Evolution and Ethics

Social structures vary greatly according to physical conditions and cultural (memetic) context. They range from the simplest tribal structure in which one chief is a provisional ruler of a small group, to the largest and most complicated modern society, with its many overlapping layers of responsibility and power. These structures give rise to - and are determined by - numerous different ethical systems, many serving to justify an unequitable distribution of power, wealth, or influence. These ethical systems are worthy subjects for memetic investigation, but evolutionary theory has its own strong implications for the field of philosophy dealing with moral and ethical behavior.

"Darwinian Ethics"

Herbert Spencer, founder of the ethical system known as Social Darwinism (see Social Darwinism), argued that in a proper society, the fittest would be successful and the unfit would sink to the bottom. Many object to his ideas today, especially his arguments that helping the poor has negative consequences because it promotes the survival of those who are demonstrably "unfit".

Spencer was, of course, oversimplifying his adaptation of Darwinism to social situations. Indeed, it is Social Darwinism, and the belief that it follows logically from evolutionary theory, that inspires such virulent anti-Darwinian thinking in some people. But Spencer's ideas do not follow logically from Darwinism (at least, not necessarily).

What Evolution Does Not Imply

Contrary to popular perception, evolution does not imply that humans are doomed to be selfish, shortsighted creatures - even if they are built of such things (genes and memes). Evolutionary theory most emphatically does not mean that kindness is futile or pointless, that helping the less fortunate is illogical, or that ethics must be based on the survival of the fittest. All these viewpoints, while tempting to some, are at most untrue, and at least not logically connected to Darwinism as a theory.

What Evolution Does Imply

Evolutionary theory does, however, have numerous important implications for ethical systems and for philosophy in general. First, it topples any system that exalts humans above the rest of nature. The implications of evolution are clear: humans share a common origin with all other living things, and are made of the same basic stuff as inanimate matter. Despite many theories to the contrary, humans do not transcend the material world, and they cannot be treated that way by ethicists. Therefore, an ethical system that is not in dissonance with the facts of reality does not give humans a place above the natural world, but rather places them within it.

Evolutionary theory also implies the converse: proper ethics cannot exalt "the natural condition" above humanity. An ethical system derived from evolutionary theory does not encourage humans to emulate nature, because the methods of survival of other creatures simply do not apply to humans. The fact that humans have the ability to reason and have given rise to memes, which then permit a cultural context to human action, directly implies that humans are indeed separated from evolution's other end products. The basic adaptation possessed by humans for survival is reasoning ability; an evolutionary ethics would make this a primary consideration.

The Definition of Human and the Distribution of Rights

One thing that must be made clear is the definition of human in an evolution-based ethics. In this view, humans cannot be defined as souls or spirits that transcend the material world, because there is no evidence for this behavior. rather, evolution-based ethics would take into account a natural definition of humanity, and indeed of intelligence in general. The definition of human adopted is a fundamental consideration in taking positions on many controversial issues, such as abortion, genetic engineering, cloning, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.

Another detail that is affected by evolutionary theory is the question of rights: what they are, who has them, if they can be violated under certain circumstances, etc. Evolutionary theory implies that human rights should be defined in accordance with human means of survival, namely, with human reasoning ability kept in mind, and not as an adjunct to any other preexisting ethical system.

The Replication of Ethics Memes

In any society with memes, such as ours, we may expect there to arise what we consider as "ethical" behavior - honesty, integrity, kindness, generosity, etc. This is because of the fact that these memes not only replicate themselves better than potential competitors, but they also assist other "piggyback" memes that fare better when they find themselves in an honest, kind person or that are preferentially adopted by this type of person. In this way ethical systems develop memetically, by groups of interconnected memes becoming more and more commonly associated with one another.

Honest and kind ethical-system memeplexes are also more likely to be replicated than are unforgiving, cruel, deceptive systems. Those who are not adherents of either memeplex will certainly find themselves more attracted to the honest and kind types, who will then have more opportunities to pass on their memes. In this way honesty, kindness, etc. can spread through the population even if they put their hosts at a genetic disadvantage - causing hosts to spread more memes is more important to the memes than causing hosts to spread more genes.

Any successful system of ethics, based on evolutionary theory or not, must be a successful replicator. Therefore, evolutionary ethics must appeal to people, especially those who are adherents of existing memeplexes. Evolutionary theory itself shows that a meme which does not replicate is not successful, so the ethics based on this theory must get itself propagated somehow - hopefully, by appealing to people's sense of justice and fair play.

A New Social Darwinism?

It can be argued that Social Darwinism is a highly contextual theory, false and pernicious in its time but perhaps useful in another setting. While most people find the theory appalling, this is often due to the fact that those judged the fittest in its context would be those who are most ruthless, cruel, and cutthroat in the operation of their business or agency. However, in a social and cultural context in which merit is the primary factor in deciding who achieves what, Social Darwinism becomes logical and reasonable.

In a merit-based context, Social Darwinism (with some modifications) becomes similar to simple justice - those who deserve more, get more, and those who deserve less, get less. Its opposition to helping the poor can be construed in this context as an admonition against undeserved handouts; indeed, this flavor of Social Darwinism could even support giving help to genuinely deserving people who have fallen on hard times.

Conclusions

In conclusion, evolutionary theory has some important implications for the development of a proper ethical system most conducive to human life. These implications are that humans, like other animals, are a part of nature and must not be treated as transcending it; but, on the other hand, humans have memes as well as genes, and therefore cannot be treated as equivalent to animals or to natural processes. An evolutionary ethics would also have the task of giving a proper natural definition of humanity and of defining basic rights. Any ethical system devised on the basis of evolutionary theory must be memetically appealing, particularly to adherents of modern memeplexes (since these are the people it would have to convince). A proper ethical system in a merit-based cultural context does indeed incorporate some ideas derived from the much-maligned system of Social Darwinism.

Express Yourself!

Are you interested in presenting your views on the connections that can (and cannot) be made between evolution and ethics? Please feel free to share your opinions with other users - just visit the Replicators Forum!

Looking Further: Links and References

The following links and references will be of use in the study of evolutionary theory's implications for ethics and ethical systems.

• Books
  • Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennett
  • Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins

• Websites
  • Principia Cybernetica Web (highly recommended)
  • Evolution and Philosophy by Kent Van Cleave (somewhat technical)
  • Online Papers in Philosophy
  • Evolution from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • The World of Richard Dawkins

Biological Evolution | Cultural Evolution | Languages Philosophy | History of Evolution | Interactivities FAQ | Forum | Guestbook | References | About Us Home | Search | Index | Features | Newsflash! Site News | Our Awards | New!  Featured Links