Re: Fwd: [asa] Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?

>> (3) when one is a thoroughgoing evolutionist of the sort Dawkins is, then
>> one's only option IS to base ethics in evolutionary theory - either directly
>> or indirectly. To do otherwise is to smuggle in assumptions which aren't
>> justified on the basis of one's original starting point.

But to base ethics in evolutionary theory is also to smuggle in
assumptions that aren't justified on the basis of the original
starting point.

Any "scientific" ethics must first of all make the philosophical
assumption that science supplies ethical guidance. As a philosophical
assumption, it is outside the scope of science. Secondly, science
tells us "if x, then y". It doesn't tell us whether y is morally
good, bad, or neutral. We must impose some sort of moral values,
again resorting to philosophy rather than science, in order to decide
which outcomes are good. Although there are various trends evident in
evolution, there's no reason to hold that something that is more
advanced in a particular feature is morally superior. As Bob Thaves
pointed out in a Frank and Ernest cartoon, the Peter Principle has
important implications for trying to equate evolution with progress.
Finally, actual scientific patterns rarely line up exactly with the
morals that people want to justify by invoking science.

Thus, Dawkins is partially correct when he claims that evolution, etc.
leads to the conclusion that there are no ultimate moral standards.
Evolution and other science indeed do not give us any moral standards.
 However, Dawkins is assuming that science is all that there is, a
naive, self-contradictory philosophical premise (because it itself is
not science and because science depends on philosophical assumptions).
 If you believe that something besides science exists, you may have a
basis for ultimate moral standards.

Dawkins then contradicts this a-moral conclusion by claiming that
atheism and what atheists do is good, whereas religion and what
religious people do is bad. (Conveniently, people with vague
religious beliefs are regarded by Dawkins as atheists if they do good
things and as religious if they do bad things.) He is imposing a
particular set of ethical standards, apparently more or less that of
average contemporary Western culture.

Dawkins thinks that long-term survival of humanity is a good thing.
As Ogden Nash pointed out, this opinion is probably held by few
species other than Homo sapiens (and our obligate parasites or other
symbionts). It is true that biological evolution, along with abundant
empirical evidence, suggests that we have an innate impetus to try to
promote our own genes, a goal that involves long-term survival of at
least part of humanity. However, why should I view a genetic impetus
as a moral mandate? Besides, extinction is the usual fate of species
over geologic time. Why should survival rather than extinction be
selected as the goal to aim for?

The various forms of eugenics claim to be seeking to improve the human
race. However, biology does not tell us that particular traits are
morally better, and most traits are advantageous under some scenarios
and not under others, so even promoting long-term evolutionary success
of humanity gives us little practical guidance. Furthermore, I have
no evolutionary interest in the good of the human race, except insofar
as my relatives benefit as a part of it. Cooperation or competition
might be successful strategies. If I choose to try to compete by
seeking to disadvantage people who don't look like me, biology gives
equal justification for them to treat me the same way.
Correspondingly, in practice eugenics actually claims "everyone should
promote my evolutionary success, regardless of whether it's in your
evolutionary interest to do so."

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.