23 March 2008
Morals and Evolution
Nicholson Baker’s new book, “Human Smoke, The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization,” reviewed in the New York Times Book Review on March 23, 2008, apparently makes the argument that the deliberate targeting of civilians in warfare can never be justified. This is only true if you believe (a) that evolution occurs without eliminating counterproductive elements from the species, and (b) that justice for all cannot be achieved if it involves the loss of life.
The materialistic view of evolution is at odds with a moralistic standard for human behavior. Confirmed believers in the scientific method frequently dismiss as dogmatic those who preach high religious values and challenge the validity of evolution. And yet, adopting a principle that species-threatening evil, like genocide, does not justify life-threatening countermeasures, like municipal carpet-bombing, requires an a priori acceptance of moral absolutes that are not necessarily consistent with that materialistic view.
Extension and preservation of the human species, as of all other living things, are the driving force of Darwinian Evolution. Establishing other values for human behavior assumes that life serves a different objective, not just its own continuance. Therefore, it is illogical to accept scientific evolution and simultaneously follow an independent guiding set of moral values.
Nicholson Baker’s new book, “Human Smoke, The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization,” reviewed in the New York Times Book Review on March 23, 2008, apparently makes the argument that the deliberate targeting of civilians in warfare can never be justified. This is only true if you believe (a) that evolution occurs without eliminating counterproductive elements from the species, and (b) that justice for all cannot be achieved if it involves the loss of life.
The materialistic view of evolution is at odds with a moralistic standard for human behavior. Confirmed believers in the scientific method frequently dismiss as dogmatic those who preach high religious values and challenge the validity of evolution. And yet, adopting a principle that species-threatening evil, like genocide, does not justify life-threatening countermeasures, like municipal carpet-bombing, requires an a priori acceptance of moral absolutes that are not necessarily consistent with that materialistic view.
Extension and preservation of the human species, as of all other living things, are the driving force of Darwinian Evolution. Establishing other values for human behavior assumes that life serves a different objective, not just its own continuance. Therefore, it is illogical to accept scientific evolution and simultaneously follow an independent guiding set of moral values.
Comments:
Post a Comment
