Darwinian ethics

In this article in the Daily Telegraph (UK), we see some typical philosophical and cultural applications of Darwinism:

  • People are unfaithful to their marriages
  • Therefore, it is natural
  • Therefore, it is right

i.e. What is, is what is right. Since we are no more than nature, all that we do is thus natural – and who can object to that?

Take away the Darwinian assumptions, and what is the basis of this article? There are none. But does the author ever examine those assumptions? Nope.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to Darwinian ethics

  1. Take away the Darwinian assumptions, and what is the basis of this article?

    From the cited article: “Maybe, suggested America’s leading relationships columnist, Dan Savage, it’s time we looked more closely at monogamy and asked if we’re really cut out for it as a species.”

    A gossip columnist? And this is posted as if something said by a gossip columnist has scientific significance?

  2. Written by “John Preston is a Television Critic for The Sunday Telegraph.”

    Is ‘Darwinism’ becoming a catch-all for that-which-yo-do-not-like?

    I’d argue the most famous large families in the US are currently monogamous. That Dugger family is out-reproducing the heck out of Charlie Sheen or Tiger Woods.

    Maybe you could report the reproductive fitness of monogamists and non-monogamists and see which is more Darwinian.

  3. True christians are faithful in marriage.
    So its not natural but based on motivations from beliefs.

    Britain needs Christianity.

Leave a Reply