Evolutionary Ethics - Essay Example

What some evolutionists seem to say is that conduct which causes the doer of that conduct or even the race to which he belongs to survive is good conduct. It may be a plausible theory that prolongation of life in the individual or in the race is a good thing, so that all actions leading to it are good, but this is not an evolutionary theory of ethics. Like Sharmer (2004) wrote: "As we transition from kin and reciprocal altruism to species altruism and bio-altruism and as religion continues to give ground to science, we need a new ethic for an Age of Science, a new morality that not only incorporates the findings of science, but applies scientific thinking and the methods of science to tackling moral problems and resolving moral dilemmas.

We have done well thus far, but we can do better" (p. 64) In contrast to the Shermer's statement, there seems to be something unstable about every evolutionary theory which tends to turn into a theory of a different type. This is especially true of the greatest revolutionary theories of ethics, that of the twentieth century philosopher, Michael Shermer. Is there a natural selection and a 'survival of the fittest' in the sphere of morality as there is in the sphere of biological evolution According to Shermer"with an ascending hierarchy of needs from self-survival of the individual (basic biological needs), to the extension of the individual through the family (the selfish gene), to a sense of bonding with the extended family (driven by kin selection [or] helping those most related to us), to the reciprocal altruism of the community (direct and obvious payback for good behaviours), to indirect altruism of society (doing good without direct payback), to species altruism and bio-altruism as awareness of our membership in the species and biosphere continue[d] to develop" (p. 20). If we were dealing with the positive science of ethics we could certainly make generalizations very like those that are made by the Shermer.

Individuals and races may vary their conduct, just like the 'chance variations' of Shermer, and we may believe that certain varieties of conduct will lead the race or individuals that practise them to survive, while those practising other types of conduct will perish. There may be a struggle for existence in the world of men as in the world of animals; only in the developed stages of that struggle the qualities which lead to survival will change, as Spencer himself realized. According to Richard Dawkin, "such struggle engages not only human beings but lower beings too, all competing with each other for limited resources"1 (Bromberg).

His philosophies are significant in realizing that human beings, in spite of everything, still act reluctantly on a biological level.The use of intelligence, as in the construction of aeroplanes and atomic bombs, and co-operation for