The Effects of Darwinism on Society and Man's Perception of Self

   The impacts of Darwinism on humanity are profound. Pre-Darwinism, to most, still held that there was an essence to humanity, something defining about man that made him different from the animals. Darwinism not only challenged that view, but sought to strip its foundations completely in arguing that humans are merely animals. Within the Darwinian view man is but the result of natural selection, the end product of animal progression through many millennia. In being told that one is nothing but an animal, a type of cynicism develops, which promotes animalistic behavior and leads to a form of societal degeneration. Survival of the fittest becomes the motivation for action; selfishness, pessimism and mistrust toward humanity infiltrates the image of self and society, and man becomes nothing more than an animal with the capacity for reasoning. Where once we were told that we were the greatest of a divine creation, created out of love by a God that loves and has a plan and a purpose for us, now we are told that is merely a lie. We were not created out of love, but rather out of chance. There is no plan or purpose, but rather an inherited instinct to reproduce and survive. When man is told he is an animal, the concept of moral and ethical responsibility and accountability within
society becomes void, and the essence of humanity ceases to exist, self is lost, and man is lead into a form of societal degeneration.

   Darwinism, in the strictest sense of the term, means
the theory of descent, with variation, through natural selection during the process of biological evolution. In his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
Sex, Darwin puts forth the case that man is the result of an evolutionary process which began in the animal kingdom, with apes as our ancestral parent. The behaviors and developments of man, from language to art to science to religion, are merely the result of higher intelligence recognizing and expanding on animalistic instincts. There is nothing special, nothing distinctive about man except that he, above all other animals and by pure accident, has proven to come out dominant in the struggle of survival of the fittest. Man is nothing more than an animal built from natural selection, and must be understood as such if he is to understand himself. 

   Human nature is no longer understood in metaphysical concepts, such as soul, but rather in a biological sense, where “evolution by selection is the causal process that
produced [HumanChiK] nature.” Concepts such as love,
compassion, happiness and even reasoning are now understood as mere elaborations of survival instincts. There is no longer an essence of humanity, no real defining core. Granted, there are attributes which are still held as being unique to man (at least for the time being), such as “disinterested love for all living creatures” and morality, but those too are said to merely be the result of survival instinct evolution, a by-product of higher intelligence. However, in time, given the right conditions and environments, that too may be taken from us.
[it] seems . . . in a high degree probable-namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man.

   Followers of the Darwinian Theory hold that Darwinism, though offering an explanation for origin and cause, does not lead to determinism How, though, can it be that a theory which claims to explain the origin and cause of behavior, and which promotes the belief that man is just a “survival machine-robot vehicle blindly programmed” not be deterministic? Rather than explaining our humanity, Darwinism takes it away.

   Humanity is the uniqueness of humans, what sets man apart from the animals and the foundation of the concept of moral responsibility and accountability. Humanity is equated with morality, one as important to the other in its identity. By placing man on the same level as animals, you remove any core difference between the two, essentially stripping man of his humanity. Biology becomes mans essence, his humanity; it comes to determine not only what man are, but also who man is. For the average person, who is led to believe this, will soon come to adopt a deterministic attitude, devoid of the motivation, or hope, to change himself since biology is (currently) unchangeable. “[O]ur biology makes possible everything we do. We think the way we do because of our evolved cognitive mechanisms” Man is a part of nature, not above nature, and is therefore subjective to it. Things happen the way they do because of biology; whether that be our own or that of other people; despite which it may be, there is no changing it since there is no changing your biology.

   When a person is told they are something, for a long enough period of time, from enough people, he begins to believe it. Such is the danger of Darwinism. In telling man he is nothing but an animal, he soon lowers himself to the level of an animal. Evolutionists from every discipline might deny the accusation, arguing that man is merely a higher animal and cannot regress back to a more primitive state. After all, man has always been an animal, he just only recently realized it. To this I would point out that since the Darwinian Theory has taken hold, though much scientific and technological progress has been made, so too has a form of social degeneration begun. Social institutions and programs, as well as aid for the sick and underprivileged have improved, but at the same time, a type of ethical degeneration in society is also occurring. Within recent decades, drastic changes could be seen in children who were being taught Darwinian evolution in schools. Values such as obedience, abstinence, loyalty and love were replaced with rebellion, immorality, selfishness and lust. Thanks to globalization, we are more aware of what is going on in the world, but at the same time are coming indifferent to it. Murder is no longer seen in surprise but in almost a type of apathy, with an undertone of sadness and disgust. It as although we are saddened and angered by it, but accept it. It’s just the way the world it; law of the jungle. The concept of moral responsibility and accountability is becoming a romantics dream, since people are being told that there is no level of humanity left on which to base it. These assertions may seem exaggerated or unreasonable, but it is not unjustifiable. Surely it must be a cause for concern when children are raping, torturing and killing other children, which are then being explained, and even excused, by biological factors (ie. the claim of a heredity predisposition).

   The danger is very possible and very real, since what man views himself as relies largely on what he associates with. Darwin himself admitted impacts of association: “The power of Association is admitted by everyone. . . .actions readily become associated with other actions and with various states of the mind” When man associates himself with animals, he begins to think within an animalistic mindset, and may even begin to lose himself within it. Moral responsibility becomes lost, since how can a person be held morally responsible for an action when both action and morality are based wholly on instinct? The person cannot be blamed for how natural selection has built him. If he is born more with aggressive or violent impulses (which are in truth only instincts) than others, it is merely the result of his biology. If he acts upon those impulses, he is acting upon instinct. If he gains pleasure from engaging in such impulses, that again, is only instinct. The lack of moral accountability and responsibility has led to a degeneration of society. No matter how far man strives, he can never escape his ancestry; he will always be an animal, and as such will always contain these animalistic instincts. As such, his ethics and morals will be based on these instincts, invalidating current beliefs that “moral reasoning is based not on factual social usage but on variable free decisions; each man must choose and accept personal responsibility for his own moral principles.”

