Darwin and Wallace on Morals and Ethics: Two Different Views from Natural Selection (original) (raw)
Related papers
Moral Darwinism: Ethical evidence for the descent of man
Biology & Philosophy, 1995
Could an ethical theory ever play a substantial evidential role in a scientific argument for an empirical hypothesis? InThe Descent of Man, Darwin includes an extended discussion of the nature of human morality, and the ethical theory which he sketches is not simply developed as an interesting ramification of his theory of evolution, but is used as a key part of his evidence for human descent from animal ancestors. Darwin must rebut the argument that, because of our moral nature, humans are essentially different in kind from other animals and so had to have had a different origin. I trace his causal story of how the moral sense could develop out of social instincts by evolutionary mechanisms of group selection, and show that the form of Utilitarianism he proposes involves a radical reduction of the standard of value to the concept of biological fitness. I argue that this causal analysis, although a weakness from a normative standpoint, is a strength when judged for its intended purpose as part of an evidential argument to confirm the hypothesis of human descent.
Journal for the History of Biology, 2012
The nineteenth century theologian, author and poet Charles Kingsley was a notable populariser of Darwinian evolution. He championed Darwin’s cause and that of honesty in science for more than a decade from 1859 to 1871. Kingsley’s interpretation of evolution shaped his theology, his politics and his views on race. The relationship between men and apes set the context for Kingsley’s consideration of these issues. Having defended Darwin for a decade in 1871 Kingsley was dismayed to read Darwin’s account of the evolution of morals in Descent of Man. He subsequently distanced himself from Darwin’s conclusions even though he remained an ardent evolutionist until his death in 1875.
Pigs Might Fly: Gladstone, Huxley and the Debate over Evolution
Between 1885 and 1891 William Ewart Gladstone and Thomas Henry Huxley debated the relative value of evolutionary science and scriptural knowledge in the pages of James Knowles' review, The Nineteenth Century. Their dispute took its departure from the account of Creation in the Old Testament as well as the story of Jesus' miracle of the Gadarene swine from the New. This querelle has been seen as a case of Huxley running rings round the Liberal statesman, gleefully holding up Gladstone's ignorance to a baying crowd of allied scientific naturalists, while simultaneously attacking Gladstone for his support of Irish Home Rule. A closer look at this episode reveals a very different picture. Gladstone's interest in the most powerful idea of his age went back to the 1840s. Indeed, his first encounter with 'development' came several years before the publication of Darwin's Origin, in the context of John Henry Newman's early 1840s sermons and writings on the development of doctrine. Long before Gladstone tangled with 'Darwin's bulldog' he built a surprisingly evolutionary worldview that drew on the probabilism of Joseph Butler, Vestiges of Creation, and other scientific texts. Gladstone's understanding of 'primitive revelation' and in particular his understanding of the relationship between scriptural and scientific authorities was far more sophisticated than the scientism of Huxley. As an attempt to reach an accommodation with theories of transmutation within a framework of natural theology his position was highly effective, and shared by several other High Victorian intellectuals in the 1880s and 1890s.
In recent years the historical relationship between scientific experts and the state has received increasing scrutiny. Such experts played important roles in the creation and regulation of environmental organizations and functioned as agents dispatched by politicians or bureaucrats to assess health-related problems and concerns raised by the public or the judiciary. But when it came to making public policy, scientists played another role that has received less attention. In addition to acting as advisers and assessors, some scientists were democratically elected members of local and national legislatures. In this essay I draw attention to this phenomenon by examining how liberal politicians and intellectuals used Darwinian cognitive science to conceptualize the education of children in Victorian Britain.
Conceptualizing Savagery: From Philosophies of Human Nature to the Memoirs of Darwin, 1789-1859
At its core, this essay is concerned with definitions. My goal is to call into question the evolution of the term ‘savagery’, as well as consider how the usage of similar terms (mainly ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’, ‘bestial’), changed over the advent of the Victorian age in Britain. Even in the twenty-first century, with evolutionary theory firmly entrenched in academic thought, many individuals did not conceptualize humans as animals. Many intellectuals are still uncertain as to whether savagery constitutes a breaking down of civility in times of extreme strife, or if savagery is somehow a ‘natural’ state of existence that has only been covered up by modern society. In examining nearly 200-year-old works, my aim is to forgo a terminological evaluation of the word ‘savagery’ and all its racist, ethnocentric connotations in favor of extracting how this model allowed Britons to conceptualize their own existence in the ‘civilized’ world. This paper will explore how notions of savagery at home were influenced by encounters with indigenous peoples abroad, and how these ideas were then applied to Britain’s poor and laboring classes. I am concerned with the term ‘savage’ primarily as it was applied to individuals, but I will also consider how the word was used adjectivally in its application to acts of ‘savagery’.
2011
The essay examines the relevance ethics assumed in the 1890s due to the rise of eugenics and other dangerous pseudosciences. These were the result of a misinterpretation and a misreading of central Darwinian issues. Literature and philosophy reacted strongly. The intelligentsia of the time underlined the peril such pseudosciences posed. The indignation shown by philosophers and literati is thus read as a 19th-century early instance of what would later be termed 'bioethics'.