[asa] Altruism (was "Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?")

Hi Pim,

you wrote:
<snip>
> Why not? Let me walk you through a plausible argument: We are all
> familiar with species protecting their off-spring which makes sense
> from an evolutionary perspective. Now add to this the studies on
> reciprocal altruism and you may come to understand that in
> evolutionary theory and practice, it may not always be that 'survival
> of the fittest' involves a laissez-faire attitude towards others.
</snip>

You do, indeed, offer a quite plausible argument. Problem is it's not
strictly relevant to the issue at hand on at least two grounds;

First, the argument I was putting was that, as a matter of historical
record, people have introduced evolutionary arguments for all manner of
horrendous evils - including genocide, medical experiments, and
eugenics. To respond that this is a "flawed premise" seems, may I say,
somewhat curious - do you mean to assert that no such historical use of
evolutionary theory has ever been made? If you concede that it has, then
I regard as demonstrated my point re the POTENTIAL reframing of medical
ethics on the basis of evolutionary theory.

Please be very clear that I am not arguing that anything logically
follows from evolutionary theory - quite the opposite in fact. I am
arguing that a medical ethics of the sort evidenced in the Hypocratic
oath - which was constructed on the Greek assumption of a universal
rational principle and bolstered by a Judeo-Christian (and Islamic)
notion of the value of human life - ought NOT to be assumed as following
by logical necessity from an evolutionary world-view of Dawkins' sort.

To restate: my point ISN'T that the adoption of a world-view of Dawkins'
sort MUST have negative consequences for medical ethics. My point is
that - logically and historically - I have good reason to believe that
given such a world-view there can be no certainty about the form a
medical ethics might then take.

I would suggest that the record of recent history evidences this
potential difficulty - accusations of a "flawed premise" not withstanding.

Second, to suggest that biologists can offer an evolutionary explanation
of altruism is not at issue, nor relevant to the point at hand.
Biologists can offer evolutionary explanations for a great many human
traits - from altruism, to sexual reproduction, to genocide. But this is
only to explain the origins of traits, not to offer any assessment of
their moral goodness. Thus, the question of how such traits are to be
classified as "good" or "bad" remains unanswered. To have an
evolutionary understanding of the origins of altruism is, I'm sure, very
nice. Problem is this tells us nothing about whether altruism is "good"
or "bad" without begging the very question at issue. At best, it is to
fall into the very conflation of "natural" and "good" which you
correctly identify as a fallacy to be avoided.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 1 20:36:24 2008