In Other Words

Ethics: Argument

This entry continues on from a number of previous posts (the latest of which can be found here) it also answers a number of points raised by a commentor, Don Jr., who reacted to a comment I left on the blog dangerous ideas. His name does not link to any blog, so I can’t link there, unfortunately.

First of all I want to clarify my stance on objectivity and subjectivity. I am not suggesting that the entire world is subjective (though I admit I did talk about it). Complete subjectivity does not work with my theory. There needs to be a truth that we all share (a truth that I will call objective for the rest of this entry). All humans understand and accept certain inalienable truths such as ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’, ‘when I drop this pen it will drop’ and ‘one die I will die’. (Whether these are part of an absolute and unalterable world or simply preconceptions that we all share with each other, is a matter that I will leave for another entry.)

Ethical Darwinism needs some sort of objective reality. It is only through a shared reality that competition, and therefore evolution, can take place.

Now onto the touchy subject of child rape.

Don Jr. says most say that child rape is wrong regardless of what child rapists think. Unless it can be shown that the majority of the world's population (those that think that child rape is objectively wrong) is indeed irrational in their belief, I don't think there's any warrant at all to think they're just simply mistaken.

I have read this type of argument many times and I understand its merit, but I believe that in this case it doesn’t provide the same amount of punch as in other situations. You see, I believe that the child rape argument is mainly an emotive argument, rather than an analytical argument. It is based on ‘wrong’ and ‘right’.

What happens, however, if we consider wrong and right trained into us through evolution? It would be like saying evolution hardwired us to believe that child rape is wrong, but because I and the majority of people absolutely accept that child rape is wrong evolution can’t possibly have trained it into us. If evolution is strong enough to give us eyes, hands, speech and survival instincts then I believe that it is strong enough to ingrain certain responses.

We have been taught to believe certain things over many generations and this makes our belief in them strong. Just look at nudity, for instance. Many people would be shocked (and quite offended) by a nude person running down the street, playing with his genitals and slapping his ass. Yet, clothes and modesty did not originally exist. They have been trained into us through numerous generations.

Most animals protect their young. We humans are exceptionally devoted to it. It is necessary for us because our young take a very long time to develop and if we would not protect them, they would die, which would mean we would leave no heritage behind. Would it be such a strange idea to say that our ingrained belief of ‘child rape is absolutely wrong’ sprang forth from this instinct?

Now, as for the question ‘are all our views equally correct?’ (I realise that the question was not asked this way) No, they aren’t. Just like not all species in the world are equally adept at surviving. Some ethical models (such as those of many aboriginal tribes) have been learned for a specific environment and a specific group of people with certain skills. These Ethical Models are being out competed by rival models. Now, from an anthropological point of view that is a terrible shame, but from an evolutionary point of view that makes perfect sense.

The view that all views are equally true is held by moral relativists, this is not my view. I hold that if enough people in a society prefer chicken to, say, pork, then why shouldn’t they impose their will on those that like pork? (Something that has already happened in two ethical models) To say that people shouldn’t be allowed to impose their will on others because their view is a matter of preference is making a moral judgement, something which Moral relativists aren’t supposed to do. (Now I realise that that is a moral judgement on my part, but I get to make them, seeing as I’m not a moral relativist. (hah!))

The argument If you [say] that in order for mankind to survive you ought to be concerned with mankind's survival then your just uttering a vacuous statement. And if you reply that he ought to be concerned with the survival of mankind then your just begging the question (not to mention, asserting a moral absolute). (this comment was also uttered by Don Jr.)

This is possibly one of the best arguments I have heard so far. I will give it some more thought today, but let me respond to it at this point by pointing out a few things. First off, Darwinian ethics is a meta ethical model. It discusses the movement and evolution of ethical models and does not propose to be an ethical model itself.

Also, simply because something is wrong doesn’t mean it doesn’t have evolutionary merit. If god does not exist, for instance, that does not mean that believing in god is not beneficial. Meme theory is largely occupied with the fact that some of the most successful memes are sometimes just not true (look at urban legends), still they persist, often told on despite both the speaker and the listener questioning their validity.

In the end ethical models that help us are more likely to survive, while ethical models that do harm are more likely to die along with their hosts. Currently existing ethical models have been tested, time and again, even within our own life times (imagine the strain they have been put under over the entire existence of our species).

I personally believe that we should not steal, rape, kill or do a whole host of other things that my ethical model tells me not to do. I just suggest that I should not accept these moral judgements from the viewpoint that absolutes exist, but rather that theses views have been tested and tried by the grinding forces of evolution and have held up as part of the strongest and most prevalent ethical model. So what I’m saying is that even though the rapist says that rape is right, that is no reason for us to let him off. We disagree and we are more than within our evolutionary ‘right’ to act on that belief.

Basically, what I’m suggesting is that I arrive at the same ethical conclusions, but I just arrive there from a standpoint that is evolutionary (rather than an absolutist). I'll expand on this later.

posted by Symbol @ 29.11.05