Artagnon's Presence

Darwinism dictates that any species will evolve in the direction that ensures its survival. The largest evolutionary change that led to humans was that of the human brain. Beyond this point, Darwinism can’t explain. Because if it could, humans would just be killing each other and ensuring survival of the fittest. The sick wouldn’t get treated, people with weaker immune systems would die, ensuring that their genes don’t propagate.

Case study- humans went from forming small tribes that fend for themselves (and killing other tribes when necessary), to this complex socio-political structure we have today. In what direction has humanity as a whole moved? Certainly not ensuring longevity, otherwise we wouldn’t be developing nuclear warheads when people are dying of malaria in Uganda. No. It has moved in the direction that gives individuals more time to utilize their minds. Humans went from constantly worrying about the next meal as hunter-gatherers, to having a little more leisure time as farmers, to what they are today.

Humans live in complex societies today. Everyone doesn’t have to worry about what pesticides they should use to ensure the survival of the rice crop for their next meal. Individuals are different, and the purpose of society at large is to foster individual growth, while providing them convenient access to generations of human thought. It’s a delicate system though. If the society allows too much individuality, many human minds will be engaged in crashing airplanes into the WTC, and taking other human life. At the same time, if it allows too little individual growth, the purpose of humanity at large will be lost, and the society will collapse. Initially, laws and social norms were conservative, and with time, they laws become more liberal to accept a larger diversity in individuals. I’m not sure this trade-off argument works: for a significantly lower number of terrorists, thinkers like Socrates had to be put to death. No. Without those laws/ social norms, Socrates would have probably spent more time worrying about being killed by terrorists, and less time thinking about politics. Society constantly revises laws; like the ones on abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. Humanity still has a long way to go, and much of the progress depends on fixing things like the morality of stem cell research, for example.

There are no inborn laws or morals in humans, as several religious texts seem to indicate. Morals are defined by society after several experiments. On the right to equality for example, one school of thought gains acceptance, and all the others die out. Right to equality then becomes fundamental to every society, societies start experimenting with other issues, and the process continues. Why not just get someone to write laws of the future (read: big religious book) and enforce them? Consider the thought experiment: Would humans in 30 BC have been able to accept the right to equality? No. Laws are just a reflection of human progress.