John Foster wrote:
[snip]
> To argue for sociobiology as an ethic toward life
> then would necessitate a consideration of eugenics, i.e. the elimination of
> the unfit through intentional selection of the superior in man and other
> species.
I don't think this statement necessarily follows at all. Why does the realization
that our altruistic impulses are a result of the evolutionary fitness they provide
lead us necessarily to eugenics?
I think much of the hostility evolutionary ethics and sociobiology evoke is a
result of a confusion of the current thinking on the subject with the discredited
theories of social darwinism propounded by Huxley and others in the last century.
Social darwinism had no place for altruism. Today it is fairly clear that
unrestrained selfishness is not a viable survival strategy over time for a species
such as us (for most species actually).
While evolutionary ethics to my mind is ripe with promise (and with many
theoretical obstacles to overcome). I see no reason to fear it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|