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

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more