold themselves apart from the unending conflict of predator and prey found everywhere else on the planet.Nathan_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Again, Dave, regardless of how it seemed to Darwin, it didn't prove to be tangible. His notions weren't repeatable by equally empirical POVs, so they meant nothing in the Balkanized world that could only communicate through common observations of objects. I made a point in another thread that I think the humanity of both Darwin and Nietzsche are commendable. But they were borrowing from an old POV, (or a perhaps un-written "second act" that Nietzsche's letters hint at) while exhorting a new system.jjcassidy_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

There are two foundational sources for ethics: An intelligent moral cause A materialistic cause. Compare the Preambles to the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence vs the Soviet Constitution. Magna Carta 1215
Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, . . .
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . Soviet Constitution
Preamble The Great October Socialist Revolution, made by the workers and peasants of Russia under the leadership of the Communist Party headed by Lenin, overthrew capitalist and landowner rule, broke the fetters of oppression, established the dictatorship of the proletariat, and created the Soviet state, a new type of state, the basic instrument for defending the gains of the revolution and for building socialism and communism. Humanity thereby began the epoch-making turn from capitalist to socialism. . . .
DLH_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Actually what Darwin is referring too is the idea of Natural Law, and it has no place at all in the materialist worldview.Jason Rennie_{April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply