Re: Social Evolution

David O wrote:

> True, but "altruism" as conceived by social Darwinism bears no real
> relationship to "agape" as conceived in scripture. "Altruism" in social Darwinism
> is at its deepest level selfish behavior, because the "motives" for the
> altruistic behavior ultimately are to perpetuate one's own lineage (or in Dawksins'
> view the "motives" are for genes to perpetuate themselves). If anything,
> "altruism" as conceived by social Darwinism seems more like the Calvinistic
> concept of original sin: even that which seems to be a "good work" is at a
> deeper level entirely selfish.
>

I think Allan H. Harvey was referring to G.E. Moore who called such
appeals to good based upon scientific observation of behavior the
naturalistic fallacy. I suspect this is largely an error that Dawkins makes,
but to his credit, he does recognize that biology does not encourage
altruism.
Yes, we can observe behavior that conforms to our notions of "good".
But the question is actually, what is "good"? If "good" is identically
equivalent to "propagating my genes", then I'm surely in trouble, for
I have done no "good". If we look at nature, we can find a specious
pretext to justify doing almost anything I please. That man often behaves
at this base level should not come as a surprise.

To a certain extent, it would also follow that what is good is also
seen in nature. But the "guidance" or moral compass really does
have to come from somewhere else. So again, it is faith that makes
us chose to be moral; especially when we can get away with being
immoral. We have to look heaven bound, taking faith in the promises,
rather than grabbing now. And if we're wrong about our faith, there are
consequences, but at any rate, we really cannot justify why we should
be moral by science. Even the utilitarian solution begins with the
assumption
that this is actually good. If I can be a Machiavellian dictator instead,
why not?

By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Wed Jan 25 10:33:41 2006