Skip to main content

Interesting point by B. Wiker re Darwin and racism

Benjamin Wiker (author of The Darwin Myth) points out (while being interviewed by Ian Maxfield for the Podcast "The Catholic Laboratory") that Darwin's states in his Descent of Man that humanity consists of different races and (adds approvingly) that certain races will eventually wipe out other races (I may have overstated Wiker's own paraphrase).

This is interesting because , first of all, Dawkins fails to mention this in The Greatest Show, as does Pinker in The Blank Slate.

The latter criticizes the feminist rejection of evolutionary psychology, saying that they commit the (so-called) naturalistic fallacy (roughly, basing ought on is), and recommends both that we embrace both evo/psych and promote liberal social and political norms . But if we reject the basing of morals on insights into the way our emotions/values have developed, then what would be the basis upon which we would justify our notions of equality and the like? If Pinker encountered a very well-informed evolutionary psychologist who adhered to opposite political and ethical norms/values, would he be able to give an objective basis for his own position? What would that be? Would it be scientific?

The same problem is there for Dawkins, who at least points out the distinction between how nature works in bringing about gene selection in a population and what motivates an individual to act one way rather than other. This distinction amounts, at least roughly, to a kind of distinction between is and ought. But once he has made this distinction, how is he to judge human actions? On what basis?

What if he discovered a tribe that had been out of touch with the rest of humanity for 60K years (thinking here of Papua New Guinea) . What if this tribe had not evolved cognitive abilities as well as humans? How would he treat them? Why?

, then what Of course, the reply to feminist antipathy and racist affinities toward the confluence of Darwin and ethics is that they are both committing the naturalist fallacy. Granted. But then the burden of proof lies with Dawkins and Pinker to say what is their basis of ethics.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Daniel Dennett, disqualifying qualia, softening up the hard problem, fullness of vacuity, dysfunctional functionalism

Around track 2 of disc 9 of Intuition Pumps , Dennett offers what I would call an argument from vacuity.  He argues that David Chalmers unwittingly plays a magic trick on himself and others by placing a set of issues under the one umbrella called the "hard problem of consciousness." None of these issues is really , in Dennett's opinion, a hard problem.  But in naming them thus, Chalmers (says Dennett) is like a magician who seems to be playing the same card trick over and over again, but is really playing several different ones.  In this analogy, expert magicians watch what they think is the same trick played over and over again.  They find it unusually difficult to determine which trick he is playing because they take these performances as iterations of the same trick when each is  in fact different from the one that came before.  Furthermore, each of the tricks that he plays is actually an easy one, so it is precisely because they are looki...
Post a Comment
Read more

robot/computers, awareness of causality, holism

For a purportedly cognizant machine to be aware of causality, it would seem (given how it happens with us rational animals) that being aware of its own causal interactions is a necessary condition for its being aware of how causal relations exist in nature.  But to be aware of its own causal interactions, the machine would have to have a sense of its acting as a whole, as an individual, and as being acted upon at a whole.  It would not suffice merely to register information from this or that outside source: there would have to be a sense of the whole acting and being acted upon.   It seems that such awareness requires appropriation and that machines can't do that (at least not in the precise sense that I have discussed in this blog).
Post a Comment
Read more