Evolution by natural selection doesn’t ‘care’ about human morality or values. Are human values just an accident of natural history? Does that make them trivial and unimportant as opposed to universal? Are those with radically different values or a radically different morality just another phenotype – neither better nor worse? Would it be immoral to drive another intelligent and self-aware species to extinction because it had radically different values that posed a threat to us?
The theory of evolution by natural selection was put forward by Charles Darwin who defined evolution as descent with modification from the generalized idea that species undergo change with time giving rise to new offsprings who share a commonality in ancestral origin. In his mechanism of natural selection, he proposed that only those organisms which possess inheritable characteristics for reproduction and survival always tend to leave behind more offsprings compared to others due to the limited nature of resources. Such traits are the ones that still multiply and increase over generations. Thus, natural selection makes organisms to be better adapted to survive n defined eco-systems while possessing given heritable traits (Akbay, 2011).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the advancement of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, he is still much concerned about the evolution of human morality in several ways. First, Darwin observes that there is a sense of continuity of man in animals in natural selection. In the descent of man, Darwin draws that man together with higher animals have some commonality in their instincts. They possess similarity in senses, passions, intuitions, emotions, and affections including the more complicated ones such as magnanimity, gratitude, suspicion, and jealousy (Nykanen, 2016). They practice revenge and deceit and they are prone to ridicule as well as a sense of humor with possession of the faculty of reason, imagination, memory, choice, deliberation, attention, etc but at varying degrees. Individuals of the same species tend to graduate in intellect from imbecility. Darwin observed that among all animals, man is endued with conscience and moral faculty. Secondly, Darwin observed that humans have social instincts with a powerful possession of an inevitable sense of morals and conscience. Thirdly, he observed that there is a conflict of the social instincts with other instincts something which generates sympathy as inclusive in the social instincts as a representation of the feelings of others. Further Darwin observed the existence off social norms, habits, and sympathy (Evolution and Natural selection, 2012). Therefore, in essence, Darwin is some considerations on morality by explaining the origin of moral faculties that man possesses. Thus man and different animals share a commonality in feelings, intelligence, and preferences. Therefore, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is congruent with the existence of moral values and morality in man (Alexander, 1982).
Human values are not just an accident of natural history but however human morality has a powerful sense of natural history. According to Michael Tomasello, there are enough constructs that show how humans developed gradually into what s referred to as an ultra-cooperative moral species (Tomasello, 2019). In explaining the natural history of human morality, we consider two evolutionary steps that were founded on the understanding that individuals could act together in plural. During the occurrence of the first step, human beings were forced by ecological challenges to forage in unison or on the extreme end face death. In order to organize such collaborative actins together, humans developed what is referred to as cognitive skills of joint intentionality which ensured that both partners were aware of the normative standards to govern each role. In order to minimize risk, the individuals could make an explicitly joint commitment to forage together and share the plunders in an equal manner as deserving partners, something which was based on the shared senses of responsibility, respect and trust (Morality and History, 2009). The second evolutionary step of morality as natural history occurred as the populations of humans grew bigger with divisions of labor becoming even more complex. This led to the emergent distinct cultural groups which then required that members expressed a sense of loyalty, cultural identity, and conformity. Being absorbed as members of a defined culture, humans evolved to the modern cognitive set of skills of collective intentionality giving rise to culturally created objectives and norms of being right and wrong in such a manner that everyone in each cultural group understood it as morals which were legitimate for anybody who would become part of them. In regard to the two-stage evolutionary of natural morality, the modern humans have another second morality for one on one engagement with individuals and an objective of group-mindedness objective that obliges them as a whole to the moral community.
The natural history of moral values does not make them trivial and unimportant as opposed to universal. Human beings are capable of reasoning and also are highly social. Although morality could either be universal or relative, it has a bigger inclination to relative moralism. There are the universally accepted types of morality by which most corporate codes of ethics are constructed in an ethical manner. In addition, there are universal global codes of ethics and business ethics literature. Considering the three sources, there can be said to be an existence of what is known as universal moral values. However, the so-called universal moral values are never forced on anyone but they are only suggested. The suggested moral values include citizenship, caring, fairness, responsibility, respect, and trustworthiness. The historical natural orientation of moral values gives us the natural law which gives humanity the ability to reason and deduce rules of moral sense and behavior from the nature of reality of God’s creation and humankind (O’Hara, 2018). The natural law gives ethical naturalism which is a meta-ethical doctrine that acknowledges that there are moral properties of which we have a given empirical knowledge. Therefore the natural history of morality cannot be trivial but through reason, humanity can reach conclusions of logical sense. This gives us the ability to observe and work out on the primary goods through the observation of natural humanistic tendencies.