    Since Darwinism, many theories have arisen in an attempt to heal this moral and societal degeneration, one being the theory of ‘As-if’, and another, more well known theory called Pragmatism. The theory of ‘As-if’ is strongly based on Kantian thought. Published by H. Vaihinger, The Theory of “As-if” operates on the idea that, even if one does not believe in God, you still act as if you did. The theory proposes that, even without moral responsibility and accountability, man merely has to ““act as-if our duties were divine commandments . . . . if you wish to act morally, you must as if you were under the orders of a God,
your God.” This theory, for reasons quite evident, lack a
strong ground on which to attempt to hold back the degeneration problem. Man has to merely decided to not live under assumptions of ‘as-if’ to invalidate the theory. Even if the majority of the population did adhere, extreme conflict would still arise with those who do not.
Pragmatism is “an empirically based philosophy that defines knowledge and truth in terms of practical consequences.” Though many variations exist today, most variations past and present, including the founding theory, accepted that man was the result of the evolution of animals and essentially an animal himself. All “true” pragmatic theories are “unmistakably post-Darwinian” and as such, attempt to find a basis for morality and ethics within an evolutionary framework. William James’s Pragmatic theory will be the theory most closely looked at, since it is arguably the first well-developed pragmatic theory, as well as the foundation for most subsequent pragmatic theories.

   Pragmatism is a theory based on practicality. Truth, value and meaning all derive from how practical the consequence is, that is, what its worth is. James’s whole
philosophy was based on the belief that free will existed and that man possessed it. In saying that man has free will however, it was also said that man will, and rightly should, choose what will be of greatest benefit to himself. Whatever is most practical for each person, is the truth for that person. The will to believe is what settles our opinions about different creeds and theories, since “life demands a response, demands action, we have no choice but to believe something.” Life forces us to act, whether we wish to or not, truth is made by decisions. James strongly speaks out against determinism, arguing that if determinists are right, ethics and emotions are meaningless, while advocating the notion of free will and the right to believe what one needs to believe. He was also an advocate of not only moral rationality but also of moral responsibility.
We have a basic obligation to maximize satisfactions and minimize frustrations, not just for ourselves but for others as well . . . . All we can do is try our best to increase the general level of satisfaction and goodness, while remaining aware of our fallibility.
James, although a believer to some degree of Darwinism, was still an advocate of religion, finding pragmatism as not only a defense for religion, but a creed in itself. A religious orientation gave not only greater meaning to
one’s life, but also an inlet into a universal consciousness.

Pragmatism sought for a means to give man back the humanity Darwinism had taken, not only by providing a practical theory, but a practical theory which defended and encouraged the idea of religion and attempted to reinstated the importance of moral responsibility and accountability. However, despite its good points and intentions, pragmatism does not provide the platform necessary for regaining mans humanity. James seems to be advocating almost a subjectivity theory; truth is relative, religion and belief are relative. Truth only becomes truth when it has been tested against an individual’s past experience and is found to be true based on that past experience.  Clear issues can arise from this assumption though. When truth becomes relative based on personal experience, than there can be no such thing as a/an universal truth/truths. How then, can moral responsibility exist without the existence of some type of universal truth? How is society able to come to a consensus on what can be considered morally wrong, when no one person has the same personal experience? Likewise, if a person holds no prior experience, how can they then be held responsible for engaging in it, since no prior negative results occurred? The morality of pragmatism holds the “view that there is an intrinsic connection between meaning and action, such that the meaning can be clarified only by reference to action.” This cannot be a full view of morality though, since there are circumstances surrounding the action. If one were to look only at the reference to the action, then a thief who steals a loaf of bread to eat deserves the same punishment as the thief who steals out of greed. Such a value as morality cannot be subjective, or else the situation is no better than if there was no morality to begin with. The theory contradicts itself, presenting an almost selfish type of morality where one is only to help another if it will be beneficial to the individual. In this way, pragmatism restores some moral responsibility fails to bring back moral accountability. Also, in advocating free will as the “necessary condition for moral responsibility” James is contradicting the Darwinian view that behaviors and emotions are merely animalistic instincts and impulses that have been furthered in higher intelligence. James assumes free will but in truth, it is free will only in so far as your biology permits. 

   While James’ pragmatism does provide good attempts at restoring humanity on the surface, it does not address the
core issue, that being a lack of core or foundation. Moral responsibility and accountability are still absent, and his ethics provide a framework for selfishness to foster more so then true morality. In this sense, the Darwinian Theory seems to have bested pragmatism, still leaving society without a strong defense against the dehumanization of Darwinism. Pragmatic ethics are not enough combat the effects of Darwinism on the ethical and moralistic drain in society.

   Darwinism had a much greater effect on humanity that what is normally accepted. In degrading man to the point of animals, he is in turn dehumanized to the point of acting like an animal. Any concept of humanity is stripped from him, as moral responsibility and accountability are lost, causing a loss of self and societal degeneration. Such popular post-Darwinian theories as the theory of ‘As-if’ and Pragmatism attempt to stop this degeneration of man and society, but seem unable to do so. This is largely due to the fact they attempt to do it based around the theory which originally stripped humanity of the very things they are trying to replace. So long as man is told he is an animal with a biological nature, rather than a unique creature with a defining essence which sets him apart and above the animals, he will continue to lower himself to that status.

---

Back to Philosophy Assignments