The people who have radically different values or radically different morality are not just another phenotype neither are they better nor worse. This is because of the moral regulation of whichever kind is placed under absolute morality theory o the relative morality theory. In absolute morality, the standards of right and wrong which are universal for all people are applied every time irrespective of belief or cultural orientations. This forms the universalism in morality. On the other hand, relative morality is built upon the understanding that is right and true differs from one cultural group to the next. In ethical relativism, morality is viewed as relative in accordance with the cultural setting in which it is existing. Relativism holds that there are no absolutes when it comes to morals in the sense that there cannot be any definite right or wrong. In some of the cultures where a particular behavior could be considered as absolutely morally upright, there are some other areas where the same behavior is not even acceptable. Therefore to be a relativist, one must accept this doctrine and never judge others through their way of behavior. Moral relativism accepts tradition, the practicality of religion for the continued survival of a given culture. On the other hand, absolute morality only accepts that moral codes are always universal but most often absolutists are not religious. However other religious followers tend to subscribe to absolute morality where they firmly hold that ethical morality is only and firmly rooted in religious teachings. In this respect, therefore, moral relativism and absolutism are differentiated through tolerance of some form of moral behavior (Fuller, 2018). The moral relativists are more tolerant and easily accept that different cultures co-exist differently and have different moral codes based on their own reasons while the absolutists are very intolerant to other people's moral orientation. Therefore it can be deduced that absolutists tend to be more radical about moral values while the relativists are more tolerant. This means that they are not a different phenotype; they are relativists and absolutists by the faculty of reason and choice.
No, it wouldn’t be immoral to drive another intelligent and self-aware species to extinction because it has radically different values that posed a threat to us. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality is used I two broad senses, that is normative and the descriptive sense. In descriptive morality, this means that a certain code of conduct put forward by a society or a group or is accepted by an individual for their own behavior. On the other hand, normative morality refers to the code of conduct that a given specified condition would be put forward by all rational persons (Stanford Encyclopedia, n.d). Now on the sense of normative morality, and including concern with the three members of the triad which are harm, purity, and loyalty, it can be argued that it is morally correct to drive away to extinction another species that is of similar intelligence to man with radical values posing threat to man. First concerning harm, if that new self-aware species poses a deadly threat to man, this means that it does not over the peaceful environment for mutual and peaceful co-existence and consequently can cause harm, death, pain, etc. Additionally, the common justification should still hold true that those who accept morality claim for it. Thus humanity will deserve morality from such a species in return and if it cannot for any reason offer morality, it deserves extinction from the environment of man so as to propel the human bundle morality. The other two must be mutual co-existence with humanity in all purity and loyalty. In the event that the new species is unable to keep purity and loyalty within the humanistic standards, then this will cause a disruption in the normal functioning of man. Therefore, in order to advance morality, making the new species extinct would be a sense of practicing morality. Finally, moral development functions as we grow and this helps us to make use of the faculty of reasoning as we choose between right and wrong. Although in most times, moral development starts with a person’s desire to avoid punishment and evolves overtime until a desire grows in a man that makes him want to make the world a better place for all people (Morality and History, 2009). With such an understanding, the co-existence of man with any other species calls for growing faculty of reasoning and developing moral values. Thus, it is in order and morally correct for man to make extinct another species which is threatening.
References
Akbay, G. (2011). Function, natural selection and information. Darwin, evolution, evolutionisms , 101-105. doi:10.14195/978-989-26-0342-1_12
Alexander, S. (1892). Natural Selection in Morals. The International Journal of Ethics , 2 (4), 409-439. doi:10.1086/intejethi.2.4.2375212
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Fuller, S. (2018). Relativism Versus Absolutism: The Sense of Relativism That Leibniz and Hegel Grasped but Plato Didn’t. Relativism and Post-Truth in Contemporary Society , 21-34. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96559-8_2
How Do Evolution and Natural Selection Affect Morality? (2012, November 30). Retrieved from http://dailynexus.com/2012-11-30/evolution-natural-selection-affect-morality/
Morality and history. (2009). Reasonable Disagreement , 159-194. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511596742.007
Nykänen, H. (2016). Westermarck, sympathy and natural selection. Evolution, Human Behaviour and Morality , 181-193. doi:10.4324/9781315581378-15
O’Hara, N. (2018). Universal Moral Certainty. Moral Certainty and the Foundations of Morality , 93-116. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75444-4_4
Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming Human. doi:10.4159/9780674988651
